COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

Sherwood Forest Road Maintenance District

Prudential Committee Meeting

Saturday, May 12, 2007

Committee Members Present: Robert Ronzio, Chairman; Gilles Beaudoin; David Bonney; Michael McEnerney; Marty Feit, Clerk-Treasurer

Committee Members Absent: Jerry Summit, Vice Chairman

Public Present: Al Barvenik, Fran Barvenik, Eva Bonney, Celia Boucher, Ron Boucher, Bill Brownhill, Joyce Brownhill, Chuck Clemons, Margaret Clemons, Patricia Clemons, David Colpitts, Diana Colpitts, Dave Devane, Jennifer Discowicz, Laurie Discowicz, Scott Dunn, Joseph Dupuis, Judith Dupuis, Deb Fitzgerald, Lyle Forster, Murielle Forster, Gail Garland, Gerald Grondin, Steven Grondin, Robert Guevin, Dennis Guineri , Angela Hilton, Mary Kay Jubok, Dennis LaChapelle, Edward LaForest, Allen Labonbard, Sandra Labonbard, Blanche Lennington, John Lennington, Howard Lerner, Richard Marx, Patricia McEnerney; Gail McGeer, John McGeer, Eugene Norton, John Novakowski, Joan Sobol, Steve Sobol <<plus two individuals whose names were illegible as written on the sign-in sheet.>>

Meeting called to order at 1:00 PM

Mr. Ronzio reports that the District has received some letters from the Secretary of State regarding this meeting. The first letter was dated May 3^rd and was received after the May 5^th meeting. This letter is an order against the District regarding any planned voting at today’s meeting. Mr. Ronzio reads a letter from the District’s attorney to the Secretary of State which addresses this order. It states that today’s meeting will be held for informational purposes only. No vote or tally taken at today’s meeting will be binding. The Secretary of State’s current interpretation of the Legislative Act which established the District is that only registered voters in the Town of Becket who reside in Sherwood Forest may cast votes in any election, vote, or meeting of the District. (Full text of this letter is attached to the official copy of these minutes kept in the District’s records.)

Mr. Ronzio says that ballots being used today which say “Official Ballot” are actually unofficial ballots. He explains how the three polling stations (for registered voters in the town, for proxies, and for stakeholders who are not registered voters in the town) are set up. Mr. Bonney opines that the proxy ballots can not be legally accepted, saying that anyone turning in a proxy vote is in essence voting more than once. Mr. Ronzio stresses that it is not a vote – it is an informational poll only. Mr. Bonney advises all present that he will take the names of those turning in proxy ballots and will report them to the Attorney General.

Multiple disgruntled comments come from the floor. There is unrest regarding proxy ballots and regarding using Road District money for taking unofficial opinion polls. Mr. McGeer apologies to Mr. Summit; he had said at a previous meeting that Mr. Summit had said to photograph and document the culverts and deal with it [the Conservation Commission] later; he now says it was Mr. McEnerney who made that statement. Mr. McGeer says regarding the minutes, what people are shown to have said in the minutes becomes the record. He says that previously he had said he knows nothing about the roads but Mr. Labonbard was there and said that he did know about the roads. The minutes of this exchange came out saying that John McGeer said he knew about roads. He says that in the current meeting corrections can be made to the minutes of previous meetings so there is a record of what has been corrected. He also takes issue with minutes of meetings being released out of sequence. Mr. Feit asks Mr. McGeer if he has email. Ms. Patricia Clemons, Mr. McGeer’s daughter says they come to her and she gives them to her father. Mr. Feit advises Mr. McGeer to contact him regarding any inaccuracies he sees in the minutes and they will be verified and corrected if needed.

Mr. Bonney tells Mr. Ronzio that he needs to read the order from the Secretary of State against the District. Mr. Ronzio does so. (Full text of this letter is attached to the official copy of these minutes kept in the District’s records.)

