PROCEEDINGS by changcheng2


									                        CAPE COD REGIONAL GOVERNMENT
                            ASSEMBLY OF DELEGATES

Approved JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS – June 16, 2010

          Speaker BERGSTROM called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.
          Speaker BERGSTROM: Good afternoon. Welcome to the June 16th meeting of the
Cape Cod Regional Government Assembly of Delegates. We will call the meeting to order and
begin with a moment of silence to honor our troops who have died in the service to our country
and all those serving our country in the Armed Forces.

Moment of Silence

        Speaker BERGSTROM: Thank you.
        Now will you please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Pledge of Allegiance

        Speaker BERGSTROM: Thank you.
        The Clerk will now call the roll.

Roll Call (74.84%): Richard Anderson (8.43% - Bourne), Ronald Bergstrom (2.98% - Chatham),
George Bryant (1.54% - Provincetown), Leo Cakounes (5.57% - Harwich), Christopher Kanaga
(2.85% - Orleans), Thomas Keyes (9.06% - Sandwich), Thomas Lynch (21.52% - Barnstable), John
Ohman (7.19% - Dennis), Anthony Scalese (4.54% - Brewster), and Charlotte Striebel (11.16% -
Absent (25.16%): Marcia King (5.83% - Mashpee), Teresa Martin (2.45% - Eastham), Paul Pilcher
(1.24% - Wellfleet), Fred Schilpp (0.94 – Truro), and Julia C. Taylor (14.70% - Falmouth)

        Ms. THOMPSON:          Mr. Speaker, we have a quorum with 74.84 percent of the
Delegates present.

                                  Committee of the Whole

         Speaker BERGSTROM: Thank you.
         I will now need a motion to approve the Calendar of Business.
         Mr. SCALESE: So move.
         Speaker BERGSTROM: It‟s been moved. Is there a second?
         Ms. STRIEBEL: Second.
         Speaker BERGSTROM: It‟s been moved and seconded. If there are no further
comments or additions, all those in favor of approval say “aye.” Opposed?
         Okay. Now we will need Approval of the Journal of June 2, 2010. Are there any or
corrections or additions to the Journal?
         Hearing none, I‟ll have a motion to approve.
         Mr. SCALESE: So move.
         Ms. STRIEBEL: Second.
Cape Cod Regional Government - Assembly of Delegates
Approved Journal of Proceedings – June 16, 2010                                       page 2

        Speaker BERGSTROM:            It has been moved and seconded. All those in favor say
“aye.” Opposed?

Communications from the Board of Regional Commissioners

        Speaker BERGSTROM: Okay. We will now have Communications from the Board of
Regional Commissioners. I see that the Chair of the Commissioners is here.

Deeds Excise Tax

         Commissioner FLYNN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
         At the last meeting, John Ohman asked a question about the deeds excise tax and where
we might be, and you probably have already received the information. But in the month of May,
the revenues were actually $100,000 over the previous month, which was $500,000 for the
month of April, and it was $600,000 in May. So that was good. That was a pretty great month, I
would say, the month of May.
         We talked about it today and actually we expect that on average the revenues will be
very much in line with what we anticipated and what was in the budget. We don‟t expect to see
any excess revenues for this year, but certainly more on target than over – just hopefully not
under. So that‟s where we stand. The end of June will be coming soon and then we will all have
the information.


          Commissioner FLYNN: Today we had a report from AmeriCorps. I have to tell you,
that is such a great group and I think most all of the towns that are represented here on the Cape
have experienced some of the work that the AmeriCorps volunteers do. This group will be
leaving. They‟re graduation is July 22nd, at 9:00 a.m., at the Community College and if you‟ve
never been, you really should go. I went last year; they have a puppet show. It‟s very
entertaining and they do a whole lot.
          It‟s pretty obvious that to be an AmeriCorps volunteer you have to be a self-starter for
one, and you have to be passionate about what you do. You also have to know how to get
volunteers to work with you. In listening to their reports, it‟s amazing the number of volunteers
that they are able to recruit and attract to the various projects that they work on in the different
          So they‟re a great group and now the funding will be there for next year and we‟re very
likely to have another 26 volunteers like we had this year. So we‟re looking for another great
          Bill, do you have anything?
          Commissioner DOHERTY: Ron, while you were gone, they came up with $450,000
over at the RTA.
          Speaker BERGSTROM: They found out where I hid it?
Cape Cod Regional Government - Assembly of Delegates
Approved Journal of Proceedings – June 16, 2010                                         page 3

RTA Capital Equipment Funding

         Commissioner DOHERTY:             But seriously, Deputy Secretary of Transportation –
Rokoff – came on Monday and made a presentation of $250,000 for capital equipment additions
for buses and for trailers to load bikes on, which I thought was really terrific – we‟re looking at
that and trying to figure out how to deploy it – and $200,000 for long-range planning for the
Cape Cod Commission. So we got a little taste over at the County of money that was coming
from the feds. So I thought that that was important for people to know.
         Speaker BERGSTROM: I‟ve noticed that the amount of money that these people come
up with always seems to increase as the election comes nearer. I appreciate that, Bill. I didn‟t
make the meeting this morning.


          Commissioner FLYNN: Just one final comment regarding OpenCape. As you know,
the County‟s participation in the OpenCape project was to provide space for it to move forward
and we are on top of it. Bob Troy, who is the County‟s attorney, and the attorney from Open
Cape have been working together to come up with a document that allows for that to happen
because it‟s not really a lease because it‟s in-kind, if you will, and that was the matching funds
that allowed this to really go forward.
          Teresa Martin and I, and Art Gaylord from OpenCape, met with Sharon Noones, who is
the Vice President for Big Green Initiatives with IBM. IBM is very interested in this project and
they want very much to be a collaborator as we move forward. IBM is doing many things
worldwide – in Africa, in Haifa, in Ireland, in China, in South Korea. They have a very
successful economic development project in South Korea, which you can find on their website.
          But they‟re interested in their Smart Planet Program. It‟s the Smart Planet Program.
That‟s the Initiatives Program which Sharon actually runs for IBM. She lives on the Cape so she
is pretty accessible, and one of her major staff people lives in Sandwich – Michael Sullivan –
you may have met him. Sharon lives in Falmouth.
          So what they‟re really looking to – one of the pieces that they can do for us is data
monitoring – the idea of storing all of your data in a cloud; that‟s what this is all about, or part of
it. But also data monitoring, which is what they‟re doing in a lot of these countries, like Ireland.
They have been working with the government of Ireland to actually help build their platform for
data monitoring with water and wastewater.
          So we talked about that as another piece to the issues that we‟re dealing with Capewide,
which is wastewater. We talked about actually the science, which there is still always some
questions on, and what are we going to build. Are we going to build big pipes? Are we going to
have clusters, innovative alternatives, or on-site systems? What are they going to be? We don‟t
know, but we‟re spending a lot of time on determining that – the types of systems to have and
how to finance them, and we really haven‟t started looking at how are we going to monitor all of
this data. How are we going to know whether or not the systems are actually going to meet the
TMDLs and if they‟re actually going to reduce, and that‟s what IBM can help with is that data
monitoring. I think that we have a lot of ways in which we can collaborate and partner with
them. So we just have to stay on top of that.
          That‟s really all that I have for today.
Cape Cod Regional Government - Assembly of Delegates
Approved Journal of Proceedings – June 16, 2010                                       page 4

