SELECTBOARD MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 26, 2022

What You Need to Know:

• The Selectboard was reorganized, with Marcia Calloway named Chair and Mary Layton Vice-Chair. We are very encouraged by Marcia’s chairing. She welcomed public participation throughout, without taking away from the effective running of the meeting. Thank you Marcia!

• The RFP for a town wide reappraisal as ordered by the State was approved and is due back November 21st. Responses will be reviewed by a committee composed of the assessor, the listers, a selectboard member, a member of the board of civil authority, and a member of the public. The Listers objected to how the RFP process was run and to reopening consideration of what software to support as well as to the tight timeline and the new committee established to review the responses of the RFP.

• Roger Arnold and Mary Layton were appointed to lead the collective bargaining negotiations in the absence of a Town Manager.

• Selectboard has a lot of topics they want to cover while they need to prepare the budget and figure out how to keep the town operating in between Town Managers. Aaron will be the liaison with Rod Francis to ensure a smooth transition. \

• The Selectboard is required to start meeting in person in January. Tracy Hall has heat and ventilation issues that need to be addressed before then.

• The next Selectboard Meeting is November 9th.

Board Organization

The first order of business appointing a new chair and vice chair. There were over 50 participants in the town Zoom. Rod Francis ran the process for nominating the chair.

Marcia nominated Mary, Mary nominated Marcia and Marcia elected chair. Marcia stated that she intends to chair the meetings to follow secretary of state guidelines, which restricts the responsibilities as chair to managing the meetings. Marcia intends for the workload that Roger, as chair, has taken entirely onto himself, to be shared among the board members. The board discussed taking turns being responsible for setting meeting agendas. The board agreed to a work schedule, directed by the chair, around budget seasons, which will be the focus of meetings for the remainder of this Selectboard. Rob Gere will control Zoom sessions during selectboard meetings. Marcia expressed interest in having the entire board sign warrants. The board agreed to continue to have the Chair or Vice Chair to sign warrants.

Public Comments

John Cushman: thinks it’s important to seek consensus and encourages an attempt to move to a middle ground that’s suitable for everybody. He urges everybody who is engaged in a dispute about town processes to drop disputes and to attempt to make common ground. John called out those who are in litigation with the town to drop it and those proposing an overhaul of systems to seek consensus among the citizens about how processes should work. John is not interested in getting involved in town government. He believes he’s part of the silent majority who wants people to get together and do what’s right for the town and civil discourse.

Liz Blum: agreed with John’s comment. On behalf of herself and many other residents, wanted to thank Rod for his work. She thinks Rod is one of the best town managers the town has ever had and has worked under very difficult conditions.

Lily Trajman: asked the board to consider bringing the in person meetings before the January deadline since other boards and committees have been meeting in person for several months. Lily believes we’re missing some of the town's civility because we’re so disconnected on Zoom.

Peter Orner: asked the board to reconsider the decision that was made two weeks ago with respect to the Moore Lane bridge. We still have public health questions and are missing input from public health officials. The tests were done on one day, not sampling from several days, which hid the amount of leakage. The cost of the containment structure is not prudent as it approaches $100k. Peter asks the board to consider how much it will cost to dismantle the bridge on top of the containment.

Jaan Laaspere: suggested meeting agendas and timing of the executive portion of the meetings. Asked to set the executive sessions as the last agenda item so people are able to join for all of the public part of the meeting, including the correspondence which has been at the end.

Arline Rotman: chair of the development review board. She’s had the privilege of working with Rod Francis. He’s one of the most competent and untiring public servants she’s worked with. She’s ashamed of this town. Criticism, “nothing is good enough, everything is bad” that has fractured the town. Seek consensus and leave antagonism behind. Norwich is a wonderful place to live and right now it’s very troublesome. She hopes there will be an outpouring of appreciation for Rod Francis given that he has worked in a very difficult political environment.

Stuart Richards: It’s important that we meet in person. Encourages the town to revisit putting a band-aid on the bridge, which is a mistake since it has to be demolished. Also took issue with the press release issued by the board on 10/24, saying that there was an “unwarranted level of criticism.” This misses the point. The reason for scrutiny and reverse the lack of transparency on the board is that it was necessary to file public records requests to get information. Stuary hopes the board will be more transparent and open to the public in a way that they haven’t been previously. As far as the departure of Mr Francis, there are a lot of past and present employees who feel a lot different than what was expressed by a couple of people in their public comments.

