So, the Town needs to change it's election date so there is no dissension on the stage with regards to the budget. Why then, does this board of selectmen think it has to change Town Counsel before the election? Why not discuss any changes after the election? After all, anyone elected to the select board will have to work with the Town Counsel and would it not make sense for all five to have a say in this most important subject? If Town Counsel is to be called upon to defend your position (s), shouldn't you have a say in who Town Counsel is to be? If it needs to be that way for the budget, why not legal counsel as well?
Perhaps Towns people should be aware that no one from the board of selectmen's office talked to present Town Counsel about a change. No one from the board of selectmen's office told present Town Counsel about the issuance of a RFP, they never received an acknowledgement that they responded to the RFP, no one from the board of selectmen's office asked any questions about their response, no references were ever checked, no screening committee ever contacted them (was there a screening committee?), present Town Counsel is unsure if the BOS even knows that they re applied. It is even possible the application from present Town Counsel was tossed into the trash. (my opinion)
Just another reason, in my opinion, why it is hard to trust the current board of selectmen on anything.
Saturday, February 24, 2018
So, does Templeton have a full time Town Administrator, a part time Town Administrator or an interim Town Administrator?
I seem to recall the Templeton board of selectmen voting to make Carter Terenzini the Town Administrator. I seem to recall an article in the Gardner News of that item. So here is the point of this post; do the Templeton selectmen know what they vote on? Do they read and understand it/ Do they remember what they vote and act on?
In a written, posted and published request for proposals for legal services (Town Counsel), the selectmen include in that posting; any questions concerning this invitation should be directed to Carter Terenzini, interim Town Administrator. However, in the first paragraph of the RFP, it had submit responses to Mr. Carter Terenzini, Town Administrator. Perhaps it is a lack of proof reading, but what ever the reason, this is a reflection on the selectmen and the continuation of a lack of consistency with regards to policies, procedures and every day business of the selectmen. (in my opinion) Perhaps that is one of the reasons for a lack of participation of the citizens of Templeton when it comes to the board of selectmen and their meetings?
This RFP was, according to the document, advertised in the Gardner News on December 19, 2017, on COMMBUYS on December 14, 2017 and Goods & Services bulletin on December 25, 2017.
I seem to recall the Templeton board of selectmen voting to make Carter Terenzini the Town Administrator. I seem to recall an article in the Gardner News of that item. So here is the point of this post; do the Templeton selectmen know what they vote on? Do they read and understand it/ Do they remember what they vote and act on?
In a written, posted and published request for proposals for legal services (Town Counsel), the selectmen include in that posting; any questions concerning this invitation should be directed to Carter Terenzini, interim Town Administrator. However, in the first paragraph of the RFP, it had submit responses to Mr. Carter Terenzini, Town Administrator. Perhaps it is a lack of proof reading, but what ever the reason, this is a reflection on the selectmen and the continuation of a lack of consistency with regards to policies, procedures and every day business of the selectmen. (in my opinion) Perhaps that is one of the reasons for a lack of participation of the citizens of Templeton when it comes to the board of selectmen and their meetings?
This RFP was, according to the document, advertised in the Gardner News on December 19, 2017, on COMMBUYS on December 14, 2017 and Goods & Services bulletin on December 25, 2017.
Meeting packet information for the Monday, February 26, 2018 selectmen meeting is now on the Town website under the meeting calendar, simply find the selectmen meeting for Monday and scroll down until you see the link.
It states it was added or created on February 23, 2018. Strange how town business is done on days when Town Hall is not open.
It states it was added or created on February 23, 2018. Strange how town business is done on days when Town Hall is not open.
Friday, February 23, 2018
TO: Board of Selectmen
FROM: Carter Terenzini, Town Administrator
RE: Administrator's weekly report
DATE: February 22, 2018
CC: All Departments
Business meeting or workshop: The following is intended to supplement agenda items where a full memorandum may not have been required or updates are needed.
5. a. We had four submissions and the top two rated firms were invited to interview with you. They provide an interesting contrast of the sole practitioner and a team of two larger firms. Pricing is discussed after you determine which firm you like better
5. b. We are seeking your approval to proceed to negotiate a contract with the top ranked firm.
The entire administrator weekly report can be read on the Town's website.
FROM: Carter Terenzini, Town Administrator
RE: Administrator's weekly report
DATE: February 22, 2018
CC: All Departments
Important Notices
Now accepting applications for one full-time police officer position.