Ms. Fitzgerald asks why it is that when the state contacted the District’s attorney, the attorney’s position was, “we can do it anyway,” so the state had to issue an order to stop the proposed activity. Mr. Ronzio says this is because there is some difference in interpretation of the law. Ms. Fitzgerald asks how much it is costing the District to hire an attorney to come up with this interpretation. Mr. Ronzio says this is a difference that has been going on since the inception of the District; people are disenfranchised and people who are voters in the district can’t vote by absentee ballot. He says it was discussed and the committee decided to pursue the matter under the guidance of the District’s attorney. Ms. Fitzgerald says she recalls it being a very contentious issue – she doesn’t recall the voters saying to pursue it. Mr. Ronzio says it was put to the District that this vote was going to take place and there was an interpretation that people who were disenfranchised could vote. Ms. Fitzgerald asks how they are disenfranchised when they are perfectly able to register to vote in the town. Mr. Ronzio says the difference is the town and Sherwood Forest are two separate and distinct entities. He says Sherwood Forest was established by charter as a private community. Mr. Bonney says the Road District is a legislated municipality. Mr. Ronzio begs to differ.

Mr. Bonney says the order must be complied with. Mr. Ronzio says an agreement was made. Ms. Fitzgerald says we see no agreement – we just see a letter from the District’s attorney. Mr. Ronzio says no vote is being done. He says the agreement was that an informational poll could be conducted.

Mr. Clemons asks if, according to the letter from the District’s attorney, no vote or tally shall be taken, why should people even want to vote today? Mr. Ronzio responds that the letter says that no vote or tally shall have any “binding effect”. Mr. Grondin asks why this is being pursued. Mr. Clemons agrees, saying he would like to know the reason. Mr. Ronzio says the intent was to gather information because the District’s attorney and the Secretary of the Commonwealth, in discussions that took place, were concerned as to how people in the District felt. He says the way the informational poll was going to be conducted is that they wanted to make sure that it was only people who were in the District who were filling out the informational poll. He says that registered voters have a right to their opinion; stakeholders have a right to their opinion; and those people who could not be present could fill out proxies and have them turned in. Mr. Guevin asks how signatures on proxies are verified. Mr. Ronzio says this is the same issue that the town has when people go in to vote at a regular election. He again stresses that what is happening today is not “voting”. He says that when you go into vote [in a town election] you can be required to show ID so he says lots of people could go in and vote at one time and you wouldn’t know whether they were, in fact, the person they said they were. Mr. Bonney asks how it will be determined today that someone lives in the Forest. Mr. Ronzio responds that, contrary to what Mr. Bonney’s previous claim that the town would not comply with the District, the Town Clerk did provide a Voter Registration list and the Town Assessor provided a list of property owners. Mr. McGeer says everyone can vote by doing what his family did when they came here. He says though, that when you become a registered voter in the town you have to register the car here and pay taxes on that. He says you can register to vote here, then after the election, go back and re-register in your other town.

Mr. McGeer then asks, “Who is ‘The District’?” Mr. Ronzio says maybe Mr. McGeer can enlighten him. Someone says, “The District is the Registered Voters.” Mr. McGeer cites Section 13, Acts 1982 380 which he reads as, “The Prudential Committee shall be responsible for the expenditures and shall expend . . . for the purpose prescribed by the District . . . the money so raised and borrowed by the District.” He says this doesn’t mean that the Treasurer borrows and takes issue with Mr. Feit saying at the last meeting that he acted according to what the lawyer and the bank said.

Ms. Barvenik says that “one vote per parcel of land” would mean that she would have to give up her vote. Mr. Ronzio says this meeting does not talk about taking anybody’s vote away. He says though that Sherwood Greens is actually doing that. Someone says their bylaws are totally different and Mr. Ronzio agrees. Someone says this should be put to a vote of the registered voters. Many comments come at once from the floor. Mr. Ronzio calls for order.