Marshall Heinberg: Rod seems like a competent and effective communicator, but there has been an enormous void of information and there’s been an outcry of requests for explanations.

The facts are that we lost a lot of DPW employees and police, which causes anxiety and concern. People asked for explanations, and what the plans could be. The board only increased anxiety by stonewalling. Marshall agrees that in person would help. All of us would like to have a conciliatory tone but it’s hard when the board is stonewalling.

Linda Cook: Linda learned of new information coming out on the bridge (at Moore Lane). It was designed and built with the assistance of the state. If the bridge work was new and it failed, depending on what grant paid for it, is there assistance from the state to help fund the project?

Susan Barrett: wanted to thank the selectboard members and the town staff. She works for the state of Vermont and knows how hard the members’ jobs are. Wants to know how she can help out and is willing to step up and join a committee. Susan thanked Rod Francis for serving.

Marcia Calloway summarized that everyone wants the best for Norwich and people feel we have different ways to get there. We need to respect everyone’s opinion and will be a better community if we learn to hear each other.

Town Wide Reappraisal RFP

Rod shared a revised draft for the RFP and a memo summarizing the changes (in the packet at http://norwich.vt.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/SB-packet-10-26-2022.pdf). Rod used a template that’s been used by other towns and provided it as the packet was being assembled to the Listers for comment. There is a time crunch because a plan needs to be filed with the State by December 9th. The plan has to show that the town is under contract with a firm to do a townwide reappraisal and the date that the work will be done. The board has spoken about the chicken and egg problem about choosing software first or contractor first. If the Listers are comfortable with AssessPro (the current software), then it’s fine to seek a contractor that works with that software. Rod proposes that if a contractor that uses a different software presents it to a committee, including the Listers, for approval and could start sooner or come in cheaper, we should consider it. This is because of the time constraints and because other towns are booking out to the end of 2027 for a process that takes more than a year, we have five years to start the process, and there are a finite number of vendors on the state approved list. Since AssessPro is popular Rod thinks it’s a long shot but worth pursuing. Rod’s memo also suggests that the Listers’ should not negotiate with respondents individually and that all materials will be considered on equal footing. Note that this is the process in the town master financial policy (http://norwich.vt.us/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Master-Financial-Policy-signed-11-18-2020-w-amended-Fund-Bal-Policy.pdf). Rod pulled the number of parcels and total area of land from the State website and doesn’t know where the Listers’ corrections come from. Rod clarified why it’s relevant to make material from the previous appraisal available to those replying to the RFP as well as other minor issues noted in the packet.

Roger says this document is clearer than the previous draft and that we’ve worked on the software question, appreciates the memo summarizing the RFP, and he is prepared to move forward. Aaron echoed that he appreciates the memo and believes the changes are appropriate and is in favor of the RFP. Mary appreciates the thought and clarity and plans to support the RFP. Robert said the previous document was clear as mud and this is much more understandable.

Marcia’s concern was that the Listers should be leading this process, not the Selectboard. The Listers are elected officials like the Selectboard members. Marcia appreciates Rod’s time in this but hesitates and pushes it on the Selectboard. The process Rod Francis is proposing to put the RFP in front of a board is different from other RFPs the town has used in the past. Marcia is worried about how much time this will take and whether it’ll be possible to meet the deadline of Dec. 9th. Marcia wants to hear from the Listers.

Cheryl Lindberg, as Lister: the Listers put the draft RPF out to the Board a long time ago to get comments, and would have been glad to sit down with Rod to review their draft about that never happened. The Listers presented twice to the board but never heard back. Rod never engaged with the Listers to sit down and hear his comments. The Listers went forward with an RFP they took from the Vermont Assessors and Listers Association website. They felt they came to a point with a new RFP that was much shorter and to the point than back when KRT bid on the previous proposal and the Selectboard rejected that response. It’s disappointing to get to this point and get an email telling the Listers what they’re going to do with this process. The Listers would have liked the chance to go over dates and other points ahead of time. The listers provided feedback on the RFP as quickly as they could, that they should be up to date on their numbers from the form lodged in June with the State of Vermont.

