email sent to Templeton Advisory Committee, and I hope all members received it.

Sun 12/5/2021 11:11 AM

To:

•  AdvisoryCommittee Templeton

Since Mr. Spring stated on December 2, 2021 at an advisory committee meeting (beginning at 1 hour 23 minutes and 52 seconds) that some 30 towns have advisory committees (finance, advisory, warrant, appropriation) who appoint members to fill vacancies. There are some important facts (you will also see this on face book)

Town of Beckett - by laws state ARTICLE 16A--FINANCE COMMITTEE (Adopted 5/12/07; effective 9/24/07) SECTION 1. The Finance Committee shall have all duties and powers given to it under Massachusetts General Laws and the Town of Becket By-Laws, including but not limited to MGL Chapter 39, Section16. SECTION 2. The Finance Committee shall consider any and all municipal questions for the purpose of making reports or recommendations to the town. It shall be the duty of the committee to investigate all proposals in the articles of the warrant for any town meeting that shall in any way affect the finances of the town and to recommend to the town at the time of said meeting a course of action thereon, and in general to make recommendations to the town in regard to any financial business of the town. The committee shall make recommendations on each warrant article involving an appropriation. The committee may or may not endorse warrant articles, as it deems appropriate, where there is no appropriation requested. SECTION 3. The committee shall have the authority to vote transfers from the Reserve Fund per MGL Chapter 40, Section 6. The Treasurer and the Town Accountant are to be notified of any action or transfer of fund requests. SECTION 4. The Committee shall annually elect its own chairman, clerk and other necessary officers. All vacancies in the membership shall be filled by a majority vote of the combined Select Board and Finance Committee; the term to be until the next election. SECTION 5. The Finance Committee shall report annually in the Town Report, the financial condition of the town.

Big difference in a committee alone filling vacancy and a combined committee doing it (especially if you are calling someone else a liar)

Also mentioned was town of Orange (1 hour, 24 minutes and 23 seconds into meeting) as a community where advisory appoints members to fill midterm vacancies. Town of Orange MA bylaws state: 

Town of Orange, MA / PART I, ADMINISTRATIVE LEGISLATION / BOARDS AND COMMITTEES

Article IFinance Committee

arrow_forward

[Adopted 2-15-1937 ATM by Art. 19, approved 3-19-1937 (Bylaw 36)]

§ 12-1Membership; appointment; terms; officers.

There shall be a Finance Committee consisting of seven members who shall reside in the Town and shall be registered voters therein. No officer or employee of the Town shall be eligible to serve on said Committee. Within 10 days after the final publication of this article, in case it shall be approved by the Attorney General, the moderator shall appoint two members of the Finance Committee to serve for three years. All appointments to the Finance Committee heretofore made and in effect at the time of the adoption of this article shall continue in force until the expiration of the respective terms of appointment. Within 10 days after each annual meeting after 1936, the Moderator shall appoint for the term of three years such number of members of the Finance Committee as shall be necessary to replace the members whose terms have expired. In the event of a vacancy for any other cause than expiration of term of office, the Moderator shall forthwith fill such vacancy for the unexpired term. The Finance Committee shall elect its own Chairman and Secretary.

If you are going to call someone a liar, best to not follow up with several lies of your own.

regards,

Jeff Bennett

 ---------- Original Message ----------

From: Fred Aponte <faponte@harvard.ma.us>

To: wagnerd@dor.state.ma.us

Cc: townclerk@templeton1.org, jpb01468@comcast.net, dougmorrisonma@gmail.com, kcrobinson7@gmail.com, j_farrell@hotmail.com, assessors@templeton1.org, towncoordinator@templeton1.org, treasurer@templeton1.org, templetonadvisoryboard@gmail.com, 185wilberdr@gmail.com

Date: 12/10/2013 10:26 AM

Subject: Templeton Re-Cap

Good Morning Deb,

I know how busy you are, but I am hoping that you can help.  I have spoken with Luanne Royer about the recap and she mentioned that she spoke with you.  I was aware of everything that you pointed out to Luanne regarding the recap.  I have been working on this for weeks and I keep coming up with the same results.

In previous years the former Town Accountant prepared the budget forecast.  The Finance Board (advisory committee) prepared the FY14 budget using the former Accountants model, but it appears that some things were missed and as a result Templeton is 505k over the levy limit. I am confident that everything has been entered on the recap, but I need a sanity check.  I have done my own analysis which I have attached and summarized below.

1.      I am confident that everything has been entered on page 4. I have attached all town meeting minutes and my detailed breakdown for page 4

2.      Local Receipts have been adjusted.

3.      Page 3 Line 9 is blank because that number represents Ambulance receipts which are now Receipts Reserved for Appropriation voted ATM FY13 5/15/12 Article 30

4.      The 160k (other funds, Receipts Reserved) was used as a source but not included as an Expense on the budget document.

