Community Preservation Act in MA:

MGL chapter 44B - 

Section 5. (a) A city or town that accepts sections 3 to 7, inclusive, shall establish by ordinance or by-law a community preservation committee. The committee shall consist of not less than five nor more than nine members. The ordinance or by-law shall determine the composition of the committee, the length of its term and the method of selecting its members, whether by election or appointment or by a combination thereof. The committee shall include, but not be limited to, one member of the conservation commission established under section 8C of chapter 40 as designated by the commission, one member of the historical commission established under section 8D of said chapter 40 as designated by the commission, one member of the planning board established under section 81A of chapter 41 as designated by the board, one member of the board of park commissioners established under section 2 of chapter 45 as designated by the board and one member of the housing authority established under section 3 of chapter 121B as designated by the authority, or persons, as determined by the ordinance or by-law, acting in the capacity of or performing like duties of the commissions, board or authority if they have not been established in the city or town. If there are no persons acting in the capacity of or performing like duties of any such commission, board or authority, the ordinance or by-law shall designate those persons.

(c) The community preservation committee shall not meet or conduct business without the presence of a quorum. A majority of the members of the community preservation committee shall constitute a quorum. The community preservation committee shall approve its actions by majority vote. Recommendations to the legislative body shall include their anticipated costs.

Article #45 of May 2007 Templeton annual town meeting, states, in part;

There is hereby established a Community Preservation Committee (“CPC”), consisting of nine (9) voting members pursuant to MGL Chapter 44B (the “Act”). The composition of the CPC, the appointment authority and the term of office for the CPC members shall be as follows:

 One member of the Templeton Conservation Commission as designated by that Commission.

 One member of the Templeton Historical Commission as designated by that Commission.

 One member of the Templeton Housing Authority as designated by that Authority.

 One member of the Templeton Recreation Committee as designated by that Committee.

 One member of the Templeton Planning Board as designated by that Board.

 One member of the Templeton Board of Assessors as designated by that Board.

 Three members to be elected at large from the registered voters of the Town. 

So, if the housing authority fails to appoint a member to cpc, does that equal a committee not conforming to the requirement of law or does it simply mean that as long as a quorum is present when cpc funding is requested, discussed and voted on, the requirement of the law is met? 

As a point of reference, Templeton by-law requires a member from the advisory committee is to serve on the capital improvement committee, however, due to resignations from advisory, the cip member from advisory left but there is still a quorum on cip, so can this group still function despite not having a required by town by-law member? 

 

Superior Court Affirms Right of Awarding Authority to Reject Low Construction Bid Based Solely on Awarding Authority’s Past Contract Experience with Bidder

Posted on September 30, 2021

Cape Cod Builders, Inc. v. Town of Plymouth, et al., Plymouth Superior Court, Docket No. 2183CV603 (Order dated Sept. 13, 2021):

In what appears to be a case of first impression, the Massachusetts Superior Court has affirmed in writing that an awarding authority may reject a low bid based solely on the awarding authority’s past experience working with the bidder.

In this action, Plymouth rejected the low bid on a roof reconstruction project based solely on the Town’s prior experience with the bidder on an earlier Town construction project.  Plymouth asserted that the bidder had performed unsatisfactory work on the earlier project, and that the bidder’s principal had been rude and unprofessional toward the Town’s staff.  The disgruntled bidder asked the Court to enjoin the Town from proceeding with an award of contract to the next bidder, alleging that the Town’s decision to reject its bid was wrongful and based on personal animus toward its principal.  The Court rejected the request.  It credited the Town’s affidavit evidence of the bidder’s general inability to work in harmony with the Town’s staff and other elements of labor, an important component of the definition of a “responsible and eligible bidder” under the public building construction bid laws.  The Court held that the Town’s “complaints [against the bidder] evidence a genuine dissatisfaction with [the bidder’s] previous performance of a public construction project and exhibit a fact specific, reasonable objective basis for the Town’s decision that [the bidder] was not a ‘responsible’ and ‘eligible’ bidder pursuant to G.L. c. 149, § 44A(1)(c).”