         Speaker BERGSTROM: Does anyone have any questions for the Commissioners this

Wastewater Management Plan Assistance to Towns

          Mr. LYNCH: On the wastewater, there have been some recent editorials and others
asking for some sort of regional financial solution to assist towns with the implementation of
their wastewater management plans and I was wondering if the County has begun any sort of
analysis of whether or not you might seek legislation or seek something that created a
Countywide tax that would assist towns with the millions and millions of dollars that need to be
spent to rectify this problem. We have some where they‟re on maintenance where there are
multiple towns – of course we all share the same aquifer – and I‟m wondering if the County is
embarking on any of that?
          Commissioner FLYNN: We‟ve had those discussions with Andy Gottlieb and the
Collaborative and we are going to look for some way to maybe consider Countywide solutions to
that on a regional basis.
          I‟m thinking about Falmouth – and I try to participate in as many of these wastewater
meetings that they have, particularly this Review Committee – and when you look at the Upper
Cape – you look at Sandwich. They don‟t seem to even have a whole lot of wastewater issues
because a lot of their water, like from the base, it flows to the southwest, which would be out to
Buzzards Bay. So we haven‟t talked yet with Sandwich but just from the looks of it, it doesn‟t
seem like nutrient management might be too big an issue in terms of where the water goes.
          The same with Mashpee – you look at Mashpee and they‟re looking at cluster systems.
Over the years, remember Mashpee didn‟t build anything for about ten years because of the
moratorium, based on the Native American issues, so a lot of their building already has their own
wastewater – like Mashpee Commons. New Seabury has their own. So they‟re really looking
more at innovative alternatives and cluster systems as opposed to a big pipe. Most of the intense
development is on the other side of the canal, where the rest of it is mostly residential.
          Anyway, we are looking at the Upper Cape, but the whole idea of maybe building
something at Mass Military may not work at all because the other towns may not have any need
to participate in a regional treatment plant.
          The big issue, of course, is discharge sites. Where is all of this going to be discharged?
You have the Zone 1‟s, which control the total carbon. You can‟t discharge into Zone 1 areas
because it would require reverse osmosis in order to remove all of the total carbons from the
discharge. So then there is Zone 2 and there aren‟t a whole lot of Zone 2 areas around either. So
it‟s really a very complex issue but the Collaborative is very much on top of it and we are
working with them on that.
          Speaker BERGSTROM: Tom Keyes?
          Deputy Speaker KEYES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
          Sandwich, we are fortunate to live in a town where the aquifer, the way it flows, the
way works, is actually beneficial to the Town of Sandwich. That‟s not to say that we don‟t have
our problems; we absolutely do.
          For the past ten years in Sandwich, we‟ve been working very hard at a lot of the
secondary ideas, which is putting in the new culverts. Culverts running along the side of the
road make a big difference in collection and a lot of what happens to your road runoff goes right
Cape Cod Regional Government - Assembly of Delegates
Approved Journal of Proceedings – June 16, 2010                                     page 5

into the streams and goes right into your embayments. So we invested a lot of time in re-
engineering. We spent a lot of time on a lot of the other secondary issues, like enforcement. We
found out a recent offender who lives right near the marsh that could have been a problem with
septic for who knows how long. It was discovered, I think, about a year and-a-half ago.
          The Great Harbor, where our boardwalk is, has been closed for shellfishing since I think
it was 1980 or 1981. We haven‟t had shellfishing for that long. We just opened it up two years
ago – or maybe a year and-a-half ago. So the small efforts make a difference.
          Just before you mentioned this – where I was going to go with this question was I‟ve
been intimately involved with water collection and water quality review committees and this
whole issue on the Cape of wastewater and I was working on this back in 2002 and here we are
2010 and we haven‟t done it yet. We are working on small things but I don‟t think we‟re doing a
lot of the small things.
          Dr. Brian Howes, who runs the Estuaries Program at UMass Dartmouth, he had said at a
big meeting down in Chatham that there are a lot of alternatives – small things that we can do to
bring back some of the loadings. If we can bring it back by 10 to 15 percent, we could have a
positive reclamation of a lot of our embayments – just 10 to 15 percent.
          Now he has mentioned creative dredging. He said the flow of the water is a big part of
the problem. I‟m not sure if it was a meeting here at the full body of the Assembly or if it was
one of the subcommittee meetings that we had, but we had discussed the idea of looking into a
second dredge. We have a short window and we want to make sure that we have these
opportunities. So there could be a second benefit of it. If we had a second dredge, we could help
with some of these flow issues. We may not meet our max total daily load issue but if we can,
while we‟re waiting to get to the big pipe, or whatever the solution is, we still need to work on
today. And if we can still reduce it by 5 percent, or 8 percent or 10 percent now, let‟s do that
now also and then work on the big one because those are years out, and I think we need to do
          Bill, I think you might have been at one of those meetings where we brought the
discussion forward of maybe purchasing a secondary dredge – I‟m not sure about that. I‟m just
wondering is that something that we could pursue.

County Dredge

          Commissioner DOHERTY: We have been talking about the second dredge for some
time because of the shortened window. We have been getting some relief with regard to the
window because there‟s finally recognition that the south side of the Cape has different water
temperatures than the north side and that has relieved it somewhat, but the discussion continues.
Keri Murphy, who was a Selectman until recently in Falmouth, was moving towards that. There
was a committee – and hopefully it has not been disbanded – that was examining that. It‟s still a
possibility to pursue, but you ought to talk to Sheila about that because she was the one that was
actively engaged on that committee as far as what progress they had made and we certainly
should come to a decision, other than the sinking fund that we‟ve established for replacement, to
take a look at that.
          I can‟t give you a definite answer as of a date certain that we‟re looking at a second
dredge. The first thing we looked at was changing the window so that we could make more
effective use of what we had. That has happened and that sort of took the pressure off the
thinking about whether or not we needed a second dredge. What you bring up is an interesting
Cape Cod Regional Government - Assembly of Delegates
Approved Journal of Proceedings – June 16, 2010                                       page 6

thing but we‟d have to figure out if we did that, we‟d have to come up with some sort of
creativity with regard to how we pay for that. We‟d still have some issues with regard to
permitting and things like that. So it‟s not outside the realm of possibility and we‟ll certainly
bring it up to Maggie and Wayne to see what the possibilities of doing that are and we‟ll get back
to you on that.
          Deputy Speaker KEYES: Thank you.
          Speaker BERGSTROM: Yes, Tom?
          Mr. LYNCH: One follow-up question on wastewater and then another question.
          On our Citizens‟ Action Committee that is dealing with wastewater, we have now a
representative from Yarmouth, Mashpee and Sandwich sitting on it because we all have interests.
I know Mashpee is looking – in our western part of town, we‟re looking to see whether they may
be a receiver with some sort of plan or whether we are. I can‟t emphasize enough that I think the
County could be helpful with the funding side of it because while we‟re going for overrides and
whatever, we‟re not going to be able to cover the whole cost, and there are also additional costs
like cups and grinder pumps and all that other stuff. Hopefully, as you point out, the
Collaborative will come up with something soon so that we can have something on the table and
begin discussing that.
          Commissioner DOHERTY:             In the discussions, as I recall the discussions at the
Collaborative, the idea was to identify a process by which costs could be allocated based upon
the benefits that were received by the sub regional units that were getting together. I don‟t know
if that has been pursued but it was identified as being an absolutely essential part of having this
process go forward to figure out how would you allocate costs so that everybody was getting a
fair shake in all of this and that was certainly at the bottom of all of this. I know that there are
ongoing discussions about that and I think that there was probably motivation of inviting elected
officials to be part of the Collaborative membership so that they could be part of this process and
bring the message both back to their boards as well as to move that whole thing forward.
          This is all driven by what is it going to cost and how effective it would be. The point
that Tom brought up today is something, if you look at this holistically, these are all pieces that
have to be integrated in some way because I think we‟ve all discovered that one size does not fit
all. Putting the treatment plant up at Sandwich Hall and then running the pipe down Route 6
isn‟t going to work.
          So we have to take a look at what works in different places and then how do we
integrate all of these other things together and then hopefully – and I have some optimism about
this because this is what the Collaborative is looking at and trying to resolve for us – that maybe
it‟s time for them to come back and bring us all up to date and bring the public up to date as to
where these discussions are, and I‟d certainly be glad to pass that on to them.

Homeless Grant Administration

          Mr. LYNCH: The County took over the administration of the Homeless Grant that
came through the door last year. My understanding was when that grant was applied for that
there was a provision that there be a reduction in the shelter beds in the NOAH Shelters now. At
a meeting last Thursday, the Director of the Housing Assistance Corporation stood up and said
that their board had voted not to rescind beds. Our Chief was disappointed that there hadn‟t been
a discussion about that because he left. He was disappointed that that statement had been made
Cape Cod Regional Government - Assembly of Delegates
Approved Journal of Proceedings – June 16, 2010                                    page 7