Marcia asked Cheryl if the Listers can accomplish what they need by Dec 9th with the draft that Rod has presented. The Selectboard will need to have a special meeting to address a recommendation from the Listers because the timing is tight.

Marcia is worried about getting the Listers prepared for December 9th.

Cheryl clarified that the RFP, if approved, has a date of November 28th for all responses. The Listers will need to review the responses and make a recommendation to the Selectboard for approval before December 9th.

Roger asked for clarification on what the question to the Listers and Marcia repeated the question. Cheryl replies that there is as long as there’s a Selectboard meeting after November 28th and before December 9th.

Roger Arnold is concerned that there are others that need to be consulted in this process, because there are consequences for others that depend on the software. Roger proposes moving forward with the RFP and then discussing who reviews the responses and at what schedule. Roger asks where the updated numbers are from.

Cheryl clarifies that the Listers updated numbers on the RFP come from the most recent Grand List that was lodged with the State in June. Cheryl also clarifies that the software is used solely for assessment purposes. The Listers have reviewed three different software packages. That’s entered into the Listers’ database, which is then used from the website by others in the town through a view only portal on the town website from Patriot Properties. The Listers are the only office that uses the software, since it is solely used for assessment. No other office is making modifications or adding information to the database.

Roger claimed that it’s been established that other offices use the software and Cheryl clarified that those offices use the Grand List, not the assessment software.

Marcia asks Cheryl about the Listers’ change that allows for respondents who do not use the approved software to make proposals as long as they’re demonstrated before the response to the RFP.

Cheryl asks who new software would be demonstrated to and how it would be possible with the timeline the town is now facing. Later in the RFP, Rod identifies that the software would be presented to the board of Listers. Cheryl stated that the Listers are very familiar with all the software options and it’s not something they’ve taken lightly. The Listers are good with people moving forward and allowing respondents to propose alternative software packages. Cheryl also clarified that it’s not the respondents’ software, the software is provided by third party vendors that the reappraisal firms use.

Aaron wants to know if this discussion will modify the proposal and noted that the discussion was 20 minutes over time.

Marcia wants to know who the group is that will review the software proposals.

Aaron clarified that this is the next agenda item.

Roger moved to accept and have the Town Manager's office the RFP as submitted by the Town Manager with the amendments to the numbers by the Listers from the form filed in June. Mary second the motion.

Cheryl clarified that the Listers will send out the RFP. Roger’s motion was to have the Town Manager release the RFP. Cheryl is disappointed in the interactions taking place between coequal elected representatives.

Marcia wonders why it’s necessary for the Town Manager to send out the RFP instead of the Listers.

Rod says it’s customary for the Town Manager’s office to release RFPs, they have access to the list of approved vendors and post it on the town webpage. He’ll coordinate with the Listers to make sure it goes out to as broad a set of assessors as possible. The town pushes RFPs to generic vendors’ sites including VLCT. The Town Manager’s office controls the process so if there are questions about the process the Town Manager cna comprehensively answer those questions.

Cheryl clarified that the last time the RFP was sent, the Listers sent the RFP to all the appraisers who are approved by the State.

Rod clarified that not all RFPs are issued are reviewed by the Town Manager, in some cases RFPs are reviewed by a panel of staff, Selectboard and members of the public, such as when the IT Vendor was selected. Rod said it was important to have Listers, assessor, and other people identified in the RFP as part of the review process. Rod is concerned that the payment for the services encumbers the town directly, it’s not a Lister’s liability. The due process question is that if there’s a vendor who is aggrieved they take action against the town of Norwich, not against the Listers, which is why the Town Manager’s office is responsible for the RFP process.

Neil Fulton: was involved in the writing of the RFP when the software was chosen. If the SB wants to consider other software, to be fair to other vendors, the criteria needs to be made clear. Neil says that since the Listers, a separately elected body, chose the current software, if the RFP is open to other software, the criteria should be in the RFP.

Roger claimed that the criteria is in the RFP. A review of the RFP shows that the only criteria listed is “Suitability.”