Ms. Bonney calls for Mr. Ronzio’s resignation. Mr. Bonney agrees, saying he should resign for his actions and misappropriation of money. Mr. Bonney says that Mssrs. Summit and Feit should also resign. Mr. Ronzio says the District represents over a thousand lot owners; every one of them pays into the District’s coffers every year. Mr. Bonney asks how many unregistered voters own property in the town but can’t vote. Mr. Ronzio says this is totally different. Mr. Bonney says we are a legislated municipality and can not go against Mass. Law. He says to Mr. Ronzio, “You have spent more than twelve thousand dollars of District money – misappropriated. The bylaws weren’t made to change the voting. The only reason we assembled was to do the roads.” He says that if Mr. Ronzio won’t remove himself from office maybe the Attorney General will persuade him.

Ms. Jubok speaks saying that she is a registered voter. She says maybe the Prudential Committee made the wrong choice but they did have information from both registered and unregistered voters and that information should be used. Much of what she says in inaudible on the tape but she also says she does not think Mr. Ronzio should resign.

Mr. Bonney says that the District’s attorney has never spoken with the Attorney General. Mr. Ronzio clarifies the letters that have been generated regarding these issues. The first letter came from the Elections Division and was signed by Kristin Green, an attorney at the Elections Division of the Secretary of the Commonwealth. The second letter came from the Secretary of State. The third letter was a response from the District’s attorney and an agreement between the two parties as to what could be done “because they wanted to see what the information was”. He says it is his understanding that the District’s attorney has been in contact with the Secretary of the Commonwealth regarding this matter.

Mr. Ronzio says again that what is taking place today is not an official vote and has no binding effect on anyone or anything. Ms. Patricia Clemons asks if the District doesn’t have all that information already from the questionnaire that was sent out several months ago? Why is it needed again? Mr. Ronzio says the intent initially was to actually formally do this but the Commonwealth said “No,” so it is now an unofficial poll “and they were asking to collect the data from this particular meeting. That’s what they said. They agreed that we could do this because it was mailed to every single owner in the Forest.”

Ms. Hilton speaks, saying that the information was not mailed to every single owner in the Forest. She says Mr. Guevin, for one, did not receive it. Mr. Ronzio says it was known that there would be some people who probably would not get it and as a result the information was posted in accordance with the bylaws and with state law which says it needs to be posted at the Town Hall and at each entrance to the Forest by a Constable. Ms. Hilton asks what about second homeowners who were not here during that time and wouldn’t have seen it. Mr. Feit says that about thirty came back out of all the ones that were sent out. He also says that he has spoken with Mr. Guevin about correcting his address; currently mailings go to the address where his tax bill goes. Ms. Hilton says she’d just like it to be understood that there are likely others in the same situation as Mr. Guevin.

Ms. Brownhill says she thinks the full purpose of wanting this vote has not been addressed. She feels that the concept of “flat tax” should be brought into the discussion as this was something that was on the table a few years ago and she feels there is a connection. She asks if any study has been done of who currently pays what. Mr. Ronzio says there were many informal polls done about that particular issue but that is not the issue that is before us. The issue is whether or not people have the right to vote. He says the District may be formed like a quasi-municipality but it is not a municipality. Mr. Feit found that out when he talked to [Town Assessor] Susan Donnelly and others . . .

<<Tape #1 ends here; Tape #2 opens with Mr. Ronzio and Mr. Bonney arguing about who provides what information for meetings>>

Ms. Barvenik says having one vote per property takes away votes from people and she feels the reason behind it is to reach a flat tax. Mr. Ronzio says there are lots of people who are disenfranchise every time the District meets. He says he can vote in a town election by absentee ballot but that’s not possible in the Road District.

Mr. Brownhill says that when Mr. Aaronson was hired as attorney for the Road District he said that only registered voters in the town could vote in the Road District but now he’s changed his mind.

Ms. McEnerney says that taxation without representation is unfair.

Mr. Grondin says he votes in Springfield and his wife votes here. He asks, “When you vote by absentee ballot, who makes it out?” Mr. Ronzio replies, “I do.” Mr. Grondin and others interpret this as saying that Mr. Ronzio makes out all absentee ballots. Mr. Ronzio clarifies this, explaining that individuals make out their absentee ballots and mail them in. There is general discussion about absentee ballots and various methods of voting.