before even listening to the success or the problems that might still exists with the Main Street
Initiative and dealing with homeless individuals.
          The Main Street Initiative that identified 93 individuals who were either homeless or
had problems with the community or in need of social services or housing was a very successful
project. After one year, there were only 12 of them who remained homeless. So the intense
Case Management that was put in place for them was really a model that works and I think they
probably should have more housing stabilization rather than sheltering.
          So I‟m wondering what action the County has been taking since you have a grant that
you have to report back on and saying we meeting X, Y and Z. Have you followed up since last
week – and you‟re probably hearing the same reports that we did – have you made any inquiries
as to how that decision was made and whether you‟re now fulfilling the mission of the grant?
          Commissioner DOHERTY:             Funny you should ask. This afternoon I had the
opportunity – I went over to Beth Albert‟s office to pursue that.
          Mr. LYNCH: I knew that you would be on top of this, Bill.
          Commissioner DOHERTY: This morning I was at a Friends of Bay Bridge meeting
because we were concerned that some of the folks that are part of that program were being
misidentified as being part of this population that was of concern, and whether or not they were
seeing any intimidation from the population that your Chief had identified. The report that we
got this morning was that although they had recognized that there was a younger crowd of people
that are on the street, they have not necessarily been identified as being homeless as much as
they are just visible, but we have not so far had any reports at Bay Bridge. When I went over to
talk to Beth Albert, there was a reporter from one of the papers there.
          Mr. LYNCH: Jim Cassell?
          Commissioner DOHERTY: Anyway, he was looking to find out something about the
process by which the grants came in. You may remember that the identification of the County as
a fiduciary agent was made by the Lieutenant Governor precisely to provide some accountability
with regard to that money.
          In terms of the reporting piece, which is what our part was, what was reported to me by
Beth‟s assistant – because she wasn‟t there when I was pursuing it – was that they have been
very aggressive in making sure that all the monies that we‟ve been spending on that grant were
documented completely so that that money that we‟re responsible for distributing was spent for
the purpose that it was intended.
          I read that article and was disturbed because it was my recollection – the same as Sue
Roeback‟s was – that there was going to be a commitment to the reduction of shelter beds. I
would tend to give Presbrey the benefit of the doubt and give him an opportunity to respond. I
wish he had at that time because I think it‟s a question that‟s on everybody‟s mind.
          What we had found at Bay Bridge was that – and as you know I‟m active in the Town
of Barnstable on the Human Service Needs Committee – was that it wasn‟t the homeless that
were actually contributing to the street problem, it was others that were not homeless but were
very visible and sometimes fairly aggressive in downtown Barnstable. So that‟s sort of a
supervision problem that I don‟t know how to address.
          But if you‟re addressing specifically the homeless issue, ten years ago when Mary
LeClair was appointed to be on this End Homelessness Committee, the commitment was made to
stop managing the problem but to end the problem. When I heard the announcement of the
Cape Cod Regional Government - Assembly of Delegates
Approved Journal of Proceedings – June 16, 2010                                       page 8

reduction of shelter beds, I thought it was with the intent that since there had been improvement
there would be a way to do that. Again, there are still homeless in the streets.
          You will remember that we had this meeting that was sponsored by the Council of
Churches in hoping to have the Overnights supported and that, fortunately, has gotten some
support, so we have that as an additional support for helping those who find the need for
temporary shelter, but we still have a problem.
          So it‟s difficult for me to respond to why there apparently was a commitment that was
made that is not being followed through, but I can say for those parts that we‟re managing or
monitoring that all of the money that has been distributed has been appropriately documented
and spent for the purposes that are there. I‟ll continue to pursue it because I‟m still the Chairman
of the Housing Authority – and you share the same interest in housing as I do – to make sure that
the real needs of the homeless population are met, at the same time realizing what we need to do
is try to end homeless and provide housing for those that are part of the vulnerable population,
especially the folks that might be represented by people that should be going to Bay Bridge that
need that help.
          Mr. LYNCH: Are you saying, though, that the County merely has a fiduciary role?
          Commissioner DOHERTY: I thought you were talking about the management of the
grant that Presbrey got.
          Mr. LYNCH: I am.
          Commissioner DOHERTY: But Trebet also has the responsibility of being a
coordinator for that program.
          Mr. LYNCH: But he was hired by the County, right?
          Commissioner DOHERTY: He was hired by that grant.
          Mr. LYNCH: By the County?
          Commissioner DOHERTY: By the County, yes.
          Mr. LYNCH: What I think we‟d like to see is we‟d like to see him.
          Commissioner DOHERTY: We‟ll get him.
          Mr. LYNCH: We‟d like to see him saying we‟ve got a model that works now.
          Commissioner DOHERTY: Let‟s do that.
          Mr. LYNCH: Because what has happened is the door hasn‟t been closed. So while
there are fewer homeless, there is a whole other group of homeless and we see them every single
day and there‟s no way that a Village of 15,000 can keep absorbing all these folks. You work
hard on the 93 model that works. I would love to have him come in and talk about – is the grant
being met? And if it isn‟t, what are they going to do and see how we can, as a County, respond
to a regional problem that seems to keep ending up on the doorstep of the businesses and
residents of Hyannis?
          Commissioner DOHERTY: I certainly agree that we have some responsibility to make
sure that the load is shared by everybody. I think that it would be a good idea for Trebet to give
an accounting of his service to us and we can figure out at that point when he comes in – your
questions could be answered directly by the person who is responsible for providing the service.
So we certainly could arrange to do that. Of course, as the Charter says, you have the right as an
Assembly to call anybody in to talk to that you want to and we would be happy to cooperate and
do that.
          Speaker BERGSTROM: My understanding was that that grant was handled by the
state and that the lines of authority run directly to the County, as Commissioner Doherty said, the
Cape Cod Regional Government - Assembly of Delegates
Approved Journal of Proceedings – June 16, 2010                                       page 9

fiduciary responsibility – we‟re the accountants – but it is run by the board. In other words, the
guy that‟s running it is not a County employee, at least as far as I know.
          Commissioner DOHERTY: He‟s a contract employee.
          Speaker BERGSTROM: He‟s a contract employee but he answers to a board. So it‟s a
little more complicated than just bringing him in here and telling him what to do because that‟s
an issue.
          Commissioner DOHERTY: I hear that and this is the time when we‟re saying – and
this is just speaking for myself now – do we look at the absolute part of bureaucracy that says
that we have to go through steps in order to get to a person who is supposed to deliver a service
or do we look at our responsibility to try to address the problem? At least we would all know
when he came in where he‟s at with regard to his optimism or pessimism with regard to a
solution of the problem and at that point we‟re placed in a position to make a decision as to what
we need to do as those responsible for supporting something that‟s very dear to my heart which
is to make sure that as much as we can we take a look at our responsibility to support the needs
of what I call the safety-net responsibility that the government has.
          Speaker BERGSTROM: Not that I‟m a pessimist, but in other words HAC sits on that
board too, as does other social service agencies, and the one thing that we should avoid is at the
beginning of this Initiative everyone was supposed to cooperate. I just don‟t want to create a
situation where the next thing you know we‟re in camps and we‟re back to where we were 18
months ago – we‟re both in camps with back and forth. So I think that the diplomatic approach
to the entire board that runs this would be more effective than dragging some guy in and saying
what are you going to do about this?
          Commissioner DOHERTY: I don‟t believe that Tom was suggesting – nor was I – that
we drag anybody here by the hair of his head, although I wouldn‟t be above doing that if I
thought it would help the population that we‟re trying to serve. But at the same time, he could
point to us, collectively, as to what other things need to be done in order to accommodate what
he sees as his responsibility to all of us. But at the end of the day, the money that he gets in his
paycheck comes from all of us and I want to make sure that you know that from my point of
view if we‟re spending our money on a service that we are supposed to be delivering to this
vulnerable population, I want to make sure – and I think, Tom, that you share that with me – that
I want to make sure that the service that we‟re paying for is one that‟s getting delivered.
          Speaker BERGSTROM: I agree with you and we have a light schedule over the
summer and if we want to bring this guy in, we can do that. We‟ll bring the gentleman in and
we‟ll discus this.
          Mr. LYNCH: And I just want to say I appreciate those remarks because when you take
money you have responsibilities and it‟s good to see that somebody is willing to say there may
be a bureaucracy there but we‟ve got the problem in front of us. We know what the solution can
be. Let‟s keep working towards that.
          Barnstable appreciates those remarks, Bill.

Lower Cape Regionalization Outreach

        Commissioner FLYNN: Just one more comment. You talked about your schedule for
the summer. David Schroper, who is the Chair of the Lower Cape Regionalization Outreach – I
don‟t know what they call themselves – but it all has to do with regionalization on the Lower
Cape – we talked with him today because we‟re really working together – we‟re really
Cape Cod Regional Government - Assembly of Delegates
Approved Journal of Proceedings – June 16, 2010                                      page 10

cooperating well on the regionalization. He wants to come in on July 7th if it‟s possible on your
schedule. He‟ll be contacting you, Diane, and we would be here too, and we might be able to
enhance some of the presentation that he would have on regionalization issues. But the County
is working on it as well. That could take up your July 7th agenda.
         Commissioner DOHERTY: So we should be coordinating getting Andrew Gottlieb
and Alan Trebat in here. What would be the best way to set that up? Shall we put them directly
in touch with Diane?
         Speaker BERGSTROM: Yes. Over the next few meetings we will probably schedule
them. If you guys don‟t submit any complicated Ordinances between now and then, we‟ll be
         Commissioner DOHERTY: So we‟ll have him get in touch with you.
         Speaker BERGSTROM: What I mean to say is that we have a relatively clean slate.
Summer is a good opportunity to bring people in to discuss County business and give a report of
what is going on and what the prognosis is for the coming year.
         Leo, did you have a question?