Pam Smith, Lister: is disappointed in how the conversation is going, which was the issue in the meeting with Mary last week. The Listers are responsible for this process and there won’t be a Town Manager on November 28th. Parm would like to use the process from last year under the previous town manager, when the Listers ran the process. Pam called out Roger for speaking out of turn without being recognized.

Marcia called for coming together to get this process done. Given the time pressure Marcia wants to get the process moving forward expediently. If the RFP is sent out through the Town Manager’s office, they need to be coordinated with and the Listers’ need to be given due deference.

Stuart Richards: why is this even an issue, this software has been used for years according to the Listers and the paid professional who helps them. Doesn’t understand why the Town Manager is interjecting, no one else on the board has done this job, why are they getting in the way? Stuart thinks the Listers should move forward with the software they have selected.

Susan Barrett: asked what other towns do, whether we do the same practices as other towns.

Cheryl: every town in Vermont is different. Norwich has tried to follow what our district advisor recommends and we’ve followed her suggestions. Cheryl wants to send it from the Listers’ email and it’s responded to the listers. Some towns follow this process, others follow a different process.

Marcia asks how the responses will get to the Listers’ in a timely fashion given changes in the Town Manager’s office. The RFP says it should be responded to at the Lister’s email address.

Marcia calls the question. The vote is unanimous in favor of the RFP.

Mary made a second motion to establish a panel, led by the town assessor, composed of the Listers, one Selectboard member, one member of the Board of Civil Authority, and one member of the public, to review responses to the RFP. Rob seconds.

Roger says this is a good thing since we don’t have a full board of listers and this will more meaningfully involve the BCA who hears appeals. More voices looking at the criteria will suit the town.

Cheryl commented that this is burdensome, that the Listers make the recommendation to the Selectboard without the addition of others. There will be people on a committee who don’t understand the importance of the work that gets done in the office. Cheryl is surprised to hear about this for the first time at a Selectboard meeting and not being approached ahead of time to discuss it.

Marcia asks for a roll call vote. Four are in favor, Marcia votes against.

The third motion is that the Selectboard solicit applications from the public to sit on the panel, the Selectboard appoint a member to sit on the panel, and invite the BCA to appoint a member to sit on the panel.

The vote is again four in favor, Marcia against.

Appointment of Arnold and Layton to the collective bargaining agreement

Roger explains the Town Manager has done these duties, instead the board members will serve. The reason to appoint Roger and Mary is because collective bargaining will continue after March and Roger and Mary are not up for reelection in March. The negotiations will be warned meetings going into executive session working with the legal team.

Marcia asks if two people are required and Roger believes so for having more diversity of thought. It was asked for by the attorney. If the board wants more updates along the way, the board can ask for updates, then there were in the last process. The meetings will be closed doors because of the nature of the content.

Linda Cook comments that she is concerned there won’t be a Town Manager around. The town voted to have a Town Manager and the Selectvoard can’t act as the Town Manager. There is a resource that can refer retired Town Managers to step in. When Rod steps down there needs to be an acting Town Manager.

Marcia asks if we can revert to the new Town Manager or if the board members will stay with the process to conclusion. Roger says there is always space for a Selectboard member in the conversation. It would lessen the need for two when the Town Manager is involved. The board will rely on legal counsel to guide through the process. Rod confirms.

Manu Tesone asks, since neither Roger nor Mary have experience negotiating collective bargaining agreements, what commercial support will be provided to the board.

Mary asks for clarification what commercial advice means.

Marcia asks whether this means legal advice.

Manu asks the board to clarify what the collective bargaining will include, will it include compensation and benefits? Marcia confirms. Manu asks what support, for example, gathering market data in other statistics to allow the town to negotiate with union representatives when it comes to setting compensation for union employees, which is 80% of our town budget. There is legal counsel, what kind of commercial support does the board have access to?

