The Governance Committee (GC) held two Public Forums to review their work with residents, gather input, and answer questions.  The first was held on March 25, 2021 and the second was conducted on May 6, 2021.  The summary of both sessions is included here.  Each session was conducted in the same format with GC Chair Sam Tyler leading the presentation / discussion.  Approximately 23 people participated in the first session with 11 joining the second.

Call to Order/Roll Call Vote

Chair Tyler (lower left below) called the roll of GC members attending remotely.  Tina Lingham (top left) did not attend the May 6^th session.  Len Engel (top right), Paul LeBeau (bottom right) and Scott McKechnie (bottom center) joined Chair Tyler for both sessions.

Governance Committee Overview

Chair Tyler provided a brief overview of the Committee membership, its Charter, term and first area of focus.  The five members of the Committee represent over 100 years of municipal service in various capacities. The Committee was appointed by the Select Board to conduct a review of Holliston’s Governance practices and policies – something last done over 40 years ago.  Since the last such review, the Town has grown to have a proposed operating budget of more than $65 Million and nearly 800 full-time employees.  The number of trained professional employees has grown at the same time. The Committee’s term was set at three years. The first area of focus was the Town’s Budget Development Process. 

Presentation of Draft Articles

After much research, both within and outside the Town, the Committee proposed by-law changes to codify the annual operating and capital budget planning process – something that hasn’t existed in those past 40 years.  The proposed by-laws clarify roles (independent of what incumbent occupies a particular role at a given time) and provide continuity / consistency year after year.  Each member of the Committee presented a portion of proposed changes.

In addition to the budget process, the Committee recommended changes to current by-laws regarding the timing of Town Meetings and the establish an on-line talent bank to track citizen aptitudes and interests for serving on Boards / Committees.  The proposed changes are contained in Articles 9 and 10 in the upcoming Town Meeting Warrant [Click Here]

Public Comment and Questions

Below are the images that capture the participants in each session: March 25 on top; May 6 on bottom.

On March 25^th, Mark Schultz led off the questions. He pointed out the FinCom has been “very responsible in the past.”  He did support the by-law change that allows members of elected Boards / Committees to sit on appointed Committees – using the proposed Capital Planning Committee as the example.

Vin Murphy supports some of the proposed changes – does not support that the Select Board presents the Budget at Town Meeting and the FinCom has the first opportunity to comment / question the budget items.  Murphy asked why Town Staff were on the Capital Planning Committee as members?  The GC has revised the Capital Committee make-up so the Staff members are non-voting.

Mark Whittaker asked why the GC chose the 15 Towns in its research group? Next he asked “why is this better? The GC response to the former was that the 15 towns compare well with Holliston’s demographic based on State data.  To the latter the GC responded that the proposed changes codify the process in place prior to 5 years ago.

Dan Alfred indicated that the FinCom had been very much involved prior to 5 years ago.  He stated that the proposed language makes it “the Select Board’s budget” and their numbers are going to prevail.  Alfred went on to say that he changes take “FinCom input out of the mix.”  The Gc response was to point out how, when, and where the FinCom would collaborate in the proposed process.

Anne-Louise Hanstad had some areas of concern.  The timeline proposed does not match the budget development timeline of the School Committee. There is a potential conflict of interest with the Select Board / Town Administrator compiling / presenting the budget. The GC noted that the Town Administrator is subject to an annual 360-degree review from all stakeholders. Next, Hanstad pointed out that State law does not allow the Select Board to review the School Committee budget.

Mr. Schultz returned to comment that he is “really involved with the nuts and bolts of budget development.”

Mr. Murphy acknowledged the friction sensed during the Budget development cycle.  He questioned why the need for a formal by-law.  He joined Mr. Whittaker in asking “why is this better?” The response was that the Select Board’s role is to develop the Budget and the FinCom is the public’s “fact checkers.”  Murphy pointed out the Secretary of State authorizes Finance Committees to develop budgets IF there is no by-law to outline the process otherwise.  The GC responded that the FinCom is a “neutral body” in the proposed process.

The first session ended after 2 ½ hours with the GC thanking the participants for their input and ideas which would be considered at its next meeting.

The second session began as the first with a recap of the work / proposals from the GC as a result of its 28 meetings to date.

The public comments began with Dan Alfred if the budget is compiled by the Town Administrator with FinCom consultation as written in the proposed by-law, it is the “Select Board’s budget.”  He asserted that the proposed by-law has the final budget “approved by the Select Board.”  The GC asserted that the practical application of the by-law would by coordinated by the Town Administrator in collaboration with the FinCom. The GC went on to say that the proposal is grounded in positive intent and expects the good faith action from all involved in the process.

Dr. Sandra O’Neill asked where the new language proposing the Capital Planning Committee was?  She was directed to section 6.3 of Article 9. O’Neill asked of the final proposed budget could be presented by the FinCom?  The GC referenced the State Division of Local Services and the MA Association of Finance Committees recommend that the FinCom be an “advisor to Town Meeting.”

Mary Greendale spoke in support of the proposed by-laws changes.  She reminded everyone that the Select Board is the Executive arm of our Governmental structure and that that structure is flat.  The ‘topline’ Boards / Committee are all equal.

Michelle Zeamer, a member of the FinCom for the past 10 years, questioned the need for the Public Hearing prior to Town Meeting proposed in the new by-law, stating that all meetings are already publicly accessible.  The GC pointed to the idea that the proposed process would be more transparent throughout the several months in which the budget is developed.  She added that the current process has been working, so “why not tweak what we have rather than a new by-law?” The GC reinforced that Town Meeting is where the final budget is approved and that is not changed by the proposed by-law.  Mrs. Zeamer wondered if the proposed changes are a reflection of the current incumbent in the key financial personnel and work to their strengths – what might happen if those individuals left?  The GC countered by stating that codifying the process in this manner, ensures that subsequent hires would be sought with the requisite skills and experience.

Dr. O’Neill returned to ask why the Capital Planning Committee membership was proposed in the way it has.  Paul LeBeau reviewed how the GC had arrived at representation from the key Boards / Committees along with the Ex-Officio membership of the Town personnel who know the facilities and needs best.  She asked if the proposed by-law would be better than the current process?  The answer was, “not directly.” 

This session adjourned after 1 ½ hours with Mr. Tyler encouraging everyone to attend the Town Meeting to cast their votes on all the matters before residents.