Proposed Ordinance 10-05: to add Section 4.9 to the Barnstable County Administrative Code
establishing a CMED Board of Trustees.

         Mr. CAKOUNES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but I don‟t know if it‟s appropriate.
         My question is on Proposed Ordinance 10-05 that we have on our schedule after we
convene and I just want to make sure – I have some questions for the Commissioners. Shall I
ask them now or do you want to go ahead with business and waive the standards then. I just
want to make sure that they don‟t leave, that‟s all.
         Speaker BERGSTROM: Ask away.
         Mr. CAKOUNES: If it‟s okay, I would like to get it out of the way now.
         I just went through the Ordinance itself and I have a couple of questions – maybe Diane
can answer one and maybe the Commissioners can answer the others.
         Under “Composition, Term of Office,” the very first line it says “Board of Trustees
consisting of a County Commissioner or his designee.” Is that correct language that we want to
have in there because if the County Commissioners appoint one of the Commissioners, then that
Commissioner can then turn his duties over, or her duties over to someone else? Or was it the
intentions of the County Commissioners to, in fact, be the appointing authority of someone,
whether it be someone from their ranks or their designee? And, again, it might just be a
typographical error on their part.
         Speaker BERGSTROM: Diane can answer that.
         Ms. THOMPSON: I can refer the question to the County Commissioners if you would
like but on the word “his,” I can say that most likely it‟s a typographical error – “consisting of a
County Commissioner or „their‟ designee”.
         Mr. CAKOUNES: So we can amend that when it comes the appropriate time?
         Ms. THOMPSON: Yes.
         Mr. CAKOUNES: Do you guys have any problems with that amendment if I decided
to make that when it comes forward?
         Commissioner FLYNN: No. It‟s actually the intent of the Commissioners that one of
the Commissioners would serve on that board but it leaves the option to designate someone to
represent the Commissioners.
Cape Cod Regional Government - Assembly of Delegates
Approved Journal of Proceedings – June 16, 2010                                       page 11

          Mr. CAKOUNES: I‟m not sure in the two years that I‟ve been here if I‟ve actually
established a Board of Trustees such as this, so my next question goes to the “Powers, Duties and
Responsibilities” that you guys are laying out.
          I have a little problem giving the power to “negotiate and sign contracts” to three people
who are appointed – one being appointed by the Commissioners, one being appointed by the
Cape Cod Healthcare and one being appointed by the Fire Chiefs. I would think it would be
better that this document read “negotiate contracts and present to the County Commissioners for
their execution.”
          But, again, I‟m not sure if I‟m being too legal. It just seems that you‟re creating a
subcommittee to do some work and you‟re actually giving them the authority to sign contracts
and I don‟t feel comfortable with that.
          Commissioner FLYNN: Mr. Speaker?
          Speaker BERGSTROM: Yes.
          Commissioner FLYNN: The intent is that there would likely be only one contract and
that would be the contract to provide the Dispatch Service – the actual service itself. That would
be the only contract and the trustees – their fiduciary responsibility would be to first of all
manage the funds because there has to be a funding source which has not yet been determined.
But whatever those funds would be, the trustees would manage those funds and use those funds
to contract with a vendor to provide the service; the likely vendor being the Sheriff because he‟s
the only one with a major dispatch operation. So it would be pretty straight forward.
          Mr. CAKOUNES: That goes into my next concern, which is number 5, which says
“collect and maintain funds.” But then you do go to the point of putting in “(c) Treasury
Services” stating that actual Barnstable County Treasury Services will be provided. So they‟re
not physically doing it. It‟s done through the County.
          I think I have a little bit of concern – and maybe we can discuss it now or maybe you
want to wait until we convene – but I have a little concern giving the authority to a 3-member
appointed board to actually sign contracts. I certainly don‟t have a problem with it reading to
“negotiate contracts and present to the County Commissioners to sign,” because again I think the
legal authority for entering into contracts should be to you people, the Executive branch of the
government, not creating a sub-branch. Maybe I‟m beating something to death, I don‟t know.
That‟s why I ask because of my lack of experience sitting up here.
          Speaker BERGSTROM:              Let me ask the Commissioners to follow up on Leo‟s
question – and I have a report from the Finance Committee in front of me – it seems that the state
is looking for a vehicle by which this money can be disbursed. So I don‟t know how much of
this is something that we‟ve dreamed up and how much of it is sort of coming down from the
authority of the state and what they‟re looking for.
          Commissioner DOHERTY: As you look at this, at least one of the entities is not in the
public sector – it‟s in the private sector – which is Cape Cod Healthcare. One of the issues is if
they are a contributor to the cost of running this service, then they would have to agree to allow
for the transfer of their money into the County and for us to take the responsibility for managing
their contribution. I don‟t know if that was one of the issues that was raised as you‟ve looked at
these things, but a public/private partnership needs a little bit of separation between the powers, I
think, in that sector.
          Commissioner FLYNN: This structure was actually developed with the assistance of
the state – I should say the Senate President‟s Office, Senator O‟Leary‟s Office and also with the
Secretary of Administration & Finance. So that‟s how this got created. We didn‟t create this
Cape Cod Regional Government - Assembly of Delegates
Approved Journal of Proceedings – June 16, 2010                                      page 12

ourselves. It was created, as I said, with the state‟s input that this would be an appropriate
vehicle for the County to have to be able to have the funds available through some source.
          Right now there is a bill, I think, in the Municipal Relief Act on the Senate side that
would provide for some funding vehicle – we don‟t know yet whether it will pass – but what
they‟re waiting for is for us to come up with a structure that would be able to receive those funds,
and that‟s what this is. It‟s a fiduciary group is what it is to actually receive and manage the
funds. The contracting is strictly for that one service and that‟s the Dispatch Service.
          Speaker BERGSTROM: Tom?
          Deputy Speaker KEYES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
          The sources of revenue – are they multiple sources or are we strictly talking about the
state being the source of revenue here?
          Commissioner FLYNN: Multiple sources. Possibly the state, we don‟t know, but
certainly Cape Cod Healthcare. We would expect that they would contribute to this. They are a
beneficiary. Both hospitals are beneficiaries of this service. Also the possibility of a charge to
the individual who receives this service – a small charge attached to their ambulance fee. That‟s
what‟s pending in the Legislature now and I don‟t know where that stands as of today.
          Deputy Speaker KEYES: Considering its multiple sources this is sensible. If it was
just a state source, then I would say that this is not necessary. But with multiple sources I
certainly see that we need to have a Board of Trustees.
          Thank you.
          Speaker BERGSTROM: George?
          Mr. BRYANT: When we discussed this on the subcommittee, it certainly made a lot of
sense. But if we have to go to the towns for funding, that would be very difficult because the
towns would have to agree to it, and I thought after the meeting because of that possibility we
might need some Charter work in order to accomplish it and this could turn out to be far more
complex than we first thought. It‟s one of the little problems that have come up with the
separation of the Sheriff and the County, not the least of which of course is the fact that we have
to pay pension funds for roughly 350 people for part of the next 27 years; that‟s possible and
we‟re funding it, correct? This is yet something else that might impinge on the County.
          Commissioner FLYNN: We‟re paying the health insurance for those who retired prior
to the Sheriff moving to the state.
          Mr. BRYANT: Correct.
          Commissioner FLYNN: And that goes to 2028, approximately.
          Mr. BRYANT: Thank you.
          Speaker BERGSTROM: When will this actually be set up? If this Ordinance passes
today, when do we now become the fiduciary agent and this whole organization set up? I‟m
concerned that the bills are going to come in before the funding sources are identified. Is that
          Commissioner FLYNN: Once this passes, then we need to move pretty swiftly to make
sure that the funding sources will be there, but we can do that. I‟ve had some encouragement
from the Lt. Governor as well. He is very interested in it. The administration really wants to see
this happen. They want to see a reduction in the number of dispatch entities in this state. There
is something like 200 and some dispatch services in the Commonwealth and the Governor and
the Lt. Governor always refer to the fact that California has four, and Maryland has six and we
have like 200 and then some. So there‟s a lot of support coming from the state.
Cape Cod Regional Government - Assembly of Delegates
Approved Journal of Proceedings – June 16, 2010                                        page 13

