HomeMy WebLinkAbout1966-08-31-STG-min.pdf Structure of Town Government Committee Meeting
August 31, 1966
with Appropriations Committee
Present Homer Hagedorn, Marjo e Battin, Lotte Scharfman
Absent Stephen Russian, Arthur Bryson
Appropriations Committee members present Parrish, chairman, Noyes,
Gary, Kenney, Perry (comptroller) , Souza, Blaisdell, Lehner
Gary questioned whether Committee on Structure of Government would go
on studying indefinitely. Hagedorn explained that original TTNA
Committee issued a report and recommended to March 196 Town Meeting
that problems warranted appointing an official town committee. Town Mtng.
agreed, Committee appointed in May, and now working actively - may
come up with same and/or other recommendations and may or may not be
ready to issue a report for March 67 Town Mtng.
Hagedorn defined function of App. Comm. so we could base our discussion
on a common base. Function is budget building, starting with individual
departments and then leading to overall t.21cm budget. Noyes disagreed;
feels function is to make recommendations to Town Mtng. for action and
that the Town Boards make their own budgets. Agreement reached that
A p. Comm. is focal point and that members serve on other committees
o' town involving money and therefore are involved in budgets. Parrish
added that App. Comm. serves advisory function, watched E & D Fund, and
members spend much time gathering background information for budget work.
Comm. works nearly all year but most active from fall to spring.
Kenney questioned TMMA report (p.10) separation of appropriation and
budgetary function. Discussion revolved around who makes the budget,
how the App. Comm. may be involved from the beginning in making compro-
mises, and the fact that App Comm. is separate from the people who
make and present budget.
Noyes asked if App. Comm. is serving Town Mtng ' fully as it could.
Parrish feels that it is better to iron out differences ahead of time
and not present them on floor.
Discussion on appointment of App Comm. As indicated in letter from
Parrish, App. Comm. feels that unless a better method is suggested,
present one serves adequately. Do not feel that Selectmen have influenced
Comm. Gary feels that as Selectmen are .elected they can appoint. Hagedorn
and Battin pointed out that subtle pressures can exist when you pass
on budget presented by Board which Appoints you; that Town Mtng.
members do not know App Comm. any more as town gets larger and may raise
questions of a committee appointed by Selectmen. Agreement reached
that, on a relative scale, method of appointment not crucial issue;
that Town Mtng should be involved in appointing procedure; that Moderator
should not be sole appointing power but that Moderator, App. Comm.
chairman, and an elected Town Mtng member maight be feasible.
Total membership of 9 is good; subcommittees duplicate work; Town Meeting
background proferake but not written into law as a requirement.
d ) l (`
Structure of Towr vornment Meeting Aug. 31, 1966
page 2
{
Noyes questioned how many Town Mtng members are really interested
in a lot of information; how representative thd TMMA Exec. Comm.
really is (App. Comm. generally feels this way) ; that Town &Itng.
form of government may be obsolete. Hagedorn explained that we are
working on the assumption that Town Mtng is relevant to Lexington at
this time.
Blaisdell feels App. Comm. main purpose is to give Town Mtng good
advice. Blaisdell suggests that Appropriation Comm. make motion, with
reasons for the motion, and let the Boards who want something else
argue foQit. General agreement that this is a good proposal, would
put the App. Comm. in a less defensive postion and give their work
more authority and weight.
Much discussion revolved around problem of obtaining information in
time from other Boards to enable App. Comm. to study articles more
fully. Although App. Comm. and Selectmen opposed suggestion that an
early deadline be written into the by-law, agreed how that this may be
only way of handling problem. If information is available early enough,
App. Comm. would be willing to recommend on other articles, such as
finacial implications of zoning changes, land purchases, etc. Battin
pointed out that Town Mtng. would be helped if alternatives were more
clearly defined.
Noyes does not think another group is needed to advise on planning.
Also feels that Town Mtng is too large to make any decisions other
than broad policy ones. Most of the money is spa-tit in Article LE
on the administration of funds; Town Mtng. makes few if any changes
here and the other articles involve relatively little money.
If App. Coimc,. takes on additional responsibiltities, method of anointing
may become more important ( Parrish) .
.
General agreement that Cap. Exp. and App. Committees should not be
combined; capital function would be lost; evoryone is too busy for
any method of cross-representation. If any consolidation takes place
it would be more logical to combine Planning and Cap, Exp. , although
hesitancy was expressed on this score as long as Planning Board is
political. App. Comm. generally though appointment of Planning Board
would help Town Mtng get better service from Planning Board.
App. Comm. is working with Comptroller and ironing out problems which
have existed in past. Would like some time to evaluate significance of
this chun.ge before recommending others.
Feeling expressed that functions of treasurer and clerk are different.
Perhaps a part time appointive treasurer makes sense. If this office
continues elective may attract unqualified people(as pay increases?.
Perry* cleric should be separate; treasurer-ccllector possible; comptroller
Gary questioned whether Trustees of Public Trust should give financial, can
advice to Town, — perform
(some of trasurer's job.
Respectfully submitted,