Charter review Board Meeting Minutes March 31st CITY OF0EVERLY
C[TY �� �
p,�C�/��� �^._
PU0L|CW4EET|0GR8lNUTES
Committee: Charter Review Committee 8o-� �M ��
DE: K�arch31^ 2O21 -- ' ` ~= ��
LOCATION: Virtual Meeting
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Stacy Ames, Hannah Bowen,Julie DeSi|va, Richard DinNn,
Timothy Flaherty, Paul Guand, Michael Pindaro
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: -
RECORDER: Shor|yneVVoodbury |
|
Others present: Rachae|Abell, President of the School Committee; Michael �
C-011ill, Mayor
City Council Appoin1ee(s)� Chairpe�onandCityCound|op�t-Lmr8eTirnothyF|aher��VVard [nunci|or' ' |
Stacy Ames �
Meyona|Appointee(s): Paul Guand, City Council President-at-large
By Ordinance:
Ex Off icio: Gerard Perry
This meeting is held in accordance to special meeting format as required to honor Governor Baker's
State of Emergency declared due to the national crisis ofCOV|D-19.
Chair Flaherty calls the meeting to order at7:OOp.m. �
1. Approval of Minutes
Ames moves to approve the March 24, 2021 minutes aspresented, Bowen Seconds.The motion conies /
7-O.
l Discussion:School Committee President, Rachael Abell
Abell prepared presentation for the committee. Items discussed are term changes;a smaller quorum for
the 7-member board; reviews Beverly MASC membership; how the MA general law differs from the
Charter language in its efficacy in promoting effective school leadership and student achievement; and
oitv/schoo| bud8et
Abell proposes a two-year term change to four-year term. Should consider staggering odd and even �
wards to rule out the political nature of the position. Currently it's a burden on the superintendent, �
staff, and committee members to train new members every two years. Longer or staggered terms would
allow for effective government, and help acclimate new members.
Addressing the quorum,Abell believes the 7-member board is efficient, but creates a lot of burden on
the committee and subcommittees. Open meeting law in constraining for limited members, creates a
heavy burden on the current members.Abell suggests decreasing the quorum requirement from 4 of 7
committee members, and 2of3 for subcommittees.
Moving on Abell explains the Beverly MASC membership.The Association focuses more on MA general !
law and what applies to most districts.Abell notes the Charter requirements for budgeting, hiring of
�
Charter Review Conunittee
March 31,2021 Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 5
superintendent, creating policies, and control over the school grounds.These are areas where the
school committee feels stifled in its purview and influence.
Abell offers comments for the review committee to look at the Charter language in each instance of
general law in the Charter. In each instance where does the language refer and relate to;the Charter
home rule verbiage, MA law or federal law.Abell opines the nebulousness caused by the Charter law or
the MA law does not permit for effective government.Abell comments, a budget serves as a moral
document that tells our community what we prioritize;The Charter functions the same.Abell further
comments, siting from MA general law where capital expenditures are part of the school committee
purview comparing to the Charter language that removes the authority from the School Committee.The
School Committee would like more control over the school budget.
Members weigh in with thoughts and comments.
Dinkin begins by going over the differences between the home rule Charter law and to the MA general
law. Dinkin and Abell discuss the school committee and their roles in reviewing the budget and
expenditures.They deliberate the pros and cons of increasing school committee membership as the
needs of the school committee have grown with their roles and responsibilities. Dinkin addresses the
design behind 2-year terms. Explains the short-term justification is to keep the legislative close to the
constituent. Abell believes everywhere the members go they are connected to the community via other
outlets and community gatherings.Abell also believes school committee members should be elected not
appointed.
Bowen asks questions.Acknowledges the difficulty of finding current minutes. Suggests making the
minutes easier to find. Bowen provides context and summary of what the Charter Review currently
discussed to date. Bowen seeks opinions for bringing at large seats back, but also inquires if there is
another component within the Charter to review they could improve upon.Abell understands it would
be an additional burden on the superintendent to have increased committee members. However;the
justification are the work of the body is very important, current technology makes it more participatory,
and currently there is a renewed interest in local government. Ward representation ensures they're
hearing from the wards, but not the variety of perspective within each ward.
Bowen asks if the process is as intended; does it empower the council and school committee sufficiently.
Abell speaks to the frustrations of the most recent budget discussions. Flaherty weighs in with
comments. He believes the Charter is one of the better constructed charters of the state. Found it
interesting to hear counterpoint.Abell also focuses on the law and its official reference within the
Charter, specifically capitalization of"G" and "T".Abell believes the interpretation between local, state
and federal law distinction within the Charter is crucial.
Flaherty returns to the at-large positions and provides brief history on why the at-large school
committee members were taken away. Flaherty also reviews the school budget, acknowledges the
difficulty in balancing the budget needs and frustrations. DeSilva speaks to the issues of getting people
to run and campaign work details with petitions and signatures.Agrees with Ames that a 4-year term
might be daunting since the current pay and work may discourage future participation. DeSilva agrees to
the addition of at-large positions and she supports assistance on reducing the quorum burden on the
committee and subcommittees.
There being no further comments or discussion. No further action required at this time.
3. Discussion: Mayor Michael Cahill
Charter Review Committee
March 31,2021 Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 5
Mayor Cahill begins by asking the committee if they have any specific areas to address for the Charter.