Rod clarifies that part of the process for RFQ for legal services for labor negotiations including collective bargaining includes selecting a firm that has experience representing municipalities with the Vermont led board. The firm that was selected has deep experience in this regard including accessing the economic analysis that Manu was referencing. As part of the process of Rod onboarding the team they had a discussion about Norwich’s history with the current agreement and how to determine the significance of the regional labor market versus the overall labor market and how to determine peer towns. Had a lengthy and intellectual discussion about it and one of the easiest values to measure is the grand list of the town. The grand list of Norwich is about the same as Montpelier. Other than that, the towns down have much in common. Norwich has a similar grand list to Woolmington which has more in common. The factors and features need to be compared to assess the prevailing wage rates. They’ve gathered informal information about the bargaining agreements in surrounding towns and have them from further away. The attorney John Fleish is used to putting together collective bargaining agreements and negotiating them and is comfortable being able to establish what prevailing wage rates are. The union is also going to rely on similar kinds of information. The board members will think about where the town is at, the police situation, listen to the attorney, receive advice from the attorney in terms of strategy and tactics and move towards a brisk solution and a new collective bargaining agreement that represents the best interests of the town and supports the workers.

Stuart Richards, member of the Board of Civil Authority: there’s a great deal of information on what market rates are available through the VLCT, updated every year. It’s a valuable tool to determine where we ought to be for the positions we’re hiring for. Appreciate whoever is involved to get a copy of the current edition from VLCT for the current wage rates available. When the question was asked via PRA the answer was that there was no information available for the town. It’s important that we get current hiring rates.

Rob moves to appoint Mary and Roger to the Collective Bargaining committee, Aaron seconds. The vote is unanimous.

Executive Session regarding Open Meeting Law

On October 17, 2002 Selectboard received a notice of alleged violation of the open meeting law. After deliberation the Selectboard denies the notice of violation. The motion passed unanimously.

Consent agenda was unanimously approved

Future agenda items

Mary wants to move quickly to find an interim Town Manager, call Municipal Resources Inc and VLCT. On the budget process, the departments will need to submit their budgets. What role will the Selectboard play? Think about identifying from the Town Manager’s point of view to get his priorities and todo list.

Roger clarifies that the Separation agreement has Aaron participating in the hand off. The board would have the budget that exists, updated. Roger suggests having a download from Aaron of the document and someone preparing a budget schedule. The schedule last year had meetings with a department then a follow up the next meeting. The budget process should coincide with the handoff from Rod.

Robert wants to build into the budgeting process the discussion and method to decide what to do with the state and federal funds since available might affect the timing.

Aaron and Rod won’t be ready for the first Wednesday in November. Aaron suggests proceeding without waiting for the handoff process, which will be a document and three 90 minute meetings. Aaron will present this in the second Selectboard meeting in November.

Roger reminds that the Selectboard took public actions on September 14th following a confidential presentation from an independent investigator to work with an HR firm and to work on relationships between paid town staff and elected officials. Roger thinks the Selectboard should move towards mediation. If going to do anything relating to an RFP process for finding a firm for next TM, these public actions need to be actively worked on or the bid needs to make known that those actions are being continuously developed.

Mary suggests researching more HR firms.

Marcia says the board needs to move across the board on a lot of issues.

Rod says 11/23 is the second Selectboard meeting and is the night before Thanksgiving. Perhaps the board should find a different date.

Marcia proposes meeting the 2nd, 16th, 30th.

Roger says we’re assuming the Tracy Hall boilers will last. Need to understand how operations are going to function if we don’t have a way to heat the building.

Aaron is also thinking about Tracy Hall and asks when they’ll start meeting publicly and it’s not adequate ventilation wise. Need to have a public meeting space starting in January.

Marcia’s concern is Gile mountain. Need to ask the new Police chief what the plan is. Going to be looking for more information on Moore lane. Far from resolved. Personnel policies are huge and blend into Roger’s comment on Sept 14th topic. Might help in terms of Budget to reinstate the finance committee with qualified volunteers. People were doing that work and it could be helpful. Need to finish Master Financial policies. Frustrated that we don’t have a dog policy.

Marcia will prioritize and send out an agenda so the group can craft together when to look at things. Pull information together with advanced notice to whoever needs to get it.

Aaron looked for and didn’t find a calendar when he was appointed. Laying out the things they board is going to talk about from March to March. A highly visible calendar would help set the context for the Selectboard’s work.

