What constitutes a public body?


While there is no comprehensive list of public bodies, any multi-member board, commission, committee or subcommittee within the executive or legislative branches1 of state government, or within any county, district, city, region or town, if established to serve a public purpose, is subject to the law. The law includes any multi-member body created to advise or make recommendations to a public body, and also includes the governing board of any local housing or redevelopment authority, and the governing board or body of any authority established by the Legislature to serve a public purpose.

Boards of selectmen and school committees (including those of charter schools) are certainly subject to the Open Meeting Law, as are subcommittees of public bodies, regardless of whether their role is decision-making or advisory.

The above can be found by looking up the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law guide.

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

September 4, 2018 at Templeton library: 6:00 P.M. to discuss what to do with the large rock left by the highwy department after they re did the road in front of the library. Get rid of the rock or turn it into a civil war memorial. I thought all the civil war memorials were being torn down because they offend people? Who will pay for the rock being turned into a memorial?

Consider an under ride vote on tax levy??


What is an Under ride?
Proposition 2 1/2 allows a community to reduce its levy limit by passing an under ride. When an under ride is
passed, the levy limit for the year is calculated by subtracting the amount of the under ride. The under ride results in a permanent decrease in the levy limit of a community because it reduces the base upon which levy limits are calculated for future years.
A majority vote of a community’s selectmen, or town or city council (with the mayor’s approval if required by law) allows an under ride question to be placed on the ballot. An under ride question may also be placed on the ballot by the people using a local initiative procedure, if one is provided by law. Under ride questions must state a dollar amount and require a majority vote of approval by the electorate.


With around one million dollars in so called "free cash" in 2017 and stated estimates of around eight thousand dollars left from FY 2018, perhaps it is time for an under ride for Templeton.

Free cash is a revenue source that results from the calculation, as of July 1, of a community's remaining, unrestricted funds from its operations of the previous fiscal year based on the balance sheet as of June 30. It typically includes actual receipts in excess of revenue estimates and unspent amounts in departmental budget line items for the year just ended, plus unexpended free cash from the previous year. Free cash is offset by property tax receivables and certain deficits, and as a result, can be a negative number.

The Bureau of Accounts (BOA) certifies free cash as of July 1 after the submission of the municipality's balance sheet. Updates to free cash must also be certified by the Director of Accounts. These certifications can only be appropriated from the date of certification through June 30. As of each July 1, a municipality's free cash available for appropriation is $0 until a new balance sheet is received and a new free cash amount is certified.

If selectmen cannot or will not ensure that taxpayer/voter's wishes, per their votes at town meeting, are carried out, then selectmen should have less funding available to them for budget planning.
When something is presented and voted on, selectmen should ensure it happens; when selectmen fail to do this, then steps need to be taken to show selectmen who is really in charge: the residents!

Is there real transparency in Templeton Town Hall or is there something else going on?

Why is it that things that are voted on at annual town meeting are ignored and things that are not actually voted on at town meeting get put in place?



A new budget format was used and presented without an article or motion put before Town Meeting, yet, money appropriated and voted on at Town meeting for non union raises for the sewer department are ignored by the selectmen. Just what is going on and who is in charge? Are the selectmen aware of what is going on? They are and they have so far not acted.


ABUSE OF POWER Re: Missing nonunion raises (No subject)

TJ

Tom Jeleniewski <tom200is@juno.com>

|

selectmen.caplis@templeton1.org;

sewsup@yahoo.com;

m129@comcast.net;

rdennis5870@comcast.net;

...

John, et al:

Why has this issue not been addressed? You and the rest of the board have expectations from the Sewer Department, yet you have callously chosen to IGNORE the town meeting vote which granted a 2% raise to non-union employees. You and your TA are engaging in ABUSE of POWER which will not be tolerated. So much for transparency and cooperation.

The Sewer Department also has sent you a request to consult with Town Counsel concerning other matters, which so far has also been ignored.

I intend to raise these issues to the general public via whatever means necessary.

So please give careful consideration to your unhealthy and devious tactics.

 

As a taxpayer and member of the Board of Sewer Commission I expect a response the this communication.

 

Regards,

Tom Jeleniewski

---------- Original Message ----------
From: Selectman Caplis <selectmen.caplis@templeton1.org>
To: Tom Jeleniewski <tom200is@juno.com>
Cc: sewsup@yahoo.com, m129@comcast.net, rdennis5870@comcast.net,        seldhaleybrooks@templeton1.org, seldmorrison@templeton1.org,        seljrichard@templeton1.org, selectmen.fortes@templeton1.org,        templetonwwtp@verizon.net, townadministrator@templeton1.org
Subject: Re: Missing nonunion raises
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2018 13:34:10 -0400

 

Good day everyone,

 

BoS members please do not respond information only!