DeSilva would like his thoughts on term lengths for all the positions. Mayor Cahill has not served in a 4-
year capacity and believes they both types of terms can work. He notes that most cities have not moved
from 4-year to 2-year terms. Dinkin asks the mayor for his thoughts on the recall process. Responding
Mayor Cahill does not believe the recall process should be easy, and encourages the committee to let
the voters make the decisions at the ballot box. Cautions about unpopular decisions and the political
winds. Mayor Cahill supports the Charter and trusts in the Charter process for removing an incompetent
mayor. Believes if the individual demonstrates incompetency,those measures of activism will not be
difficult to attain to remove the person. Mayor Cahill is not in favor of term limits. For example,some
people have been "termed out"where these elected officials are just hitting their stride. Mayor Cahill
strongly believes the people will vote out incompetent elected officials.
Pinciaro asks Mayor Cahill are there any functional changes he would like to see amended, or any other
areas in the Charter he would specifically like to address.The Mayor does not have any specific changes
to see. He believes the Charter has a healthy dynamic within the division of responsibilities and roles of
the executive and legislative.The structure is well thought out. Urges the committee to stay the course.
Bowen has questions about the roles described as balance of power. She asks the mayor for his
thoughts about the budget analyst,the audit function, and access to legal opinions for the city council
when there are questions about how the administration is interpreting the Charter.
Cahill believes the city executive and the department heads all jointly work for the city. Mayor Cahill
discusses the collaborative effect of the budget analyst and the audit functions;the frequency of the
audit; does not disagree with rotating the audit firm;the relationship and role between the budget
analyst and executive office. He takes care to point out none of the department heads work for the
mayor.The Charter provision for the budget analyst is critical. It's a great structure and the Charter is
strong in its intent and the watchdog capability.
Bowen brings up the hiring and firing capabilities of the executive branch discussing Article 5. Bowen
suggests higher levels of transparency wondering if anything found in that section that is a constraint or
no is longer needed.The Mayor does not have any specifics to the question and inquires if the other
members have collective thoughts about the question. Flaherty does not believe there are major
changes necessary for Section 5. Guanci weighs in and mentions it might be nice for the City Council to
have access to a legal opinion when counteracting the executive branch. Guanci believes Article 5 does
not need to be changed drastically. Guanci provides an example of a few instances where he believes
the city solicitor interpreted the Charter incorrectly;for those instances the city solicitor mentioned
certain department heads are under the executive branch. Mayor Cahill comments on the transition
point and retaining department heads. Speaks highly to the current appointees and their dedication,
talent and commitment.
Bowen asks additional questions of the budget process and the timing of the process. Bowen seeks
additional information on the period of time where the council has to act on the mayor's proposal; how
the timeline plays out in reality; and the perimeters influencing the timeline. Mayor Cahill assures the
committee they are checking on the timeliness of the budget and the budget process throughout the
course of the year.
Charter Review Conuntttee
March 31,2021 Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 5
Ames has questions about the audit and who hires the auditor specifically;the Charter as written
appears the responsibility belongs to the city council.Ames does not believe the Charter reconciles the
functions.The Mayor will defer answering as he does not believe he is the appropriate person and has
not reviewed that section of the Charter in depth. Ames also asks who determines the numbers for the
school committee budget.The mayor reviews the individuals involved in the process and the process
itself. He acknowledges the current needs outpace the monetary ability to provide for all needs. Mayor
Cahill does address past historical events that still effect the city's budget and current city needs.
Looking back to the early 2000's recession and the Great Recession. Municipalities did not receive much
of state aid and had to rely more on their own reserves. Municipalities have not fully recovered from
those recessions.The state aid that is available only increases nominally still leaving cities with hard
budget decisions to make.
Perry gave some clarification on the budget process. He explains the budgets funneling through the
mayor's office,the legal responsibility of the chief executive of the city(mayor or town manager)via
Proposition 2.5;the chief executive has to balance the budget. It is an absolute requirement. Budgets
must be balanced in order to set the tax rate. Perry believes the mayor's been generous to the school
budget.The issue is that the mayor legally has to funnel the responsibility.The Charter cannot
circumvent statutory requirements of setting taxes.Ames believes it feels as if the dollar amount is
mandated from the top down and must be worked with; as opposed to,focusing on priorities and
getting to the dollar amount as a collaborative community. Perry explains the fiscal autonomy. Cahill
emphasizes he does not "give"the school committee or other departments funding. It is defined by
priorities and needs. He explains other needs have to be met with city resources when state funding falls
short. Abell clarifies a few comments made earlier in reference to the budget. Discusses the new
growth,fixed costs,and other components of the budget that are contractually obligated and required
by law. Dinkin inquires if any departments transfer budgets from one to another internally. Perry
confirms the departments can internally transfer with majority vote approval by the City Council.The
department heads must balance their budgets. Bowen asks what makes the school department budget
process different as opposed to the other departments, and seeks clarification for the balance of roles
and responsibilities. Cahill reaffirms they try as best as they can to seek balance with the school
committee budget process.
There being no further comments or discussion. No further action required at this time.
4. Meeting Schedule:
The Committee suggests a public hearing April 15, 2021 at 7 p.m. Perry will coordinate with the City
Clerk, Lisa Kent. Members inquire if there will be a draft for the public hearing. Members also request an
introductory explanation informing the public of the selection process and appointment to the Charter
Review Committee. Guanci and Flaherty review the public hearing procedures with the members.
Guanci informed Flaherty,the Charter Review proposals and recommendations are on the April 5, 2021
City Council agenda for review and discussion.
There being no further comments or discussion.
Dinkin moves to set the public hearing date for April 15, 2021 at 7 p.m.Ames seconds.The motion
carries 7-0.
5. New/Old Business
Charter Review Conunittee
March 31,2021 Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 5
None at this time.
6. Adjournment
Dinkin moves to adjourn. Pinciaro seconds.The motion carries 7-0.
Meeting adjourned at 9:12 p.m.
Public Hearing scheduled April 15, 2021 at 7 p.m.
Tentative Charter Review meeting April 21, 2021 at 7 p.m.