5. a. We had four submissions and the top two rated firms were invited to interview with you. They provide an interesting contrast of the sole practitioner and a team of two larger firms. Pricing is discussed after you determine which firm you like better
5. b. We are seeking your approval to proceed to negotiate a contract with the top ranked firm.
The entire administrator weekly report can be read on the Town's website.
Hello all,
Thank you to those that were able to participate in the Doodle.com survey. The date of Wednesday, February 28th at 5:30pm was determined to be the date that worked best for the majority of the group. The meeting will be held in the Narragansett Regional High School, and the agenda will be posted on the District website.
Thank you.
Would any provision or new by-law to prevent hemp Agriculture or farming be considered a conflicting by-law? Does the Attorney General look at all of the other Town by-laws when considering any new by-laws sent to the attorney general for legal consideration?
I believe if you check, the answer is no, which probably, in part, is the reason for the many conflicting by-law issues in Templeton already. I also believe that anyone making statements such as "I can't believe the state was stupid enough to legalize pot" is basically calling voters stupid, which is most likely not a smart thing to do, especially if you are elected. Since some in Templeton once thought it was a good idea financially to have the Town be a dumping ground for trash, material, some of which was sure to be hazardous material, and the like, perhaps farming or growing pot rather than dispensing it by way of retail establishments should be something the Town considers in a logical fashion rather than on an emotional level? Would that be a good re-use of say the old Temple Stuart property. Keep in mind, before we get all hysterical one way or another, there has been a reported shortage of ending entities to provide start up money for any pot facilities. Apparently there is concern within the banking industry about possible federal interference concerning the conflict with passed state laws and the continued federal opinion/law about pot being illegal at the federal level. Apparently, the federal government has a hard time accepting the will of the people.
I believe if you check, the answer is no, which probably, in part, is the reason for the many conflicting by-law issues in Templeton already. I also believe that anyone making statements such as "I can't believe the state was stupid enough to legalize pot" is basically calling voters stupid, which is most likely not a smart thing to do, especially if you are elected. Since some in Templeton once thought it was a good idea financially to have the Town be a dumping ground for trash, material, some of which was sure to be hazardous material, and the like, perhaps farming or growing pot rather than dispensing it by way of retail establishments should be something the Town considers in a logical fashion rather than on an emotional level? Would that be a good re-use of say the old Temple Stuart property. Keep in mind, before we get all hysterical one way or another, there has been a reported shortage of ending entities to provide start up money for any pot facilities. Apparently there is concern within the banking industry about possible federal interference concerning the conflict with passed state laws and the continued federal opinion/law about pot being illegal at the federal level. Apparently, the federal government has a hard time accepting the will of the people.
Since there have been some comments about pot, the effects of and possible sales tax revenue on this issue, I found some information that may be of interest to those who posted said comments.
I found this on the Massachusetts Municipal Association web site;
Look under Resource Library - Annual Labor Law update/ Mirick O'Connell 2018.
3. Marijuana Law -
On November 8, 2016, Massachusetts voters approved a ballot question legalizing marijuana for recreational and commercial use, Chapter 334 of the Acts of 2016 (the "Marijuana Law"). This past July, however, the Marijuana Law underwent a fairly significant re-write via Chapter 55 of the Acts of 2017, known as "An Act to Ensure Safe Access to Marijuana." As revised, the Marijuana Law includes several key points relative to municipalities:
(a) Prohibiting/ Regulating Marijuana Establishments:
• Communities that voted 'Yes' on Question 4 in November of2016 may prohibit one or all types of recreational marijuana establishments by local referendum.
• Communities that voted 'No' on Question 4 may prohibit one or all types of recreational marijuana establishments by town meeting or city council vote only, up until December 31, 2019.
• In lieu of a full or partial ban, communities may still adopt bylaws or ordinances imposing reasonable regulations on the time, place and manner of marijuana establishment operations.
• The new Marijuana Act clarifies that zoning provisions may not prevent a medical marijuana establishment licensed as of July 1, 2017 from converting to a recreational facility.
(b) Local Referenda:
• The Marijuana Law now provides a form of ballot question for the local referendum seeking to prohibit recreational marijuana establishments, and provides authorization to place such a question on a regular or special election ballot.
• Municipal acts regulating or prohibiting recreational or medical marijuana establishments prior to July 1, 2017 are not affected by the new Marijuana Law.
(c) Host Agreements:
• Recreational and medical marijuana establishments must enter a Host Community Agreement with the municipality.