          Speaker BERGSTROM: The Governor was in the paper quite a few days ago saying
that they‟re looking at a possible shortfall of $600 million dollars from federal funds and that he
may have to cut potential support. I‟m just concerned that we will set up this system, the bills
will then come to Barnstable County and there won‟t be any funds there to pay them.
          Commissioner FLYNN: That will not happen.
          Speaker BERGSTROM: Okay.
          Commissioner DOHERTY: I believe that we‟ve been absolutely crystal-clear that we
are not going to fund this. We might make a contribution to it at some point but our
responsibility to the Lt. Governor, as I understand it, is to set this Ordinance up so that the
structure would be there so that they would have an appropriate vehicle through which they
could provide the support.
          Speaker BERGSTROM: Does the existing structure – right now they‟re operating on
the money that we paid them and other funds – in other words, does their existing operation, the
way it‟s done now, end on June 30th? What happens if I get sick on July 1st?
          Commissioner FLYNN: Not really because it‟s one thing to create the structure, and
then there‟s the next step which is to put it into action, and it doesn‟t go into action until there is
funding. But the Sheriff still receives all that money from Verizon, which is all the
Communications money. I think he still has close to a million dollars, so that comes in.
          Speaker BERGSTROM: That‟s all I‟m trying to get at. There is money there now
until this service comes in.
          Commissioner DOHERTY: The people will be protected.
          Speaker BERGSTROM: As someone who might need the service – Tony?
          Mr. SCALESE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
          I had two things circled and actually both of them were things that Leo has brought up.
One of them was “negotiate and sign contracts” and also “collect and maintain funds.” As I sit
here and I listen to the conversation – and I know we‟re going to go over this after we convene –
I‟m not so sure that we‟re ready for this. I hear a lot of “I don‟t knows” and “we‟ll see as soon as
that becomes established and then we‟ll figure that out then,” and so forth and so on.
          One question that I have is who designed this language? Who put this together? Are
there other counties, other states that operate this type of system the way we‟re trying to set our
system up? I‟m very concerned about having anybody sign a contract – even if it is only one
contract. Collecting and maintaining funds has always been a concern for me.
          I don‟t know that my mind is set that we know exactly what to heck we‟re doing.
Maybe I‟m reading things wrong and maybe I‟m hearing people wrong, but I hear a lot of “I
don‟t knows,” and “we‟ll have to find out,” and “maybe the state will help us” and “maybe they
won‟t,” and so forth and so on. So my concerns are multiple and I can‟t wait to hear the
discussion after we Convene because I‟m very concerned about this.
          Speaker BERGSTROM: Diane, did you have a comment?
          Ms. THOMPSON: The only thing that I wanted to say – this is not to answer
anybody‟s question but just to point out where this section would be added – the Administrative
Code provides for the County or gives the County the ability to create multiple-member bodies.
So this would be a multiple-member body. It‟s under the Administrative Code so that it would
follow the administrative procedures of the Treasury as any County agency would, but it would
be a separate multiple-member body. I just wanted to make sure that when you looked at the
Administrative Code, you understood that it would be a separate Board of Trustees.
Cape Cod Regional Government - Assembly of Delegates
Approved Journal of Proceedings – June 16, 2010                                       page 14

          Mark Zielinski told me was that the state – because the County has the ability to
establish a multiple-member body such as this – that they saw this as an advantage to provide
local oversight over this particular function, the CMED function.
          Commissioner FLYNN: Could I add just one more thing?
          Speaker BERGSTROM: Yes.
          Commissioner FLYNN: The ultimate purpose of this is to maintain local control over
this service, and the only way that we can maintain local control over it is to create this structure
which would allow for the funding sources to be managed locally, and for the service itself to be
managed locally, and for the County to be able to hire a vendor, who would be the Sheriff. This
has all sort of been vetted at the state level, as I said, through A&F, through the Senate
President‟s Office, and also I think there were conversations through Ways and Means as well.
The idea is to really keep this service here on the Cape and to keep it under the local control of
the Cape and that‟s really the whole purpose.
          Speaker BERGSTROM: Leo?
          Mr. CAKOUNES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
          If I could possibly just ask Diane a question, you mentioned that it was going to go into
the Administrative Code. Can you tell me of another Board of Trustees that has been established
that has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts?
          Commissioner DOHERTY: Cape Light Compact.
          Mr. CAKOUNES: If that‟s a procedure that we do, then fine. But if it‟s not, I still
have a problem with the legality of it – just that part of it. I have no problem with creating this
Board of Trustees; I think it‟s a great idea.
          Speaker BERGSTROM: I think at this point we should try to confine it to questions to
the Commissioners and then we can go into it when we convene. We can answer that in regular
          All right, are there any other questions for the Commissioners?
          If not, I thank you very much.

Communications from Public Officials/Members of the Public

         Speaker BERGSTROM: Are there any Communications from Public Officials?
         Hearing none, are there any Communications from Members of the Public?
         Mr. Ryan, please come forward.

Cape Cod Council of Churches, Overnight for Hospitality Program – Thomas Ryan

         Mr. RYAN: Good afternoon. I‟m Thomas Ryan from Orleans and I‟m representing
the Cape Cod Council of Churches.
         The topic is the Churches‟ Overnight for Hospitality Program, which was referenced by
Bill a few minutes ago. It‟s a program for the homeless that takes some of the heat off of other
         Two things: I want to thank you for the budget action that you took at a recent meeting.
Diane couldn‟t be here today to express that but she asked me to say that.
         Secondly, to report to you that at one of the Standing Committees about a month some
of you asked me about the status of the Overnights for Hospitality in relationship to some new
fire code regulations that were coming down that were going to make it impossible for the
Cape Cod Regional Government - Assembly of Delegates
Approved Journal of Proceedings – June 16, 2010                                    page 15

program to continue. Some of you may have seen the report – last Friday‟s Cape Cod Times had
a little thing on page 5 that the regulatory bodies have decided to waive or “suspend” I guess is
the proper word, to suspend those regulations for the course of the summer and to reconvene the
appropriate parties to negotiate something that will work for the churches so that they can
continue to provide those services. So I want to thank you for your support, and your questions
before and just say that we were able to succeed in getting that permission to continue.
           You will remember, Charlotte, we talked to David Akin, the former Fire Chief in
Yarmouth. If anyone was going to do it, it would be David. So the Council of Churches
specifically wants to thank Dave for assisting us in that.
           So thank you very much.
           Speaker BERGSTROM: Thank you.
           Diane has a comment here on a new regulation that is coming out of the State Ethics
           Ms. THOMPSON: I‟m going to be talking about the implementation of the new
regulations in the Open Meeting Law as of July 1st under the Report of the Clerk, but I thought
I‟d say this while Mr. Ryan is present.
           I‟m working with County Counsel, as well as with Mark Zielinski, County
Administrator, as to how this body will have to comply with the new regulations in the Open
Meeting Law that go into effect on July 1st. It may be the case that under “Comment from the
Public” and “Comment from Public Officials,” that the public and public officials may only be
able to comment and have a discussion on what is on the agenda. I don‟t know the answer to
that for sure yet, but I wouldn‟t want Mr. Ryan to come to the meeting expecting to make public
comment and expect a dialogue and be told that we can‟t accommodate you. So, Mr. Ryan
please check with me again when you are coming in so that we make sure that we list you and
the subject you want to talk about on the Calendar. That way you would be sure that you could
speak on an issue, as I said, and then have some discussion with the Assembly.
           Mr. RYAN: I‟m sure that I‟m not the only member of the public affected. The whole
issue of the public being able to comment to you I think is a valuable part of your business. So I
hope that whatever changes happen come down after some discussion with the citizenry about
           Ms. THOMPSON: This is a state law that every public body has to comply with as of
July 1st and it is being interpreted for us by County Counsel, and it appears to be subject to
different interpretations by different legal counsels. But I am working on it.
           Mr. RYAN: I will put in my voice that the interpretation would be as simpatico to the
general public as possible – give as wide as possible interpretation is what I‟m trying to say.
           Ms. THOMPSON: Again it is state law. My understanding, Mr. Ryan, is that the new
procedures being put in place are to make sure that the public is aware when there is going to be
major discussion on topics. So I see it as a benefit to the public being able to know when
something is going to be discussed. So from that prospective I see it very beneficial to the
public. It may be that you can speak on an issue but that the Assembly may not be able to give
you feedback until such time as the issue is put on an agenda at a future meeting. I am trying to
be helpful.
           Mr. RYAN: Thank you for telling me. Thank you.
Cape Cod Regional Government - Assembly of Delegates
Approved Journal of Proceedings – June 16, 2010                                    page 16

                                       Assembly Convenes

          Speaker BERGSTROM: If there are no other Comments from Members of the Public,
we‟ll now Convene the Assembly and we‟ll begin with Proposed Ordinance 10-05. We‟ve had a
brief discussion on this.
          I will defer to Dick on this.

Proposed Ordinance 10-05: to add Section 4.9 to the Barnstable County Administrative Code
establishing the CMED Board of Trustees to provide oversight and fiscal administration of the
CMED system in Barnstable County.