5.      I have attached my comparison between the budget forecast and the recap and summarized it below.

6.      Article 29 ATM 5/14/13......... Override vote 6/25/13 results attached

Summary - Comparison budget forecast & recap

(220,851)	Local Receipts, Debt & Retirement (See attached comparison)
(126,791)	Overstated Tax Levy (Forecast)
(160,000)	Ambulance ATM A#10 Not included in Expenses (Forecast)
28	Abatements Offsets Difference between Forecast/Recap
2,137	State Aid Difference between Forecast/Recap
(505,477)

Fred Aponte

Accounting

 Regarding Templeton CPC Funds:

Funds are raised locally through imposition of a voter-authorized surcharge on local property tax bills of 3%. Several exemptions to the CPA surcharge can also be authorized by voters at the time of adoption. Local adoption of CPA by a community triggers annual distributions from the state's Community Preservation Trust Fund, a statewide fund held by the Massachusetts Department of Revenue, which the law also establishes. Deed recording fees charged by the state's Registries of Deeds are the funding source for the statewide Community Preservation Trust Fund. Revenues from these two sources—the local CPA property tax surcharge and annual distributions from the state's Community Preservation Trust Fund—combine to form a city or town's Community Preservation Fund.

CPC funds are not free money, it is tax dollars and fee dollars paid by you.

Communities may spend their CPA funds for projects in the following broad programmatic areas: Open Space, Historic Preservation, Affordable Housing and Outdoor Recreation. The CPA requires each adopting community to annually appropriate, or reserve for future appropriation, at least 10% of its estimated annual CPA fund revenues for open space projects (excluding recreational uses), 10% for historic preservation projects, and 10% for affordable housing projects. The remaining funds each year can be used on projects in any CPA programmatic area. The CPA statute describes in detail allowable uses of the funds within the four broad programmatic purpose areas, determining what projects are eligible for CPA funding.

Note: There are no CPC funds automatically designated for recreation use or for recreation commission.

As of November of 2019, 176 cities and towns (50% of the state's municipalities) have adopted the Community Preservation Act, and no community has ever revoked the program. Because of the rising number of communities participating in the program, legislation was passed in 2019 to increase the recording fees at the Registries of Deeds which provide revenue to the statewide CPA Trust Fund. This increase is expected to raise an estimated $60 million annually for CPA communities each year. (Communities that adopt CPA with the full 3% CPA surcharge are eligible to participate in two additional annual CPA fund distribution rounds each year, and the funding formula within the CPA law governing these rounds allows some smaller, less resource-rich communities to often receive a dollar for dollar annual match for CPA funds raised locally.)

As anyone can see, things change, and this program like many other things involved in government, requires much continual reading to keep up with changes in laws, funding, regulations and keeping local documentation and records up to date.

Maybe this is why the article for 230 thousand for Gilman Waite failed, it was past the deadline. Now posted on town website under community preservation community: What is the timetable of the funding cycle?

Applications may be submitted between December 7, 2008 and January 31, 2009 for proposals to be considered at the May 2008 Annual Town Meeting.

Unless an applicant can demonstrate that a significant opportunity would otherwise be lost, applications will not be accepted after this date.

 In case you missed it, at town meeting held November 3, 2021, it was stated by member of advisory committee that advisory is the only group who works for taxpayer, the only group who looks out for them. Why was there an item under article 1 for $4,500.00 to pay for road repair, because advisory had already voted against a transfer from town reserve fund, which they oversee per MGL. in advisory reserve fund transfer, one criteria for approval is To approve a transfer request, "the Advisory Committee should be of the opinion the request would be approved by a Town Meeting." Well, the spending of $4,500.00 was approved by town meeting vote (original reserve fund request was $4,000.00) Advisory was wrong in their conclusion that the taxpayer money was not needed and town meeting would not approve. One conclusion of this situation could be advisory (at least some members) are out of touch with town residents.

Also, as a result of article 4, amend town bylaw regarding advisory committee, it was made public that advisory had been discussing things outside of a public meeting and appeared to be trying to convince a town elected official to do their bidding, that is deny appointing a town resident to advisory because either advisory members do not like the resident, did not trust resident or whatever combinations of reasons they came up with, the committee was still talking amongst themselves on how to keep a resident off the advisory committee, even as it is touted as the only group that works for residents, interesting view, work for residents, looking for volunteers and when volunteer residents come forward, advisory tries to find ways to keep them off based on what? Time for some serious changes?

 Since recommendations of DOR matter in the instance of say a PILOT, then recommendation concerning size of advisory should be considered and perhaps it is time, go from 7 to 5 members, once upon a time, there were 9 members of planning board, but due to being hard to find members to run for election, number was reduced to 7. Advisory once upon a time had 9 members, reduced to 7 because difficulty in getting enough members for a quorum. Considering what happened right after our last annual town meeting, not enough members to have a quorum for a 7 member group, maybe time to consider going to 5, there are many communities with 5 member advisory committees. By the way, state law and our town bylaws state we have an advisory committee, NOT an advisory board, sometimes facts matter!

