Massachusetts General Law

Chapter 44

Section 64.

 Any town or city having unpaid bills of previous fiscal years which may be legally unenforceable due to the insufficiency of an appropriation in the fiscal year in which such bills were incurred may, in the case of a town, at an annual meeting by a four fifths vote, or at a special meeting by a nine tenths vote, of the voters present and voting at a meeting duly called, and, in the case of a city which accepts this section, by a two thirds vote of the city council, appropriate money to pay such bills; but no bill or payroll shall be approved for payment or paid from an appropriation voted under authority of this section unless and until certificates have been signed and filed with the selectmen or the city auditor, as the case may be, as hereinafter provided, stating under the penalties of perjury that the goods, materials or services for which bills have been submitted were ordered by an official or employee of the town or city and that such goods and materials were delivered and actually received by the town or city or that such services were rendered to or for the town or city, as the case may be.

Every such certificate that goods, materials or services were so ordered shall be signed and filed by the official or employee of the town or city who ordered the same or, if he has ceased to be an official or employee of the town or city, by any official or employee of the town or city; every such certificate of delivery to the town or city of goods or materials shall be signed and filed by the vendor thereof or, if such vendor is a corporation, shall be signed and filed by the treasurer thereof; every such certificate that goods or materials were received by the town or city shall be signed and filed by an official or employee of the town or city; and every such certificate of services rendered to or for a town or city shall be signed and filed by the person who rendered such services.

This section shall not prohibit or prevent appropriations by a majority vote for bills or obligations of previous fiscal years due to any other town or to a district, a city, a county or the commonwealth, or for legally incurred debt and interest the payment of which is provided for by any general or special law.

This section shall apply to districts.

I wonder if this was done last time?

Jeff Bennett

The following is from the Open Meeting Law guide of March 2015 put forth by the office of Attorney General of Commonwealth of Massachusetts.




The Attorney General interprets the exemption for “quasi-judicial boards or commissions” to apply only to certain state “quasi-judicial” bodies and a very limited number of public bodies at other levels of government whose proceedings are specifically defined as “agencies” for purposes of G.L. c. 30A.

We have received several inquiries about the exception for Town Meeting and whether it applies to meetings outside of a Town Meeting session by Town Meeting members or Town Meeting committees or to deliberation by members of a public body – such as a board of selectmen – during a session of Town Meeting. The Attorney General interprets this exemption to mean that the Open Meeting Law does not reach any aspect of Town Meeting. Therefore, the Attorney General will not investigate complaints alleging violations in these situations. Note, however, that this is a matter of interpretation and future Attorneys General may choose to apply the law in such situations.

Hopefully, whoever shall act as moderator at Templeton Town meeting will have this clear in their head before the meeting begins.

Jeff Bennett

Is there a better or different way to use taxpayer money?

Under the title "new initiatives" concerning the next budget for Town meeting is one item for $13,837.00 for a seasonal worker for the Cemetery/Parks dept. This is a worker for the summer who will probably be laid off in the fall or at the end of the grass mowing season. Question is this; how do these seasonal workers affect the cost of the town's unemployment insurance costs, if at all?
Could this work be done by contacting the Worcester County sheriffs office and use inmates to do this work. Example; Templeton Cemetery/Parks dept. could use two or four inmates to mow grass within the Town and we will need these people until the end of the season on such n such a date. No additional cost to Templeton taxpayers, other than the cost already paid to house these inmates in jail.
Inmates have been used before to do work for Cemetery dept. and inmates were used to do work preparing the building in the eastern part of Templeton in preparing it to become Town hall, so why would this arrangement not work again. Why do department heads not ask to go this route first, before asking for more employees? My opinion is, that if things like that were done in the first place, taxpayers may be more willing to listen and provide, when you go to them for an override or debt exclusion. Just a thought.

Jeff Bennett

Advisory 05-05: The Rule of Necessity

If an elected member of a town or city board has a conflict of interest with respect to a matter before the board
 that involves his own financial interest or that of a partner, an immediate family member, a business organization
 with which the board member has certain affiliations, or a person or organization with whom the board member
is negotiating or has any arrangement concerning future employment, that member will be disqualified from
 participating as a board member in that matter.1/ In some cases, especially when more than one member
 is disqualified, a board cannot act because it does not have a quorum or some other number of members
 required to take a valid affirmative vote.  (If the number for a quorum is not set by law, a quorum is generally
 a majority of the board members.)  In these circumstances, the board may be able to use the rule of necessity
 to permit the participation of the disqualified member(s) in order to allow the board to act.  Individual elected
 officials, such as the mayor of a municipality or a constitutional officer, also may be able to use the rule of
 necessity in order to carry out legally-required actions that would otherwise be barred by the conflict of interest
 law.

