Sherwood Forest Road Maintenance
District Prudential Committee
Informational Meeting
Approved Minutes
Committee Members Present: Robert Ronzio, Chairman; David Bonney;
Michael McEnerney; and Gilles Beaudoin
Committee Members Absent: Jerry Summit, Vice Chairman
Public Present: Eva Bonney, Robert Guevin, Patricia
McEnerney, Gail McGeer, Linda Shaw, John McGeer, David J. Corriveau, David
Devane, Nancy Devane, William Brownhill, Joyce Brownhill, Bob Forster, Marty
Feit, Dennis Guerri, Girard Grondin, Ron Boucher, Celia Boucher, Ann Tuleja,
Donald Tuleja, Linda Searles, Howard Lerner, Deb Fitzgerald, Fran Bavenik, Al
Barvenik, Katherine Smith, Ron VanBuren, Kim VanBuren, Jeanne Pryor
Meeting called to order:
Mr. Ronzio opens the meeting by
giving an overview of the enfranchisement issue and he reads from Chapter 39,
Section 23C – Regulation of Participation by Public in Open Meeting.
Mr. Ronzio introduces Attorney
Paul Sherr of the District’s law firm, Aaronson & Lucido, P.C. He notes that Attorney Sherr can answer
inquires regarding his Firm’s involvement to date with the Road District, he
will lay out the work that the Council has done regarding its review of the By-Laws
and Special Act, and he will offer the questions brought to his firm by the
Prudential Committee.
Mr. Feit comments to Ms. Smith
that he returned her phone call and he can e-mail her any information that she
would like.
Mr. Ronzio notes that a survey
letter had been mailed out to all residents in
Robert Guevin notes that he has
lived in
Joyce Brownhill states to Attorney
Paul Sherr, “We’ve always understood that the Special Act takes precedence and
the Special Act requires a vote by registered voters before anything can be
changed – does this change?” Attorney
Sherr replies with a yes. He notes that
this topic was looked at and it was found that there are inconsistencies
between the Special Act and the By-Laws.
He goes on to note that what is happening in the District currently is
that only taxpayers that reside in the Forest have a say as to how the road tax
money should be spent and that taxpayers who do not reside in the Forest do not
have a say as to how the that money is spent.
Attorney Sherr notes that this is a problem for the non-residents in
that it is basically taxation without representation. He notes that the By-Laws are derived from
the Special Act. He goes to say that the
By-Laws and the Special Act both say that if there is an inconsistency in the
By-Laws it has to be rectified.
Mrs. Brownhill comments that if
there is an inconsistency, the Special Act in Section 6 takes over. Attorney Sherr replies, “The real question is
– what is the District? Is the District
the residents or is the District all of the people who own land? The District is defined in the Special Act,
Section 1, as a combined set of land parcels.”
Attorney Sherr goes on to note that each parcel of land has an owner and
that parcel of land should be counted and heard when decisions on how tax money
is spent. Mrs. Brownhill inquires why
then in other towns and cities do only the registered voters have a say. She also inquires if the legislature has to
do something before a change to voting can take place. Attorney Sherr notes that if there are
inconsistencies in the By-Laws then you refer back to the special legislation
(Special Act). He reads from Chapter 1,
Section 6 and also from Section 2D. Mrs.
Brownhill comments that the registered voters still have to vote before
anything can be changed. Attorney Sherr
replies that he understands her reasoning; however, you cannot rely on the
By-Laws because they have inconsistencies.
He goes on to say the Prudential Committee has the power and the duty to
rectify the inconsistencies. Mrs.
Brownhill comments that the Special Act states that the registered voters have
to vote before the Committee members can commit. She notes that this is under Section 2, Legal
Affairs. Attorney Sherr notes that she
is looking under the By-Laws and this is the section that is not proper and
does comply with the intent or the languages of the Special Act. Mrs. Brownhill inquires if a member of the
legislature can come before the District to verify this. Attorney Sherr comments that it would not be
up to him to arrange for this – the Board would have to.
Katherine Smith speaks noting that
she is a landowner and an attorney. She
confirms the information that Attorney Sherr has just offered is correct.
A gentleman inquires when this
topic came about and if there was a vote done to contact the voters. He refers to the
Mr. Ronzio comments that the
Bill Brownhill speaks. He notes that Mr. Ronzio was on the previous
Prudential Committee board and that previous Board had a meeting with the
attorney and a quorum was present. Mr.