          Mr. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
          We had a public hearing on this Ordinance a couple of weeks ago and everybody should
have gotten a report of our minutes. It‟s pretty well explained, if you want to take a few minutes
to read the five pages, as to what it is for. I think Leo asked some good questions at the
beginning to the County Commissioners – some questions that didn‟t get asked during the public
          So I‟m going to move that we put this on the table for debate or whatever, or however
you want to handle it.
          Speaker BERGSTROM: Did you come up with a positive recommendation?
          Mr. ANDERSON: Yes, we did, Mr. Speaker. We came up with a positive 4 to 1 vote,
I believe it was. It was either 4 or 5 to 1 to bring it before the full Assembly for acceptance.
          Speaker BERGSTROM: Okay. I‟ll take that as a motion. Do we have a second?
          Ms. STRIEBEL: Second.
          Speaker BERGSTROM: It has been moved and seconded. Now we can open it up for
          Leo, did you have something?
          Mr. CAKOUNES: Can I ask on that motion to bring it forward, to move it and it was
seconded, was that with the language as under the “Composition, Term of Office,” it says,
“There shall be a Cape Cod Centralized” etc. Is this the correction of the word “Commissioner”
or did I have to make an amendment for that?
          Speaker BERGSTROM: It can‟t be amended until it‟s on the table. So it has been
brought forward now the way it was originally presented. So now you can make a motion to

Motion to Amend Proposed Ordinance 10-05: to change Section 4.9 (a), second sentence to read
“or their designee” .

         Mr. CAKOUNES: I would like to make a motion to amend under Section 4.9. (a), the
second sentence. It presently reads “consisting of a County Commissioner or his designee,” and
my amendment would be to change it to “or their designee”.
         Mr. ANDERSON: Second it.
         Speaker BERGSTROM: It‟s been moved and seconded. Is there any further comment
on this amendment?
         Hearing none, all those in favor say “aye.” Opposed?
         All right. It passes.
Cape Cod Regional Government - Assembly of Delegates
Approved Journal of Proceedings – June 16, 2010                                        page 17

Whereupon, it was moved, seconded, and by a voice vote 74.84% voting yes; VOTED: to adopt the
amendment to Proposed Ordinance 10-05: by changing Section 4.9 (a), second sentence to read “or
their designee.

Motion to Amend Proposed Ordinance 10-05: to change Section 4.9 (b) (iv) from “negotiate and
sign contracts” to read “negotiate contracts”.

           Mr. CAKOUNES: I have a second amendment that I‟d like to bring forward, too, and
that‟s under “(b) Powers, Duties, and Responsibilities” under subsection iv) it presently reads
“negotiate and sign contracts”. I‟d like to make a motion to change that to just read “negotiate
           Speaker BERGSTROM: There‟s a motion on the floor. Is there a second?
           Ms. STRIEBEL: Second it.
           Speaker BERGSTROM: It has been moved and seconded. Are there any comments on
           Mr. CAKOUNES: Just for discussion purposes, again I would just feel more
comfortable. I really do back what we‟re doing here. I think putting this panel together is a
excellent move and I believe we should move forward with it as quickly as possible. I would
feel a little bit more comfortable. Removing the term “and sign contracts” I feel leaves it open to
the determination of the legal process that it has to go through. This Board of Trustees will in
fact do negotiation, bring forth the contracts and they‟ll be signed by the proper authorities. I
believe that if the legal representation of the County says that this board is the one to sign it, then
they can make that determination at that time. If it‟s in fact going to be the County
Commissioners because they‟re the ones that should sign it because they‟re the Executive
branch, then they can do it. Removing the term I don‟t believe hampers anything and just makes
me feel a little bit better.
           Ms. THOMPSON: If I may, Mr. Speaker?
           Speaker BERGSTROM: Yes, Diane.
           Ms. THOMPSON: Just so that the Delegates know that I conferred with the County
Commissioners because I was asked if there are there other multiple-member bodies in the
Administrative Code that are allowed to enter into contracts, as has been suggested. It does not
appear so at this time and the Commissioners agreed with the language as proposed by Mr.
Cakounes. It would be consistent with other multiple-member bodies in the Administrative
Code. For example, with the Cape Cod Commission Home Consortium and the EDC, the
County Commissioners approve the grants that are issued based on recommendations from those
organizations. So it would not be inconsistent, in other words.
           Speaker BERGSTROM: That motion was seconded by Charlotte.
           Deputy Speaker KEYES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
           Although I understand what my colleague is going for on this, the problem that we run
into is it changes the scope because we have three entities entering into an agreement that created
a document. We‟ve got the Cape Cod Healthcare; we‟ve got the Firemen‟s Association, and
we‟ve got the County. Now we can‟t make this change without the sign-off of those two other
entities. So really it‟s a re-draft. We don‟t know if they agree to this and we shouldn‟t have the
County Commissioners signing for Cape Cod Healthcare, nor the Firemen‟s because what if they
say no, we don‟t want them to sign for us.
Cape Cod Regional Government - Assembly of Delegates
Approved Journal of Proceedings – June 16, 2010                                        page 18

          I think this change that we‟re talking about right here really is a scope change and we
really should have those three entities sit down with the County Commissioners again and re-
draft something that they are all going to agree on because we don‟t know where the other two
entities are.
          Speaker BERGSTROM: Tom?
          Mr. LYNCH: I would agree with my colleague from Sandwich. You‟re setting up a
little mini Enterprise account where they‟re gathering their own money; they‟re getting it from
user fees; they‟re not using County money unless the County chooses to contribute. They
negotiate a contract, they should be responsible for that contract and sign it, administer it and be
the governing body. To interject the County Commissioners into a contract that they haven‟t
deliberated on or maybe the people who gave them money want the board oversight, I think
you‟re tying the hands of this board if you don‟t allow them to also sign it.
          Speaker BERGSTROM: I tend to agree with my colleague from Barnstable. I think
that it was the intention – and I‟ll go out and speculate – I think that it was the intention of the
people – including the Senate President, who set this up, and the Governor, that it be as least
political as possible. They wanted the community to distribute this money. “Accountability”
seems to be the buzz word now on Beacon Hill and so they just didn‟t want the situation where
it would be handed to somebody – not that we don‟t trust the Commissioners – but it tried to be
as least political as possible.
          I also think that in a sense they‟re just simply looking for a process of accountability.
This was set up so that they know where the money is going and somebody is going to be
accountable for it before they start using these funds. So I‟m not going to support this
          Is there any other comment on this?
          Hearing none, we will take a vote on Leo‟s amendment.
          Ms. THOMPSON: Do you want a voice or roll-call vote?
          Mr. CAKOUNES: I would request a roll-call vote.

Roll Call Vote on Motion to Amend Proposed Ordinance 10-05: to change Section 4.9 (b) (iv) from
“negotiate and sign contracts” to read “negotiate contracts”.
Voting No (69.27%): Richard Anderson (8.43% - Bourne), Ronald Bergstrom (2.98% - Chatham),
George Bryant (1.54% - Provincetown), Christopher Kanaga (2.85% - Orleans), Thomas Keyes
(9.06% - Sandwich), Thomas Lynch (21.52% - Barnstable), John Ohman (7.19% - Dennis),
Anthony Scalese (4.54% - Brewster), and Charlotte B. Striebel (11.16% - Yarmouth), and
Voting Yes (5.57%): Leo Cakounes (5.57% - Harwich)
Absent (25.16%): Marcia King (5.83% - Mashpee), Teresa Martin (2.45% - Eastham), Paul Pilcher
(1.24% - Wellfleet), Fred Schilpp (0.94 – Truro), and Julia C. Taylor (14.70% - Falmouth)

        Ms. THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker, the amendment does not pass with 69.27% of the
Delegates voting “no” and one Delegate voting “yes.”

Whereupon, it was moved, seconded, and by a roll call vote with 69.27% voting no and 5.57% voting yes;
VOTED: not to adopt the Motion to Amend Proposed Ordinance 10-05: to change Section 4.9 (b) (iv)
from “negotiate and sign contracts” to read “negotiate contracts”.

