jeff bennett

|

Sat 9/15/2018 7:34 AM

To:

selectmen.fortes@templeton1.org;

Selectman Caplis (selectmen.caplis@templeton1.org);

Selectwoman, Diane (seldhaleybrooks@templeton1.org);

selectmen.richard@templeton1.org;

Doug Morrison, Selectmen (seldmorrison@templeton1.org);

185wilberdr@gmail.com;

quiltingamy36@gmail.com;

glee70@yahoo.com;

debra_wilder@comcast.net;

Michael Currie (michael.currie71@gmail.com);

tdejoy@comcast.net;

advisorycommittee@templeton1.org

...

 

You forwarded this message on 9/15/2018 7:34 AM

 

Watched BOS meeting of Sept. 12, 2018. chairman Caplis spoke around "someone, not sure who, to someone in Boston about having a discussion group . . . " As you all can see from the email below, I stated exactly whom I spoke with and what the issue is or might be. I am insulted that a selectmen goes to a public meeting and talks in circles rather than just stating the already on the record communication. It was originally a selectmen; selectmen Fortes who mentioned a subcommittee at an advisory committee meeting. To be sure, it is not just about a by-law concerning advisory committee, it is about the process of developing a town budget, who does that and in what form (only town meeting can decide on what budget format will be used for the ensuing year according to the DOR, please check that as I have already done) whom shall present the town budget to Town Meeting, there is a MGL stating whom should do that unless there is a town by-law stating other wise, which in my opinion, Templeton does not have one that speaks directly to that. I am also a little insulted as a resident of Templeton that the select board appeared to laugh that another committee would attempt to follow the law. Lastly, if you watch the meetings, not all advisory members were in attendance at the so called joint budget meetings as well as having heard the information for the first time on such important issues, it is probably a good thing to not comment or make a decision at that instant. Makes the point that the budget needs to begin sooner so there is more time to digest what is presented, allowing more time to make considerations and judgment, decisions, votes, recommendations etc. Going down the route of codification shows this resident that the selectmen are not the by-law experts so why should we, the town, leave any by-law changes to just the select board? In the end, it is town meeting that decides if any changes will be made and what those changes might be. True working together means the opinion or memo from the Collins institute would have been shared with the advisory committee back in the fall of 2017 and discussion would have taken place before budget and town meeting warrant presentation and perhaps consensus made, or not, but that would have been truly working together, which in my opinion, this board of selectmen is long on talk and short on walk.

That is how this concerned Templeton resident sees it.

respectfully;

Jeffrey Bennett

(senior citizen, Veteran, volunteer for his Town, State and Country)

---

From: Selectman Caplis <selectmen.caplis@templeton1.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 2:12 PM
To: selectmen.fortes templeton1.org
Cc: jeff bennett; michael.currie71@gmail.com
Subject: Re: meeting

 

Already on the agenda for our next BoS meeting thanks Cameron

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 28, 2018, at 12:27 PM, selectmen.fortes templeton1.org <selectmen.fortes@templeton1.org> wrote:

Templeton MA templeton1.org Town of Templeton, MA Templeton Town Hall, 160 Patriots Road, East Templeton, MA 01438 Department, Board, Committee Phone Numbers & Addresses

John,


You would be correct. If we are going to be formally recognized as a subcommittee. We need to establish charge and appointments. This will have to go back to the Board of Selectmen for us to outline the subcommittees power and duties which will then have to go to the advisory committee.

I am not certain how Jeff may have describe the arrangement to the AGDOG but I don't believe a claim would be upheld following their own prescribed testing by right of the second test.

1) is the communication between or among members of a public body; (yes) John & Me (Selectmen) and Michael & Jeff (Advisory)
2) if so, does the communication constitute a deliberation; (No)
3) does the communication involve a matter within the body’s jurisdiction; and
4) if so, does the communication fall within an exception listed in the law?

Rationale
This does not constitute deliberation simply by this measure here. Found within the 2017 OML Guide
To be a deliberation, the communication must involve a quorum of the public
body. A quorum is usually a simple majority of the members of a public body. Thus, a
communication among less than a quorum of the members of a public body will not be
a deliberation, unless there are multiple communications among the members of the
public body that together constitute communication among a quorum of members.
Courts have held that the Open Meeting Law applies when members of a public body
communicate in a serial manner in order to evade the application of the law.


I believe the AGDOG provided Jeff with a "why not just post a meeting to avoid any conflict" rather than giving you legal advice. However, since he has made an inquiry, they documented it, and they advised us to post a meeting I believe it would be pretty bold at this point to deny their advice and risk having an OML complaint filed. Since they already make their "recommendation" and we ignored it. John can you place an agenda item on the next board of selectmen's meeting and we will propose a small subcommittee that will have to be voted on and approved. If we are going to do this right it looks like we will have to go the full 100 yards since there was an AGDOG inquiry. We don't meet until the 12th so I don't believe this will be getting on the fall town meeting to be corrected.

Regards,
Cameron Fortes

On August 27, 2018 at 8:44 PM Selectman Caplis <selectmen.caplis@templeton1.org> wrote:

ALCON

 If that is the case on there interpretation of the purpose  of the meeting with the two from the BoS and from the AC then the BoS would need to provide appointments prior to us meeting as well with a scope and duration of said sub committee, at least that's how I read it, if I am mistaken please let me know.
Please advise
Caplis   

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 27, 2018, at 8:15 PM, jeff bennett < j_bennett506@hotmail.com> wrote:

Just got home; got a phone call from the division of open government today, with advice on the issue I raised about four people meeting; it was suggested that it appears to be a sub committee which is covered by open meeting law and hence it requires posting. So, perhaps Thursday is the day rather than Wednesday in order to hit the 48 hour rule.

 

Bennett