 

 Based on the first email that I received concerning this was the first time I am hearing about this.  So I am sure this is an oversight and this will be corrected based on Annual Town Meeting and the Warrant Article. Please give the Board an opportunity to see what is going on.  I understand how this would make you upset after everything else that was happening but like I said give the Board an opportunity to identify the issue. 

 

Thank you

 

Respectfully 

John 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 13, 2018, at 3:28 PM, Tom Jeleniewski <tom200is@juno.com> wrote:

 

Kent,

 

UNNACEPTABLE.  This is either another case of harassment of the sewer department or a case of incompetence at town hall or both. I will place a wager that we here nothing from anyone on the distribution list regarding this.

I am growing extremely weary of constantly battling the corner office. I suggest that if this issue is not resolved IMMEDIATELY, we contact legal council and/or file a complaint with the state regarding this. I will be in your office on Monday morning to set a course of action. I will also forward to the Advisory committee.

Regards,

Tom Jeleniewski

---------- Original Message ----------
From: Kent Songer <sewsup@yahoo.com>
To: Mark <m129@comcast.net>, Tom Jeleniewski <tom200is@juno.com>,  Bobby <rdennis5870@comcast.net>,  Selectmen John Caplis <selectmen.caplis@templeton1.org>,  Selectwoman Diane Haley Brooks <seldhaleybrooks@templeton1.org>,  Selectmen Doug Morrison <seldmorrison@templeton1.org>,  Selectwoman Julie Richard <seljrichard@templeton1.org>,  "Cameron R. Fortes" <selectmen.fortes@templeton1.org>
Cc: Carol Osborne <templetonwwtp@verizon.net>,  Townadministrator <townadministrator@templeton1.org>
Subject: Missing nonunion raises
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 12:24:37 +0000 (UTC)

 

I write to make you aware that Sewer Department nonunion employees did not receive the 2% raises that were approved by the Board of Sewer Commission, and appropriated by town voters at this year’s annual town meeting.  I sent Kelli an email late in the business day yesterday informing her of this, and have not heard back yet.

Notice was given to accounting to implement these raises along with the union raises.  Union personnel received their raises. 

Given the past and ongoing refusal of the Town Administrator to implement the Sewer Department Administrative Assistant’s approved pay increase, this causes me great concern.

My hope and expectation is that this will be resolved retroactively in the next pay period.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

 

Regards,

Kent Songer

Documentation shows back in October of 2017, selectmen received from the Collins institute a document with it's opinion concerning Templeton by-laws specifically on the Advisory Committee.
It was on the subject line of Roles and responsibilities of Advisory Committee.

Selectmen went on to propose multiple changes to Town by-laws regarding the Advisory Committee, without having any discussion with the committee, including withholding this document from the Collins institute.

One interesting item included was the institute stating they were aware of only one other town where Advisory Committee can appoint it's own members if a vacancy occurs during the year. A search with a timeline of about 5 minutes showed this to be not true and there are probably other towns where this is done as well. Great to see transparency and this so called working together thing often coming from the selectmen.

So, the audits are coming, the audits are coming;

The audits are complete and now we have good numbers?

Now we have a good financial team in place?

Town Hall employees state that time could be better spent than answering resident questions on town finance and it is discouraging to have so many questions on town spending and on town financial records.

Town Administrator states a known incorrect number was written in on a document being used to obtain funding for a new sewer department pump station.

Questions being raised again on whether a town employee broke a contract or request for services into several parts, thus avoiding or breaking a Massachusetts General Law (c 30B) for which the town has already been shown to have done and had training from the MA inspector general's office.

As all of this is considered, the question (in my opinion) becomes has Templeton really made any progress or has it been one grand illusion?

On another front, a report out from MIT that devices, particularly cel phones and all those "apps" really do appear to be tracking and recording what we do on those phones.

Things like putting photos on the so called cloud, even if the photos are deleted from the phone and whether you are asked permission or not; those same apps even record key strokes and send this data out to whom ever is / will pay for it. Seems like the so called big brother is really watching and keeping track of all that we do. Does not seem like the people who report such things are really wacked out after all; they just may be ahead of the curve.