         Speaker BERGSTROM: Okay. We‟re now back to the main motion, which is on the
         Chris, do you have a comment?
Cape Cod Regional Government - Assembly of Delegates
Approved Journal of Proceedings – June 16, 2010                                      page 19

          Mr. KANAGA: Yes. If I may, I was just looking at the language here. It‟s always
risky to amend something on the fly like this. I think we have something now that, as amended,
doesn‟t really make sense either. We have “consisting of a County Commissioner or their
designee,” I think if I understand the amendment correctly.
          Speaker BERGSTROM: Yes.
          Mr. KANAGA: Are we trying to say here “a designee of the County Commissioners”?
          Speaker BERGSTROM: Yes.
          Mr. KANAGA: Can we just say that then? It just doesn‟t make sense “a County
Commissioner or their designee.” I think if we‟re just trying to get a designee of the County
Commissioners, we ought to just say that. But I don‟t know if that‟s the intent.
          Speaker BERGSTROM: I think the intent is –just as you explained it – that the County
Commissioners would appoint one of their members or they would appoint a designee to act in
their place. I agree that the language is awkward. I don‟t know if it‟s a big deal but I‟ll defer to
the legal authority. I know that words are important.

Motion to Amend Proposed Ordinance 10-05: To change Section 4.9 (a), second sentence to
read “or a designee of the County Commissioners”.

         Mr. KANAGA: If it said “a County Commissioner or a designee of the County
Commissioners,” it would make more sense. I think it says that.
         Speaker BERGSTROM: You could make that as a motion and we‟ll vote on it.
         Mr. KANAGA: So move.
         Speaker BERGSTROM: Do we have a second?
         Mr. SCALESE: Second.
         Speaker BERGSTROM: It‟s been moved and seconded.
         Deputy Speaker KEYES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
         On this motion, we do have the Commissioners here and I just want to throw a question
out. Considering that earlier statements were that we‟re looking at one contract, we‟re looking at
a low-impact committee for the most part. Do they have to have a designee? I‟d be more
comfortable with one of the County Commissioners actually signing, as opposed to a designee.
It doesn‟t sound like this is going to be a body of work that has to come forward. I think that
would clean it up if we just had County Commissioners.
         Speaker BERGSTROM: Charlotte?
         Ms. STRIEBEL: Mr. Speaker, I would move that we suspend the rules so that the
County Commissioners can make a comment.
         Speaker BERGSTROM: Do I have a second on that?
         Mr. ANDERSON: Second.
         Speaker BERGSTROM: All those in favor say “aye.” Opposed?
         Okay. You‟re on.
         Commissioner FLYNN: I believe it is the intention of the Commissioners to appoint a
Commissioner to this entity. But just in the event that something might happen that it wouldn‟t
be possible at some point in time, that the Commissioners could designate a person to represent
the Commissioners. It would be something unforeseen.
Cape Cod Regional Government - Assembly of Delegates
Approved Journal of Proceedings – June 16, 2010                                    page 20

          Mr. SCALESE:           So you agree with the language that Chris just offered as an
          Commissioner FLYNN: It‟s correct grammar to say it that way and I think that
anything we do should be grammatically correct and in the King‟s English, so I do agree with
that. It‟s just to provide an opportunity for some unforeseen circumstance.
          Speaker BERGSTROM: Okay. We have this amendment on the floor and it has been
          Mr. ANDERSON: Could he re-read it?
          Speaker BERGSTROM: Do you want to read the language? Dick wants it re-read.
          Ms. THOMPSON: What I have written down is that it says after Board of Trustees,
“consisting of a County Commissioner or a designee of the County Commissioners, a
representative” and so on. Is that correct?
          Mr. KANAGA: Correct.
          Speaker BERGSTROM: And that‟s been moved and seconded.
          If there is no further comment on this, we‟ll call for a vote.
          All those in favor say “aye.” Opposed?
          It passes.

Whereupon, it was moved, seconded, and by a voice vote with 74.84% voting yes; VOTED: to adopt the
Motion to Amend Proposed Ordinance 10-05: To change Section 4.9 (a), second sentence to read “or
a designee of the County Commissioners”.

        Speaker BERGSTROM: So now we‟re back to the main motion, which is the
Ordinance itself, as amended, 10-05.
        Do we have any further comment on the main Ordinance?
        Hearing none, we‟ll call the roll.

Roll Call Vote on Proposed Ordinance 10-05, as amended: to add Section 4.9 to the Barnstable
County Administrative Code establishing CMED Board of Trustees to provide for the oversight
and fiscal administration of the CEMD system in Barnstable County.
Voting Yes (74.84%): Richard Anderson (8.43% - Bourne), Ronald Bergstrom (2.98% - Chatham),
George Bryant (1.54% - Provincetown), Leo Cakounes (5.57% - Harwich)Christopher Kanaga
(2.85% - Orleans), Thomas Keyes (9.06% - Sandwich), Thomas Lynch (21.52% - Barnstable), John
Ohman (7.19% - Dennis), Anthony Scalese (4.54% - Brewster), and Charlotte B. Striebel (11.16% -
Yarmouth), and
Voting Yes (0.00%):
Absent (25.16%): Marcia King (5.83% - Mashpee), Teresa Martin (2.45% - Eastham), Paul Pilcher
(1.24% - Wellfleet), Fred Schilpp (0.94 – Truro), and Julia C. Taylor (14.70% - Falmouth)

        Ms. THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker, Proposed Ordinance 10-05, as amended, passes with
74.84 percent of the Delegates voting “yes.”

Whereupon, it was moved, seconded, and by a roll call vote with 74.84% voting yes: VOTED: to adopt
Proposed Ordinance 10-05, as amended: to add Section 4.9 to the Barnstable County
Administrative Code establishing CMED Board of Trustees to provide for the oversight and fiscal
administration of the CEMD system in Barnstable County.
Cape Cod Regional Government - Assembly of Delegates
Approved Journal of Proceedings – June 16, 2010                                    page 21

Proposed Ordinance 10-18: to add to the County‟s operating budget for fiscal year 2010, by
appropriating from the Dredge Fund as supplemental appropriations for the Dredge Program
Salaries in the amount of $21,450.

          Speaker BERGSTROM: Okay. Now we will move on to Proposed Ordinance 10-18:
To add to the County‟s operating budget for fiscal year 2010, by appropriating from the Dredge
Fund as supplemental appropriations, so on and so forth.
          At this time I will go to the Chairman of the Finance Committee, Mr. Ohman.
          Mr. OHMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and appropriately so.
          In regards to Proposed Ordinance 10-18, we held a public hearing two weeks ago. Four
Members of the Finance Committee attended. We had a frank discussion with the County
Administrator, Mark Zielinski. This is basically moving some funds for some unexpected
expenses to upfront the cost and they will be reimbursed through fee services. So it‟s a
temporary moving of money, and perfunctory at that.
          The board voted 4-0 to move it forward and I recommend it as such to move it forward
at this time.
          Speaker BERGSTROM: Okay. Do I have a second?
          Ms. STRIEBEL: Second.
          Speaker BERGSTROM: Okay. Is there any further discussion on this Ordinance? Do
we all understand what we‟re voting on here?
          If there is no comment, do you want to call the roll?

Roll Call Vote on Proposed Ordinance 10-18: to add to the County’s operating budget for fiscal
year 2010, by appropriating from the Dredge Fund as supplemental appropriations Dredge
Program Salaries in the amount of $21,450.

Voting Yes (74.84%): Richard Anderson (8.43% - Bourne), Ronald Bergstrom (2.98% - Chatham),
George Bryant (1.54% - Provincetown), Leo Cakounes (5.57% - Harwich)Christopher Kanaga
(2.85% - Orleans), Thomas Keyes (9.06% - Sandwich), Thomas Lynch (21.52% - Barnstable), John
Ohman (7.19% - Dennis), Anthony Scalese (4.54% - Brewster), and Charlotte B. Striebel (11.16% -
Yarmouth), and
Voting Yes (0.00%):
Absent (25.16%): Marcia King (5.83% - Mashpee), Teresa Martin (2.45% - Eastham), Paul Pilcher
(1.24% - Wellfleet), Fred Schilpp (0.94 – Truro), and Julia C. Taylor (14.70% - Falmouth)

         Ms. THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker, Proposed Ordinance 10-18 passes with 74.84 percent
of the Delegates voting “yes.”

Whereupon, it was moved, seconded, and by a roll call vote with 74.84% voting yes; VOTED: to adopt
Proposed Ordinance 10-18: to add to the County’s operating budget for fiscal year 2010, by
appropriating from the Dredge Fund as supplemental appropriations Dredge Program Salaries in
the amount of $21,450.

Reports of Committees

         Speaker BERGSTROM: Thank you.
         Are there any Reports of Committees?
Cape Cod Regional Government - Assembly of Delegates
Approved Journal of Proceedings – June 16, 2010                                      page 22

Report from the Clerk

         Speaker BERGSTROM: Hearing none, do we have a Report from the Clerk?

Future Calendars of Business of the Assembly

          Ms. THOMPSON: Yes. First of all, I was looking for my notes and I don‟t see them.
So from memory, first of all I will be working with the Speaker and we will be having different
entities, as he discussed, come before the Assembly in July and we will have that information
before you soon.