Roger thinks we’re losing sight of what’s critical. We should only be supporting town staff of whatever is happening, preparation of annual report, AP warrant, building itself is safe, ventilated, heated. That is it. Only meetings convening are ones relating to budget and updates on town report, AP warrants and general positive interactions in the building. Miranda will be fielding phone calls and mechanisms between Marcia and Miranda to receive messaging. The next conversation will be about operations. Maybe collaborate with Hartford. Selectboard is going to be supporting operations.

Marcia is a believer of having things on the docket. The board has to take a position that we’re looking out for every part of the town, working with staff to make sure they get things down. There’s triage but Marcia wants it on some sort of docket so people understand that if there’s time, Selectboard will do it.

Aaron suggests putting on the next Selectboard calendar and doesn’t get lost. E.g. the dog ordinance will be on the next calendar. It’s useful to keep those things in mind even if there’s a crisis to deal with right now.

Marcia will be calling on everyone to help. Will put together a list to triage, put a process in place with Miranda and talk to all board members about the agenda setting.

Aaron is concerned about turning around town wide reappraisal RFPs due November 28th by November 30th.

Rod clarified the reason for the November 21st deadline for RFPs to give the committee more time to review them.

Roger clarified that the approved RFP has a November 21st deadline.

The Selectboard will need to establish the review committee on November 9th.

The new meeting calendar is Nov 9th, Nov 22nd, and Dec 6th or 7th.

Marcia wants to put an agenda item based on a letter from Doug Wilberding about a particular type of heating for Tracy Hall (wood pellets). Aaron would be opposed.

Public Participation

Stuart: there have been a few requests to transform what’s going on and take advantage of transparency. Will the public be able to ask questions and get answers to the extent the Selectboard knows the answer or will people be allowed to speak but there won’t be answers?

Marcia: the Selectboard needs to figure out a way to answer questions that are answerable. There’s a question of the space, and the board needs to talk about how to approach questions that are answering. Some questions they don’t know the answers to and some are confidential. Marcia would like to see everyone getting answers and start healing the community.

Roger says it’s a violation of the OML to discuss items that are not on the agenda, so when people have questions they have to say it’s a consideration for future meetings. It’s a violation of law to discuss things that haven’t been warned. Roger wants to meet and exceed the standards of work.

Marcia suggests identifying questions that are going to be answered in the next meeting and answering them.

Stuart suggests a question and answer session as an agenda item, which he believes meets the standard. It shouldn’t be necessary to issue public records requests to get questions answered. Stuar claims Roger wants to keep things non-transparent.

Aaron doesn’t know if it’s statutory to have a question and answer session but if it is, he would support a moderated short question and answer period for 15-20 minutes and then get on with the Selectboard’s work. Everyone sitting in the meeting trying to fit their public comment in makes it difficult for the Selecboard to get on with their work. A highly moderated session with rules that restrict repeated questions from the same people. The answers couldn’t be as a board because they won’t have time to discuss things but could be as individuals.

Marcia will put ideas together for agenda setting.

Pam Smith: address the issue of the deadline of November 21st as the deadline for RFP responses. The reason the listers changed it, was the assumption that the listers would receive the responses. Pam is not available the week of Thanksgiving and into the following week. It’s not clear who will receive the responses on November 21st.

Marcia says the response will go to the Lister’s email.

Pam clarified that the responses are due at 10am on November 21st. It’s not clear who will enforce this.

Cheryl noted that there has been no reporting of financial reporting this fiscal year as per the policy. The second meeting of the month for the prior months financials and available to all departments.

Roger’s understanding is that there was reporting at fiscal year read out and availability of fiscal year funds. The board received that report.

Cheryl clarified that her question was about this fiscal year.

Rod said they’ve been working with a new consultant for the next packet. Rod also clarified that the town wide reappraisal RFP responses are only by email.

Cheryl will monitor the Lister’s email on November 21st.

Manu Tesone comments that the Master Financial Policies are clear, we had a finance director up until two weeks ago, why weren’t the policies followed and we haven’t received any financial reporting?

Rod says there was a transition from old to new finance director, a lot of onboarding with payroll and AP warrant and it will be in the next packet.

Marcia says if it’s available then people who need it should have access.

Manu wants to thank Marcia for how she’s managed today’s meeting. We’re looking at a substantial change in the way the Selectboard will be managed over the next few months and clearly being open and welcoming of public comments and participation.

Marcia concludes that we’re all in this together.