1951 town bylaw, there shall be an advisory committee of 9 legal voters . . . . section 1 of article IV in 2010 Templeton town bylaw book, sections 1-4, 5, 6 passed 3-5-1951. Massachusetts General Law chapter 39, section 16, advisory, finance or warrant committee, so fact is from 1951, town bylaw and state law cited it as advisory committee, some people just decided to call it something else, sort of the cemetery and parks commission, town never accepted MGL on parks commission - facts do matter.

Then - Annual Town Meeting, May 2011.

Article 28. To see if the Town will vote to amend Article IV – Advisory Committee,

Section 1., first sentence, and Section 2., first sentence: as follows the text to be deleted stricken and the text to be inserted underlined as follows:

“Section 1. There shall be an Advisory Committee consisting of seven ( strike nine) legal voters of the town who shall be appointed by the Moderator as hereinafter provided.”

“Section 2. The Moderator of the town meeting when this By-Law is adopted shall, within thirty days after such by-law becomes effective, appoint 2 (strike 3) members of said committee for a term of one year, 2 (strike 3) members for terms of two years, and 3 members for terms of three years.”

or to take any other action relative thereto

 One view of Advisory Committee:

The function of the Advisory Committee is to act as an advisor to town meeting of Templeton, with whom, ultimate appropriating authority rests. The Town Administrator, who reports to an elected Select Board, administers municipal functions. The Superintendent of Schools, who reports to an elected School Committee, administers the operation of the School Department. The Advisory Committee is not elected but is appointed by the Town Moderator. Because of this fact, the Advisory Committee functions on an advisory basis and does not set policy. Advisory Committee is not part of either of the two general functions: (a) Municipal Operation and (b) Education, and therefore should remain deliberative in its recommendations. Their job is to study the budget and each warrant article in detail and make recommendations to Town Meeting. The better it's report is, the more irrelevant debate can be eliminated and save time of the meeting. That said, a good report does not relieve the rest of the meeting from thinking and asking questions for themselves.

 Annual Town Meeting on May 12, 2021 - article 22, town meeting voted to keep current budget format, which is not a line item budget. Advisory Committee recommending the separation of articles appears to be an attempt to push selectmen (whom control the warrant) towards a more line item format, which the people have already voted, on multiple occasions, they do not want. If an advisory committee has done it's job, their recommendations and report (again, required by town meeting vote) would provide an explanation to town meeting on all articles, in enough detail, that there would be few, if any questions on what is being proposed and town meeting being asked to approve. While the current chair of advisory does a good job of trying to keep the committee focused and on point, it is also up to members to speak to the subject in front of them. One of the stated reasons for the existence of an advisory committee is that it is hard for the average citizen to keep up with all that goes on in their local government, so we have the advisory committee (we are required by state law to have said committee) which is suppose to inform town meeting of all that is before them at a town meeting. The responsibility of selectmen is to call a town meeting with a properly posted and executed warrant. According to town meeting times, the warrant does not have to contain verbatim language on what town meeting is to vote on. That is one of the reasons we have an advisory committee, to provide a detailed explanation to town meeting on what they are being asked to vote on - my opinion on this is if the Advisory Committee does their job and does it well, there is no need to break articles down on the warrant, advisory will have done this on their report to the meeting, now that would be working for the residents / taxpayers.

So, as a private town resident, who in another time, serves and has served on a few town boards / committees and as a private resident who tries to keep up, article 1 asks town meeting to transfer funds (money) from free cash to various departments so work can be done for the benefit of town residents. Increase in money to pay for heating in town owned buildings, to pay for software program to aid elected cemetery commissioners in managing the town's cemeteries ( no longer efficient to do things the same way as 100 years ago with a typewriter) They would no longer have to rely on just paper records. So, elected commissioners come up with a plan and a cost and pass that onto a town department which carries out the physical part of the plan and passes it up the chain to the manager of the department, DPW director, who passes it along to the town administrator who in turn brings it to the selectmen, who approve town meeting warrant. Article 1 also contains 2 more transfers of funds to help cover costs of work that was not planned and unknown at the last annual town meeting. The two items directly benefit residents, traversing the town roads. A 4th item in article 1 covers an increase cost (can you say inflation) that was not foreseen when town budget was before the last annual town meeting - painting of lines on a road way and I do not now about others, but sometimes, especially at night, those yellow and white lines on the road are very much relied on for a travel guide, not to mention informing drivers where it is legal to pass or not, where the turning travel lane is, etc. See, rather than a critique on how selectmen present warrant, advisory could work for the people and provide a clear explanation on each article; after all, how does the complaint aid you at town meeting?