The rule of necessity is not a law written and passed by the Legislature.  Rather, the rule of necessity was
developed by judges who applied it in their court decisions.  The rule of necessity may only be used as a last
 resort.  The rule should be used only upon prior written advice from town or city counsel because improper
 use of the rule could result in a violation of the conflict of interest law.

Near the end of the last selectmen meeting in Templeton, there was a period of time when there were only two
members of the board sitting at the "table"  Last time I looked, it is required to have a majority or a quorum to
have a meeting of a public body. I think John Columbus needs to read up on this. A question raised concerning
only 2 members at the table and how the meeting could continue or take place and the words from Mr. Columbus
 was the rule of necessity. Which, as anyone can see, does not mean a meeting is able to go on without a
 quorum, but rather a member (s) may take part, even with a potential conflict, because of the need or necessity
 of those members being present so the board or committee may conduct their business, and in essence, the
 business of the taxpayers/residents, whom they represent (or suppose to). Perhaps a small mistake, but one
 that deserves clarification and attention by the select board so these small things do not continue to add up to
 big cases. More and more, it looks as though Templeton was making real progress on change, only to be back
 going in circles and being right back where we started. Making more transfers as if there is not enough money
 to cover all expenses and costs of running the town or funds not being applied where needed.
 More ignoring the rules, etc., etc.

Jeff Bennett

MS4 permits expected in coming weeks

March 2, 2016

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency officials say revised permits for stormwater discharges from small municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4) are expected shortly.
 
Following the September 2014 release of the draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permit for MS4s in Massachusetts, the MMA expressed concerns about the cost that the new requirements would place on municipalities.
 
The federal Clean Water Act requires that the MS4 permit be re-evaluated every five years to ensure that it continues to protect the environment. The previous permit was issued in 2003.
 
The EPA says the new permits will help communities meet water quality standards and deal with the impacts of climate change. Draft permit requirements include illicit discharge detection and elimination, new requirements for signage and outfall testing and management of stormwater runoff.
 
The MMA has been participating in an NPDES Delegation Advisory Committee, formed by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, to explore the possibility of the DEP taking delegated authority over NPDES programs. Authorization would allow the DEP to be the stormwater permit-issuing authority, rather than the EPA.
 
The advisory committee has met three times so far and has discussed staffing needs, cost, funding and implementation.
 
Forty-seven states have obtained authorization from the EPA to administer the NPDES program. The DEP has reached out to other delegated states in New England to get more information about the advantages and disadvantages of delegation and the process moving forward.
 
The MMA’s Policy Committee on Energy and the Environment has not yet taken a position on the issue of NPDES delegation.

from the website of Massachusetts Municipal Association

Jeff Bennett

More budget versus actual;

Under tree warden, a salary amount of $2,500.00 and expenses of same, $2,500.00.
So who is the tree warden and who is receiving money from the salary account?

On the last published annual Town report, the telephone number for tree warden is (978) 939-8666. If you look above that, at the same location, you see streets & highways, highway superintendent at (978) 939-8666. This bears a question concerning whether a town employee is receiving two pay checks. This is one place where the Town of Templeton could and should have an agreement with another Town or city and share a tree warden. This would make sense for both Towns, or more if more than two towns could come to agreement on sharing one person with each providing equal shares of funds for salary and expenses.

So one more question to be asked concerning the budget and the spending of taxpayer money.

Jeff Bennett

Someone commented on an earlier post about the 2017 budget draft link, showing the budget draft so far that will eventually be presented at Town meeting.

Looking at the last budget versus actual received from town hall then looking at the latest budget draft version, under the revenue tab, a question arises;

Under the FY2016 budget, passed at town meeting shows total revenue at $13,377,934.00
Under the budget versus actual revenue sheet (s), it shows total revenue at $13,511,785.00

A difference of $134,851.00, which should cause one to wonder how this will or can affect budget presentations moving forward? Remember the results when the numbers on paper did not match for the FY2014 budget. Whether there is a mistake in copying numbers, addition or unreported figures, it would seem the most important thing to do is look at this and get it corrected so the house does not tilt again.

Jeff Bennett