• Impact fees under a Host Community Agreement are capped at 3% of the facility's gross sales and are effective for no longer than 5 years. (d) Local Sales Tax:
• Municipalities may, by local option, adopt a local sales tax on recreational marijuana establishments of up to 3 % of sales (increased from 2%)
(e) Cannabis Control Commission:
• The Cannabis Control Commission expands to a 5-member body, with consolidated regulatory powers over both recreational and medical marijuana establishments.
On December 28, 2017, the state's Cannabis Control Commission released draft regulations. Once finalized, the regulations will govern the Ii censure of recreational marijuana established in Massachusetts, a process intended to start this spring. The draft regulations do not provide much in the way of additional guidance on the local regulation of recreational marijuana, beyond the limitations set forth in the statute approved by voters in November of2016 and amended by the Legislature in July of 2017.
Under the draft regulations, marijuana operators would need to hold "community outreach hearings" before submitting a license application to the Cannabis Control Commission. In addition, the draft regulations provide that upon written request from the Cannabis Control Commission, municipalities have 60 days to certify that a proposed marijuana establishment complies with local zoning provisions. The draft regulations also provide that if a municipality has no local siting requirements, recreational marijuana establishments may not be sited within 500 feet of a public or private school, daycare center, or any facility in which children commonly congregate.
The final regulations are due by March 15, 2018. The Cannabis Control Commission will hold public hearings on the draft regulations in February
I found this on the Massachusetts Municipal Association web site;
Look under Resource Library - Annual Labor Law update/ Mirick O'Connell 2018.
3. Marijuana Law -
On November 8, 2016, Massachusetts voters approved a ballot question legalizing marijuana for recreational and commercial use, Chapter 334 of the Acts of 2016 (the "Marijuana Law"). This past July, however, the Marijuana Law underwent a fairly significant re-write via Chapter 55 of the Acts of 2017, known as "An Act to Ensure Safe Access to Marijuana." As revised, the Marijuana Law includes several key points relative to municipalities:
(a) Prohibiting/ Regulating Marijuana Establishments:
• Communities that voted 'Yes' on Question 4 in November of2016 may prohibit one or all types of recreational marijuana establishments by local referendum.
• Communities that voted 'No' on Question 4 may prohibit one or all types of recreational marijuana establishments by town meeting or city council vote only, up until December 31, 2019.
• In lieu of a full or partial ban, communities may still adopt bylaws or ordinances imposing reasonable regulations on the time, place and manner of marijuana establishment operations.
• The new Marijuana Act clarifies that zoning provisions may not prevent a medical marijuana establishment licensed as of July 1, 2017 from converting to a recreational facility.
(b) Local Referenda:
• The Marijuana Law now provides a form of ballot question for the local referendum seeking to prohibit recreational marijuana establishments, and provides authorization to place such a question on a regular or special election ballot.
• Municipal acts regulating or prohibiting recreational or medical marijuana establishments prior to July 1, 2017 are not affected by the new Marijuana Law.
(c) Host Agreements:
• Recreational and medical marijuana establishments must enter a Host Community Agreement with the municipality.
• Impact fees under a Host Community Agreement are capped at 3% of the facility's gross sales and are effective for no longer than 5 years. (d) Local Sales Tax:
• Municipalities may, by local option, adopt a local sales tax on recreational marijuana establishments of up to 3 % of sales (increased from 2%)
(e) Cannabis Control Commission:
• The Cannabis Control Commission expands to a 5-member body, with consolidated regulatory powers over both recreational and medical marijuana establishments.
On December 28, 2017, the state's Cannabis Control Commission released draft regulations. Once finalized, the regulations will govern the Ii censure of recreational marijuana established in Massachusetts, a process intended to start this spring. The draft regulations do not provide much in the way of additional guidance on the local regulation of recreational marijuana, beyond the limitations set forth in the statute approved by voters in November of2016 and amended by the Legislature in July of 2017.
Under the draft regulations, marijuana operators would need to hold "community outreach hearings" before submitting a license application to the Cannabis Control Commission. In addition, the draft regulations provide that upon written request from the Cannabis Control Commission, municipalities have 60 days to certify that a proposed marijuana establishment complies with local zoning provisions. The draft regulations also provide that if a municipality has no local siting requirements, recreational marijuana establishments may not be sited within 500 feet of a public or private school, daycare center, or any facility in which children commonly congregate.
The final regulations are due by March 15, 2018. The Cannabis Control Commission will hold public hearings on the draft regulations in February
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)