Ronzio agrees that a meeting took place at Town Hall and that the Chair at the
time, did not consider it to be an open meeting; therefore, minutes were not
taken. He goes on to say that the
current Prudential Committee was concerned about what constituted an Open
Meeting, they discussed it with the attorney, and widely made available the
laws of the Open Meeting Law, so as not to have the same problem as in previous
years. There is further discussion on
what happened in previous years.
Donald Tuleja inquires who selects
the Prudential Committee members. Mr.
Ronzio replies that there is an annual election that is held each year as part
of the District’s Annual Meeting and that each year some portion of the Prudential Committee is elected by the
district’s registered voters.
Linda Shaw inquires what the
process will be to change the By-Laws.
Attorney Sherr notes that there will be revisions to By-Laws. Revisions will include: in Chapter 1 of the By-Laws, the term
“district” as found in the Special Act will be defined as combined land
enumerated in Special Act, Section 1 and are by necessary implication, all
owners of land enumerated in Special Act, Section 1; in By-Law Chapter 2,
Section 6, the following amendments will be added, a. to specifically allow
voting by all property owners of the District as laid out in Chapter 1 and b.
each lot within the District is entitled to one vote; in Chapter 2, Section 9,
an amendment will be made to provide for creating an official District ballot,
ballot voting, absentee ballot voting, and a proxy ballot. Once these changes are made there will be a
vote by all of the landowners.
Mr. Bonney inquires that how the
Special Act can be changed before voting on the Special Act. Attorney Sherr explains that the Special Act
is not going to be changed, the By-Laws will be changed. He also notes that you cannot change the
Special Act.
Mr. Bonney inquires who will vote
on this proposed change. It is noted
that the taxpayers will vote. Attorney
Sherr refers to Chapter 2, Section 6 and notes that it is not consistent with
the Special Act. He goes on to say that
the Special Act defines the District as everybody in the District, not just the
10 percent or so that live in the District.
David Bonney inquires about the voting, one vote per lot. He inquires if you own 100 lots, do you get
100 votes. Mr. Ronzio refers to extracts
from the Committee’s
Ann Tuleja notes that it seems to
her that the By-Laws would have to be amended so as to correspond with the
Special Act. She notes that By-Laws are
amended in all forms of government and that if you have By-Laws that are in
conflict with state laws then your municipal government needs to amend
them. She notes that she feels it is
important that the By-Laws and Special Act equal each other. She also asks that when the Prudential
Committee takes a vote in the future, if they would consider taking a roll call vote so that
people not in attendance at the meeting who read the minutes will be able to
know who voted which way and why.
Howard Lerner from
Patricia McEnerney states that
currently an extremely large majority of lot owners do not have a vote in the
matters of the district. Attorney Sherr
confirms that this is correct and notes that this is why the definition to the
term “district” needs to be defined.
Gail McGeer inquires as to whose
idea it was to take away a person’s right to vote. She goes to say that currently if there are
two registered voters in the household, if passed, then only one could
vote. She also brings up the topic of
age and does it matter how old a person is to vote if they are the owner of a
lot. Mr. Ronzio notes that the topic of
age should be looked and if the age of majority is required by law it should be
specified.
Ron VanBuren inquires if the
voting will be similar to what SFNA does.
A reply of no is given.
There is further discussion on
only one person per lot being able to vote.
Attorney Sherr notes that with this change, all lots will have a
say. The concern among members of the
public is that what if owners of a lot do not agree on an item to be voted on,
and only one of them gets to vote.
Members of the audience feel that this is unfair.
A gentleman speaks and comments
that he feels that this should be looked into further, that there are too many
concerns, and that it is not ready to go to a vote. He also notes that he feels that it is a
shame the way that SFNA and SFRMD conduct themselves. He goes on to say that currently the
non-residents do have representation. If
they have a concern, they can go to a non-resident Board member to voice it and
the non-resident Board member can relay it back to the Board.
A gentleman inquires if State
legislation authorized the current By-Laws.
Attorney Sherr replies with a no, and notes that the state legislature
created the Road Maintenance District by a Special Act. The Road Maintenance District then created
By-Laws. The gentleman then asks who put in the current By-Laws that only
registered voters could vote. Attorney
Sherr notes that it was most likely done by a previous Prudential Committee.
Katherine Smith inquires from
Attorney Sherr what may happen if the inconsistencies in the By-Laws and the
Special Act remain unchanged. Attorney
Sherr notes that it could open up a possibility for liability based on taxation
without representation. He also notes
that he does not know what the consequences could be but believes in the end
the people would end up in a similar situation to make changes. There is discussion on how much it would cost
and who would have to pay for it.
