Ms Pecci,
My computer died a week or so ago. I am using an old machine until the new one arrives. It doesn't have the software required to open your attachments. Could you fax them to 508 765 9968.
Regardless of what the opinions say my personal intent in voting to approve the usi pf the specific language that is used in section 4-5-1 was twofold.
If you read both the old and current Town Charters you will see that the current charter significantly diminshes the powers of the Manager from those the Manager had under the original Charter. In simple terms, under the original charter the Manager effectively functioned as the Board of Selectmen and the Council as a Town Meeting.
Under the current charter the Council functions as both the Board of Selectmen and the Town Meeting.
However, I felt that the Manager as the head administrator should have authority to organize the various Town Departments as he or she deems most efficient without interference from the elected officials. Therefore reorganization plans are only subject to an up or down vote of the Council without modification.
My approval of the use of the language "under his or her jurisdiction" was to make it clear that his reorganizational powers did not extend to boards or departments which exercise decision making powers which are not subject to being overruled by the Manager. Those in my opinion are the quasi-judicial boards, Planning, Zoning, Alcohol, Health, etc. Section 4-4-2, which refers to 4-4-1 is in the charter for the same reason.
To set the charter up any other way would have allowed for removal of board members who made decisions the Manager or Council didn't like or to allow expansion of Boards to allow the appointment of "friendly" Board Members.
To sum it up it was my intent that the only way to change the number of members of a board that the Manager does not have decision making jurisdiction over was to amend the Charter itself. This email expresses my opinion only. You will have to speak with the other Charter Commission Members to get their opinions on the matter.
Mike Colognesi
Mike
----- Original Message ----- From: "Kirstie Pecci" <pecci@charter.net>
To: <mcolognesi@charterinternet.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 3:58 PM
Subject: Intent of Charter Commission
> Dear Mr. Colognesi-
>
> As we discussed earlier today, I am trying to evaluate the legality
> of the Southbridge by-law Section 3-209.1 which mandates a five-
> member BOH, contrary to the Section 4-3-1 of the Charter, which only
> allows a three member BOH. Kopelman & Paige's 7/21/03 opinion, and
> their more recent 6/3/08 opinion, both rely on the Town Manager's
> power to "reorganize" the Town government per Section 4-5-1 of the
> Charter.
>
> I have attached the Reorganization Plan #1 (8/10/04) and the 6/4/08
> opinion letter from Kopelman & Paige (sorry - I think the pages are
> out of order, and when I correct them I lose parts of the text). I
> understand that you already have a copy of the charter, the by-laws
> and the 7/21/03 K&P opinion.
>
> As an attorney, and chairman of the charter commission, is it your
> understanding that the Town Manager could increase the number of
> members of the BOH via Section 4-5-1 or was an amendment to the
> Charter necessary to increase the number of BOH members? Your input
> would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Please let me know if you need any further information. Thank you-
>
> Kirstie Pecci
> 508-347-5507
