Article 21, Citizen’s Petition to Reorganize Water & Sewer Management Simplified
by Karen Quigley
It’s really not complicated. There are a number of steps that need to be taken that make it seem complicated, but what Town Meeting is being asked to vote is not.
1. Vote to make the water & sewer commissions a combined, 5-person advisory board appointed by the Troika which puts it on the same level as Advisory and Capital Budget.
2. Vote to create the position of Public Works Supervisor.
It won’t take effect immediately. The goal is to put into motion, on a specific time frame, the steps that need to happen and which are going to a year to complete. The specifics will be brought back for vote at the next Town Meeting and a ballot vote at the 2013 elections.
It doesn’t mean the utilities will be operated in house. It simply puts the day-to-day management and oversight of our utilities in the hands of a qualified professional. It does, however, create the management necessary if/when Town Meeting so voted.
It doesn’t require but also provides the opportunity to have professional management of the DPW and Facilities.
The enterprise funds remain as they are pending recommendation by the DOR as part of their Financial Management Review slated to begin in July.
The elected officials serve out their terms, by law, and then they could remain as appointed officials.
We, as a town, must look to the past to learn from our history and use those lessons to ensure our future.Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.
Please Vote YES on Article 21 at tomorrow’s Town Meeting.
Karen Quigley is the main proponent of Article 21.
She is a former selectman and lives at 27 Clay Spring Road.
(Note: we have gotten several calls complaining that the video starts and stop in weird places.Tough. We’re not going to do it over. We are sick of it now. Besides, this all will be discussed again adnauseaum.)
Former selectman Karen Quigley presented her citizens’ petition to advisors April 12. The petition calls for town meeting to vote to create a five-member appointed advisory committee to oversee the water/sewer enterprise and to create the position of town engineer. Ms. Quigley pointed out that the citizens’ petition came directly out of the Melanson and Heath (M&H) audit that advised the town to re-think management. The M&H audit was triggered by the crisis in the water, sewer and town finance departments.
Quigley told advisors that sewer (and water) commissioners, by necessity, rely heavily on contract engineers.
The Town of Cohasset was informed by the Attorney General, Business and Labor Bureau, that the Cohasset Sewer Commission had indeed failed to comply with competitive bidding laws and that for the ensuing year the Attorney General will monitor construction procurement undertaken by the Sewer Commission starting October 1, 2011.
The rest of this blog is the report filed with the Town written by Deborah A. Anderson, Assistant Attorney General. (Cohasset Sewer).
The Protestor, Karen Quigley, is a citizen residing in the Town of Cohasset and a former Cohasset selectman. Quigley and representatives of the Town attended the hearing and presented testimony and evidence. Additional documents were provided through August 1 and the record then closed.
The Cohasset Grapevine reports that the Democratic Town Committee and many Ds in general are trying to come to grips with last week’s action of their State Committeeman and our Selectman, Fred Koed. Good for them.
A ‘special’ meeting of the BoS was scheduled for 5:30 (they generally meet at 7pm) on June 28 with the sole agenda item being whether Box B4 should be checked or unchecked on the NOI.
The E-20 representative chided the BoS that the purpose of the meeting was to determine whether the box was to be checked or not, and not to discuss the reasons why. Despite this the chair allowed public comment to the obvious annoyance of the E-20 and the other selectmen. After all, what is the purpose of discussion if you’ve already made up your mind?
For those of you not obsessively following every detail of this issue, Box B4 indicates whether the project is for the purpose of restoring or enhancing a wetland resource area.
The E-20 and 4 of the 5 selectmen hold the opinion it is not. It should be noted it took considerable courage for the lone selectman to oppose the E-20. They are not known for their tolerance of differing opinions.
One current selectman, one previous selectman, the Conservation Agent, the previous Town Manager, the Interim Town Manager, and the engineer who prepared the original NOI on behalf of the entire Town think it is – or that at the very least it should be included in the discussion.
A 2009 letter from the DEP regarding the NOI, states “The Mass DEP would like to take this opportunity to suggest a comprehensive plan be considered by the Town to address tidal habitat/saltmarsh restoration in Inner Little Harbor.” That doesn’t sound like an idle request to me. You?
Reasonable people can reasonably disagree but then you have to have reasonable people. If you have the hubris to name yourself the Environmental-20 shouldn’t you want to include every option for improving the environment?
I guess we shouldn’t be surprised. This is the group whose engineer gave us the memorable quote “How healthy is healthy?” when asked how his plan meets the Water Quality Standards.
The Conservation Committee meets on July 7. It is expected they will close the hearing to public comment and schedule a date to discuss the issue. I hope they do. Enough is enough.
I have great respect for the members of ConCom. Theirs is not an enviable task but it should be made easier as they have federal, state and local law upon which to base their decision.
That and the knowledge that appeasement is futile. Whatever their decision, it’s most likely going to get appealed. By one side or the other.
In the meantime, as humans seemingly endlessly debate, the environment awaits its fate.