Ms. Garland says she thinks that a lot of people don’t want everyone to get the vote because then there will be a flat tax. She says she lives on a lake and pays almost three thousand dollars in real estate taxes which she doesn’t argue with but she doesn’t understand why she pays one thousand dollars a year to use the roads that everyone else uses. She uses the analogy of the Turnpike where everyone pays the same rate to use the same roads.

Ms. Lennington asks if proxy votes are legal in any state or town elections in Massachusetts. Mr. Ronzio responds that they are in Sherwood Greens. He says their Road Maintenance District was modeled after the Sherwood Forest Road Maintenance District but they modified them to have proxy voting. He says that at a previous meeting Sherwood Greens’ secretary Ms. Pryor explained this to the assembled body. Ms. Lennington says it’s interesting that when the roads are compared to Sherwood Greens we’re told that we’re totally different from the Greens but when voting is compared then we’re told we’re the same. She says that when Mr. Pryor, the Road Superintendent of the Greens offered some input on road maintenance – about scraping the sides so the water will drain properly – he was told by Mr. Summit that the roads in the Greens were much flatter, more this, more that, etc., the Forest is totally different. Mr. Ronzio says that in many respects Mr. Summit was correct – that the roads in the Forest were constructed differently. He says in terms of the roads not being maintained, that’s correct – the roads in the Forest have been driven on since the 60’s and with the dollar amount that’s being paid by individuals in the Forest versus the dollar amount being paid elsewhere we’ll never be able to catch up. He says, “We either have to raise additional funds – because they have been neglected, neglected, neglected and I will be the first person to say that the swales on the side of the roads – you know – I know an awful lot about roads and I have to tell you that one thing has happened over the past year and that is that there are people who are in this audience that are now talking to roads and they’re talking about things that they had never ever talked about before and I attribute that partly to my educating the people in here about – as to what needs to be done because if they wanted to do it they should have done it twenty-something years ago because it wasn’t being done.” He speaks about the formation of windrows along the sides of the roads which has happened over twenty years and says it’s because many people aren’t paying enough in road taxes and he thinks that’s unfair. If people paid their fair share then maybe the roads would be better and he thinks that if people in the Forest were allowed to vote on this they would agree. He says there’s not enough revenue being brought in to maintain the roads yet people want the roads maintained to look like Sherwood Greens or Becket Woods or Indian Lakes and it can’t be done with the amount of money that’s being collected.

Ms. McGeer speaks to the condition of the roads in 1977, saying the roads were only really bad when it got muddy but the roads were well maintained then for less money. She speaks to the amount of money repeatedly spent on fixing and re-fixing Carriage Road with no lasting result.

Ms. Forster speaks, saying that she spoke with Richard Steward at the Attorney General’s office and is very upset that this information was somehow conveyed to Mr. Bonney. She says she doesn’t believe three quarters of what she’s hearing because Mr. Steward told her he can not discuss with her anything that he discussed with Mr. Bonney. She asked him how Mr. Bonney knew she had called and was told she’d have to speak with his supervisor. She asked about letters that he supposedly sent and he declined to tell her about them. She also spoke to another person who is dealing with the A.G.’s office and says she got other valuable information which she will not go into. She does know for a fact that the Road District is being looked into from its inception because according to the A.G.’s office the District has never been run the way the Legislature set it up. She says the Prudential Committee has historically made changes at will and unless someone brings it up to the proper authorities, legal or not, it’s done. She reiterates that the investigation currently going on goes back to 1982.

Mr. Guevin asks if the information being gathered will be used to force the state to change some of the bylaws. Mr. Ronzio says no, the state says they’re interested in finding out what the constituency within the District feels; they didn’t say what they were going to do with it.

