A Cordial Meeting, Out of Necessity

Still have not caught last week's Board of Health meeting,  Going to need to try harder.  Still have people asking me about it.

I did watch the Selectmen's meeting last night.  Nothing earth shattering, yet some interesting things.

The first concerns one of the town meeting articles.  Specifically article 10 of the special town meeting.  There is a food establishment in town seeking special legislation for the issuance of a "package store" license to enable it to place bottles of wine, and liquors apparently in gift packages it sells.  All ready being done it town elsewhere.

Anyway, I am watching and listening to the discussion.  Seems there is a need to amend the article.  Not going to get into all the details here on it.   Not sure the details were explained to be honest.

So Selectmen Murphy raises the issue about the fact that other establishments in town have received the approval of town meeting but not yet had the legislation passed in Boston.  Also addressed the issue of the town being over its quota for establishments (we are, but that is why you submit the special legislation.  Been doing it for years.  Never seen one turned down by the town yet.  Could have happened, but don't have a memory of it).

So, it seems that until the town gets an answer as to why the previous requests for additional licenses haven't been passed in Boston, the selectmen, two of them anyway (Mr. Murphy and Espindola), feel there shouldn't be anymore requests sent to Boston. 

Curious.  I can understand Mr. Espindola's position.  Note understand, I don't necessarily agree however.  New selectmen, wants to look into the matter.  Mr. Murphy, at least based on what was discussed last night, had previously voted to support the article before the proposed amendment.

Please note, there was no apparent problem with the amendment.  Didn't here boo about that.  Probably should have.  But the discussion was whether to support this one license due to the hold up of previously supported licenses, and some talk about too many licenses.

So another switch in position.  

Hopefully the two selectmen get the answers they need before town meeting. Be curious to see what town meeting decides to do on this one.

As an aside, we have some weird rules relative to liquor licenses in this state.  Well weird until you compare how other states do it.  Not against insuring the proper sale of alcohol.  Having been involved in the licensing process for a very long time either in government or professionally, I can tell you that a whole lot of what gets regulated has a heck of a lot to do more with control than public safety.

For my personal part, not sure I can agree with the concept that some establishments are entitled to serve/sell alcohol and others aren't.  I am not advocating a system were you just open it up with no oversight.  Yet if we as a town are so concerned with promoting business, why give some businesses what is an advantage over others.

Set the fees in an amount necessary to provide for realistic oversight and enforcement.  Require insurance, training, compliance with the building and accessibility laws, etc.   Let those willing to pay the price do business on an equal footing.  Just a thought.

Anyway, enough with the cordial chat, let's get down to the necessities.

The issue came up last night about whether to provide the Board of Appeals independent counsel.  I have neither the time or the space to devote to the proper background story here.  Well got aqll the space i want really, but too much and you might stop reading.

The digest version is the issue of whether town counsel has a conflict of interest in representing the Board of Appeals, the building inspector and the town on the matter concerning the turbines developer before the BOA has been raised. Town Counsel apparently contacted the State Ethics Committee, provided his report last night.  

Prior to actually getting into it, Selectman Espindola requested the board to postpone discussion until he had more time to look into the rule of necessity.  If I understood correctly he wasn't sure if the rule applied but thought it might.  Selectman Espindola it seems would have to recuse himself from the discussion otherwise.

A brief discussion over the issue took place.  Selectman Bowcock as chair eventually ruled that the rule of necessity did not apply.  

Selectman Espindola left the room, at which time the opinion was read and Selectmen Bowcock and Murphy discussed the matter.  Selectman Murphy expressed a desire to try and contact Town counsel that night to get more information of the rule of necessity.

Not sure why that would in fact be needed.  My understanding recently the board had to get an opinion from Town Counsel on the rule of necessity to deal with the changes proposed for health insurance in the town, since apparently two of the three selectmen had a conflict of interest (I understand this was because they are one the plan).

Seems it had been recently explained to them.

The long and the short of it is the two selectmen voted to go along and allow town counsel to advise the BOA, represent the building inspector and Town's interest, signing the CYA disclosure.

For everyone about to get up in arms over the issue, or who have, the Select Board Chair was, in my opinion, right.  

The rule of necessity is a pretty simple rule actually.

If a quorum of the board (or any committee) has a conflict of interest on a matter, because it is necessary for the board to act on matters, after disclosing the relevant facts, all members will be allowed to act.

NOTE:  Under the rule the quorum is not based simply of the number of members present, but rather the number of the entire seated board.  Example:  A seven person committee only has 4 members show up for a meeting.  The 4 equal a quorum necessary to conduct business.  A matter comes up and 2 of the 4 have a conflict.  None of the absent member would have a conflict.  Because there are members who do not have a conflict, the rule cannot be invoked.  The committee would have to wait until the others were in attendance to deal with the issue.

If however, using the selectmen as an example, only one member has a conflict, that still leaves a quorum with the ability to act, i.e. the remaining two members in this case.  There is not an inability to act.  

The fact you could have a tie vote is not a problem.  Tie votes are deemed to be a denial of a motion.  

What if only one member without and conflict is present and one with a conflict is present.  The rule does not apply.  The inability to obtain a quorum has to be directly and solely caused by the conflict.  The matter would have to wait until the other member was present.

I kind of alluded to this scenario pre-election a bit.  Any matter Selectman Espindola will have to recuse himself on due to the wind turbines, and as we discovered last night there will be such matters, will have to be decided by the remaining two selectmen.

Thinking it through of course any action could have been prevented.  fairly simple procedural move if that is what someone wanted or was willing to do.  How?  Simply by one selectman either: voting against the motion to allow town counsel to continue; or, by simply refusing to take any action until there was further clarification.  Seems the two remaining selectmen felt comfortable in the end.

Out of necessity, if you are out there and were hoping for relief from the board of selectmen taking action to end the agreement, and Selectman Espindola has a conflict, you are out of luck unless you can convince the two remaining selectmen.