SB Notes

SB Meeting Notes, Tue March 21

3/21/2023

Robyn absent.
Meeting items
There was high praise from the SB, Hilma, and meeting attendees for the work of the highway department on the recent storm.
6:05 p.m. Appointment: Age- and Dementia-Friendly Initiative presentation with Meg Ryan, Mngr.

LifePath is the lead on this project
65 plus population is escalating
LifePath Movement targets: safe, walkable streets; access to needed to services; age friendly housing and transportation options; opportunities to participate in community life
A survey done by LifePath had only 37 responses from Heath residents.
COA members at the meeting were Margaret Freeman, Cathy Talen, Victoria Burrington, Sue Lively and Coordinator, Lyra Johnson-Fuller
COA and SB did not commit to joining the initiative at this time as they (1) did not feel that the survey was representative, (2) some offerings were not relevant to Heath seniors, and (3) some offerings are already being provided in Heath through the Town Nurse and the COA Senior room.

o CEC Change Order to Continue Monitoring Tri-Town Landfill—vote on 3-yr. agreement

SB voted to continue agreement

o Smith Vocational School—student tuition and transportation

Awaiting on invoice from Smith vocational for student switching there mid year. [Heath will have to pay Smith for the half year without any indication that MTRSD will reimburse for 50% of the full year already paid to the district for this student.]

o Annual Report—review written report

No review, the report is currently in process

o FY24 Budget—general discussion

The Broadband principal payment is approx. $104,000 and interest $45,000, which is about $70,000 more than last year. Discussed whether broadband MLP [Municipal Light Plant] could help.
Discussion of auditor's request for additional compensation. Robyn planned to discuss with him.
The Town may need to increase building maintenance hours by 5.
FRCOG owes the Heath BoH $4000 which needs to be credited to future invoices.
Discussed an increase in hours for the Town Coordinator assistant position with a plan toward training for succession in future years.

o Financial picture—present and immediate future outlook

$1,018,000 Mohawk assessment for Heath for next year

o Proposals for ATM articles—amend legal posting locations, creation of new revolving fund

Proposal to add Jacobs Road to the legal posting locations
Community Hall Function Fund should be redesignated as a revolving fund

o Meeting Public Attendance & Public Comment Period Policy—update

An updated policy is to be sent to legal for review. [I believe initiated by a recent personal attack on the SB in the guise of public comment.]
The advice of legal at KP Law has continually been to not hold a public comment period [email and letters are other means for residents to communicate].

o Community Hall—update on water damages & insurance claim

Insurance adjuster emailed asking for price estimate on floor repair and testing for asbestos
Square dance took place in the hall and was attended by approx. 40 people

o Farmland of Local Importance—review and vote for acceptance

No clear need for this designation
SB voted not to accept

o Naming Jacobs Road

Postponed until Robyn is available

o SB voted in favor of 2 requested road closings in front of CH for events in May and September.
o Discussed possibility of random drug testing

4 Comments

Marie F.

3/22/2023 10:41:12 am

I have a quesiton on the public comment policy period as noted in the meeting notes. I'm a fairly new resident to Heath and trying to learn/understand the town meeetings.

Per the MA state Open Meeting Law website regarding public comment (https://www.mass.gov/info-details/frequently-asked-questions-about-the-open-meeting-law#frequently-asked-questions-about-meetings-), under FAQs, it states:

Is it a violation of the Open Meeting Law for a public body chair to prohibit or limit public comment?

No. The Open Meeting Law gives the public body chair discretion over who may address the public body during a meeting and for how long. G.L. c. 30A, § 20(g); OML 2013-64. Nevertheless, the Attorney General encourages public bodies to allow reasonable public participation during meetings.

My question is, if the attorney is advising to not hold public comments during the meetings, isn't the decision to not allow comments going against that statute? I understand they can limit comments, but taking away all public comments as the meetings occur seems to be against this section.

The meeting notes indicate email and letters can be used, but if something is discussed during the meeting, comments can only be made after the meeting.

Just looking for clarification or if I'm misunderstanding the notes and this section. Thanks!

Patricia McGahan

3/22/2023 01:16:36 pm

Hi Marie,
It is doubtful that KP-LAW would recommend doing something that is illegal. I think the key word in the quote from your comment, ". . . the Attorney General encourages public bodies to allow reasonable public participation during meetings,” is “encourages" not "requires."

On a personal note, I have been attending Select Board meetings for over 3 years and I think public comment can be a positive way for residents to have input into decisions, and provide constructive criticism and feedback. Unfortunately, the majority of the comments since the votes to keep the Heath school building have not been reasoned criticisms focused on issues but have been personal attacks on the Select Board members and the Town Coordinator. As a resident, I would welcome reasoned dialogue. But I am an advocate of ending public comment, because I fear that the verbal abuse I have witnessed may discourage some extremally dedicated and competent people from running for re-election when their terms end. The job of a Select Board member is very hard and has become increasingly thankless.

Marie

3/22/2023 03:38:52 pm

Hi Pat - thanks for taking the time to answer. I agree on the language of 'encourages' vs. requires, and I'm certainly not implying the attorney is giving illegal advice. I was just curious because the wording is vague enough to offer a few different interpretations.

I don't think public comments in a meeting should be a place for disparaging people on personal levels or anythingclose to that. I also believe in reasoned dialogue. I've not been to a meeting yet (unfortunately, scheduling hasn't allowed me to), but I'm interested to see how these meetings take place and discussions in them. Coming from a large city, this is a new way of government operations and I like to think more can be done in smaller communities.

Regarding the renaming of the school, I think a lot of time and energy is being wasted on a building name when there's other things that certainly take precendence (budget concerns, property tax rates, equipment needs, etc.) Regardless, I appreciate your response and maybe I can make it to the next one. Thanks for publishing the information; much appreciated!

3/22/2023 04:36:36 pm

The SB chair is frustrated with the time spent on naming the building as well, and wants to move on to more pressing Town business. But the flood of email against the choice, Heath Community Center, seemed to demand they rethink it. Had the chair not been ill this week, it would have been put to bed.

To be fair there have been many times when residents have made positive comments and times when criticism has been reasoned and civil. Sometimes no one chooses to speak at all. And unless the agenda has a hot topic, very few residents attend the Select Board meetings.

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

SB Meeting Notes, Tue March 21

Leave a Reply.

Archives