Mr. Boucher says the registered voters have to vote on issues. Mr. Ronzio says the registered voters don’t vote on every single thing that the Road District does – that’s the purpose of the Prudential Committee. Mr. Boucher says [the voters] always voted on hiring a lawyer and how much money would be spent on that. He asks, why not have a vote of the registered voters whether or not to pursue “all this nonsense”. Mr. Bonney says that’s what he asked for eleven months ago. Mr. Ronzio says the bylaws and the Special Act were set up so that there would be representation, not only of the registered voters, but the people who are paying the freight. He reads from the Special Act about election of Prudential Committee members. Mr. Bonney says that “assessed real estate” had never been defined as being owned by registered or unregistered voters – this has been passed by. Mssrs. Ronzio and Bonney discuss the Act vs. the bylaws. Mr. Ronzio says that Mr. Bonney is saying that nonresident stakeholders have no vote or say whatever in the District. Mr. Bonney says that’s what he was told.

Mr. LaChapelle says everyone here has the right to become a registered voter in the Town of Becket, then they can have all the say that anyone else does. Ms. Brownhill says if she were to buy a second home somewhere she could not, according to state law, vote there. She says that in Sherwood Greens and Becket Woods, the Road Districts are affiliated with their mandatory associations and that is why they were set up the way they are. Mr. Ronzio says they are private communities just like Sherwood Forest. Ms. Brownhill says people buying in the Forest are advised of the Road District and the associated rules before buying. Mssrs. Beaudoin and Feit say that no, that’s not the case. Mr. Ronzio says many people predate the District. Ms. Brownhill asks then, why didn’t they voice their opposition when the District was being established? Mr. Ronzio says there are a lot of times when things are pushed through and not everybody is aware of them. Ms. Brownhill says to Mr. Beaudoin that she doesn’t understand how he didn’t know about the Road District before he bought. He says that they stopped advising people of it when the covenants ran out. He says he never knew until he received a tax bill from the Town of Becket saying that he was late.

Ms. Hilton asks Mr. Ronzio if the people have the ability to impeach him and, if so, how that would be done. He says he doesn’t know.

Someone [Mr. McEnerney?] asks if the informational poll can be gotten on with.

Mr. Ronzio closes Public Participation and directs those who wish to cast informational ballots to the various stations.

Someone asks how the ballots from those who are not here will be verified. Mr. Ronzio says they are signed. General discussion breaks out among those present and Mr. Ronzio is looking for someone to man “Station A” when the recording stops. It resumes with Mr. Elovirta, Chief of Police, speaking.

Mr. Elovirta introduces himself and says he was called in because there is some confusion about what is happening here today. He says there have been a lot of various forms of communication back and forth between the Town Clerk, the A.G.’s office, and Road District officials. He says there can be no official vote taken here today. Anything that happens today is strictly informational. The only ones who can vote in the Road District are those who own property within the District and are also registered to vote in the town. He says this is state law. Someone asks then, “This is not a vote, right?” He confirms that saying it is not binding on anything. Someone asks, “So you’re saying only registered voters can vote on what they’re asking?” Mr. Elovirta says it’s like the annual town meeting in that if you’re not a registered voter in the town you’re still welcome to come to the Town Meeting and voice your opinion but you may not vote. Ms. Brownhill asks if voting can be done in Sherwood Greens by non-registered voters; Mr. Elovirta’s understanding is that they go by state law as well – he says he may be wrong but he believes the legislation is the same. Someone asks, even though unregistered voters may not vote in the SFRMD, can they express their opinions in this ballot today? Mr. Elovirta says yes, they can express their opinion and reiterates that what is happening here today is strictly a public opinion poll. He says if it was official you would have to be a property owner in Sherwood Forest and also a registered voter in the Town of Becket to vote. Someone asks if you sign your name to something you hand in today, can it be used? Mr. Elovirta says it can’t be used to try to force any bylaws or anything like that. There are some questions about proxy votes and Mr. Ronzio stresses that there are no votes being taken today – it is strictly an opinion poll.

<<Transcriber’s note: The recording stops here (well before the tape ends) with no record of further activity or adjournment.>>

/bl