Ann Tuleja inquires about the
current ratio of voters to non-voters.
Mr. Ronzio notes that the committee does not have an exact number, but
notes that there are about 1,100 lot owners in the Forest and of that about 700
– 800 are land only lot owners and that many others who own developed lots are
not residents and that both groups do not have the right to vote. Mr. Feit notes that the opinion came out 10
to 1.
There is discussion on the purpose
of this meeting, as members of the public feel the decision has already been
made. Attorney Sherr notes that this is
an informational meeting, where taxpayers can asks questions. He also reviews what the Board has already
voted to put in place and reminds the public of what rights the Board has,
being elected representatives for the District.
Mrs. Brownhill inquires if this
vote has anything to do with previous discussions of all taxpayers paying the
same amount of road taxes. Mr. Ronzio
explains that when the Board sat down with the attorney it was determined that
the main issue was a voting rights issue, not a money issue. He goes on to say that whether anything else
will change or not will be determined in the future by a vote of the District.
There is discussion as to what
other communities in Becket do. Attorney
Sherr notes that many of the By-Laws in these communities specifically allow
for proxy voting and absentee ballot voting for people who own property that do
not reside there.
There is discussion that Sherwood
Greens in Becket did what SFRMD is trying to do now. The clerk/treasurer, Ms Jeanne Pryor for
Sherwood Greens is present and she speaks on what that district has done. She
notes that Sherwood Greens used
A gentleman raises the point that
he could sue the SFRMD for not allowing him to vote for all of these
years. Mr. Ronzio notes that there are
possibly others in the same situation.
Katherine Smith inquires why
residents do not want everyone to have a vote.
Mr. Bonney address her directly
and states that first everyone will get to vote and then the next vote to come
will be on taxes, to lower them for the second home owners and the full-time
residents taxes will go up. Mr. Bonney
feels that the “little guys” will be forced out of the
Katherine Smith inquires if what
she is hearing is that people do not want to allow non-residents to vote for
fear that everyone will vote on something else.
Kim VanBuren discusses SFNA and
the amount of litigation that that Association has caused.
Attorney Sherr reviews what the
Prudential Committee has already voted on to do in regards to amending the
By-Laws. There is discussion on how the
Prudential Committee is voted in and how that will change if the amendments are
passed. Mr. Ronzio discusses absentee
ballot voting and nominations and how these items are handled in the Town of
Members of the public inquire from
the Board if they have already voted to allow everyone to vote. The answer is yes and that this meeting is an
informational meeting. Attorney Sherr
notes that the Prudential Committee represents all of the lot owners. He goes on to say that the Board has already
voted in ballot voting and that the next vote will be on whether or not to amend
the By-Laws so that all lot owners will have one vote.
Nancy Devane asks the Board to
give her a scenario where a lot owner would have more than one vote. Mr. Ronzio answers noting that he owns three
lots – one is in his name, one is in his significant others name, and the other
is in both of their names. He would have
one vote on his lot and his significant other would have a vote on the other
lot. The believes that the lot with both
of there names would not have a vote.
A question of making the voting
rules easier is raised. Members of the
public wonder why the rule can’t just be that every person age 18 and over is
allowed one vote in the District. Mr.
Ronzio refers back to the
Gail McGeer inquires how to get
rid of the current Board members before their term has expired if people are
unhappy with them. Mr. Ronzio asks
Attorney Sherr if he can explain recall.
Attorney Sherr comments that he is not present to tell people how to get
their elected Board out of office, his purpose at this meeting is to explain
the proposed changes to the By-Laws.
Joyce Brownhill inquires from Mr.
Ronzio if he has given any thought as to what will happen in the future if all
of the elected Board members are non-residents and they are not present during
the winter months. Mr. Ronzio notes that
there are provisions in the Special Act that specify the number of required
meetings the District must have; however, he states that the Chair does not
have control over who shows up for meetings to fulfill their elected duties.
There is discussion on an earlier
meeting with the attorney and that people feel that minutes should have been
taken due to the Open Meeting Law. The
Open Meeting Law is reviewed.
A point is raised that if people
have a problem with the special legislation it can be changed; however, there is
a process to follow.
A motion is made to
adjourn; seconded; unanimous approval.
Meeting
adjourned:
Respectfully
submitted,
Martin Feit
Clerk/Treasurer
cew
Signed____________________________________ Date_________________
Robert Ronzio, Chairman
Signed____________________________________ Date_________________
David Bonney
Signed____________________________________ Date_________________
Gilles Beaudoin
Signed____________________________________ Date_________________
Michael McEnerney