Open Meeting Law Interpretation

          Ms. THOMPSON: Secondly, I have been working with Mark Zielinski on the
interpretation and application of the new regulations in the Open Meeting Law that go into effect
July 1st. I still have some questions so until they‟re completely ironed out I suggest that you use
a strict interpretation of the law. As I mentioned when Mr. Ryan was here, until I‟m told
otherwise, unless something is on your agenda I don‟t believe that it should be discussed, and I
will be working with the Speaker on that matter. The new language in the law that defines
“deliberation” is very broad and while a new issue may be raised by someone it is not clear to me
that the new issue can be discussed by the Delegates until it is put on your Calendar. We may be
adding language to the Calendar that will allow for discussion on certain issues that are ongoing
before the Assembly.
     Speaker BERGSTROM: May I interject this. We had this discussion in Chatham and
we‟ve had extensive discussions going through Committees and I know they‟ve done it in
Barnstable and other places. The rule of thumb is that if you have an agenda – we have to
publish our agenda a certain date, 48 hours in advance because the public has to know what‟s
discussed. So if somebody comes to the next meeting and says, I didn‟t like Ordinance 10-05
and here‟s why, you can‟t really permit them to say that because the people who like Ordinance
10-05 don‟t know that it‟s going to be discussed and haven‟t been given a warning that it‟s on
the agenda and will be discussed.
          It‟s a difficult process and I think that what I‟m going to do is if somebody wants to
come up and say we‟re having a fundraiser for Children‟s Cove, that‟s perfectly fine. But if they
want to discuss something substantive that is normally discussed in the normal order of business
on the agenda, we can‟t really allow that. As Diane said, who knows what the Ethics
Commission will come down with eventually?
          But as a rule of thumb, if it‟s substantive, if somebody is bringing up another discussion
that‟s normally discussed in the normal order of business, you really can‟t do that unless the
public is given fair warning that that item will be on the agenda. That‟s how I interpret it and
that‟s pretty much how I‟m going to do it.
          Mr. KANAGA: I just want to understand what‟s being said because it sounds the way
this is being presented as though this law, which was enacted after all to have all discussions
open to the public and to have public access to information that might otherwise remain private,
is being interpreted in such a way as to limit public input and it seems incredible to me. So I just
want to make sure that I‟m understanding it.
Cape Cod Regional Government - Assembly of Delegates
Approved Journal of Proceedings – June 16, 2010                                        page 23

          Ms. THOMPSON: If I may, it is, in my opinion, quite to the contrary. It is to make
sure that when a subject comes up at a meeting that the public is aware that the subject matter is
going to be discussed and people are given an opportunity to speak for or against it. It is not
intended to limit public access or the public‟s ability to give their opinion. As Speaker
Bergstrom just said, it‟s to make sure that when a subject is discussed all parties are aware and
able to make comment.
          You are the County Legislature so it‟s a little bit – I‟m not quite sure if there isn‟t some
room for some leeway on that particular interpretation. But I am working, as I said, with Mark
Zielinski and County Counsel to make sure I have a clear understanding of what is or what is not
allowed. We may want to add some language that would cover, for example, Communications
from the County Commissioners in a little more detail because we‟re not always sure what they
will be bringing in before you. A problem with the new language is with the definition of
deliberation, which appears to require that discussion back and forth is not allowed unless the
subject matter is identified on the agenda.
          At any rate, I just wanted you to be aware that this is being worked on and there most
likely will be some changes to your routine. When it comes to your Committee meetings, what
needs to be done is very clear to me and pretty easy to accomplish. Your committee meetings, if
you think about your notices, how you receive them, have been fairly generic. I would tend to
put language about a known topic and then say “and other business,” that is a catch-all phrase. If
anything else came up, it gave you the ability to discuss it under the old law.
          According to the current interpretation, my understanding of the legal opinions on the
Open Meeting Law I have read, for your committee meetings every item that you‟re going to talk
about needs to be listed on your agenda or, in my opinion, you won‟t be able to discuss it until a
future meeting. So prior to calling for the committee meeting, we will have to give thought to
what potential subjects might come up and list them. So this is sort of a heads-up when you‟re
thinking about meetings, that we will make sure and try to be all-inclusive with what you might
bring up.
          It has been suggested that you can just add language that is somewhat ambiguous that
would protect you under the Open Meeting Law, but, again, from what I‟ve been told, that‟s not
the intent of this new law. The intent is to make sure that the public is aware of every matter that
is before every committee so that the public has an opportunity to make comments. So I will be
working with committees on that as well. If committee members bring up an issue that they
want the committee to deliberate on and it is not on the agenda, in my opinion, it will have to be
put on an agenda for a future meeting.
          Speaker BERGSTROM: I agree with Chris. It‟s going to be very difficult to observe
and very difficult to enforce. For instance, we discussed wastewater today with the
Commissioners and that wasn‟t on the agenda. So it‟s really going to be sort of an honor system
as to how far we go until we hear definitely – if we ever hear definitely – from the state exactly
what they expect or don‟t expect.
          Ms. THOMPSON: What I‟m talking about should not apply to your receiving
information from the County Commissioners. It may affect what happens after the information
is received, and it may not allow for discussion on the subject matter until a future meeting when
it has been placed on the Calendar. That is one thing that I am getting a legal opinion on.
          Commissioner FLYNN: May I say something?
          Speaker BERGSTROM: Yes. We‟re still under suspended rules. But it has to be
relevant to the issue at hand.
Cape Cod Regional Government - Assembly of Delegates
Approved Journal of Proceedings – June 16, 2010                                       page 24

          Commissioner FLYNN: It is. It‟s exactly on point. At the meetings that I‟ve attended
in the last seven days, they have actually included sessions on the Open Meeting Law. So I‟ve
had four sessions in the last week. What the changes govern is what you do – not with the
people who come before you do. It addresses your agenda – your agenda, and they use the
words “has to reasonably include the topics that you are going to take up,” and then specify what
that is in a reasonable way, not some long paragraph about what it is. But for people who come
before you, like for Public Comment, you can‟t control what people are going to say. So they
can say anything and you don‟t have to know ahead of time what they‟re going to say. They
come and they make Public Comment.
          Now what you do with that Public Comment is something else again. If you were to
deliberate on that, that would probably be an issue. So if they came to you with something and
said we want you to take certain actions, you‟d have to say “Thank you very much. We‟ll take
that under advisement.” Then you put it back on your agenda and then you take your action.
          When the Commissioners come before you, we‟re not coming before you to take action.
We‟re coming before you to report. We can have a discussion about what we say; that‟s
perfectly alright because you‟re not deliberating. The key word is “deliberate.” If you don‟t
deliberate on the report – say, for instance, this CMED wasn‟t on your agenda today, you
couldn‟t vote on it because it wasn‟t.
          So I don‟t think you have to worry about what people come before you say. It‟s what
you do with it. You can‟t deliberate; that‟s the key word.
          Speaker BERGSTROM: Tom?
          Mr. LYNCH: Mary Pat, have you discussed the 24-hour availability rule?
          Commissioner FLYNN: Yes.
          Mr. LYNCH: How is the County going to comply with that?
          Commissioner FLYNN: The County is going to put up a bulletin board outside the
          Mr. LYNCH: That anyone can put stuff on it?
          Commissioner FLYNN: No, you can‟t put stuff on it.
          Mr. LYNCH: It‟s got to be lighted.
          Commissioner FLYNN: Yes, it will be lighted. Although Mark says that if you come
at 2:00 in the morning, you‟ll have to bring your own flashlight.
          Mr. LYNCH: I don‟t know if that‟s the law.
          Commissioner FLYNN: No, it has to be lit and it has to be accessible to somebody in a
wheelchair. The requirement is the agenda is available 24/7. Now in some towns what they‟ll
do is they‟ll put it out in front of their building somewhere or they put it in a window if there‟s a
light for it. You can put it in a loose-leaf book and put it in your Police Department because
they‟re open 24/7. Sometimes fire stations lock their doors at night. But a police station is open
all night so you can have the agenda in a loose-leaf book.
          Obviously if you have a website, you would put it on the website but that‟s not
sufficient. There has to be a place where someone can actually physically come and view the
agenda. So there‟s going to be a bulletin board outside the courthouse over there for the County.
          Speaker BERGSTROM: We‟ll take that under advisement.
Cape Cod Regional Government - Assembly of Delegates
Approved Journal of Proceedings – June 16, 2010                                   page 25

          Ms. STRIEBEL: Mary Pat – through the Speaker – who provided you with this Open
Meeting information?
          Commissioner FLYNN: One of the sessions that I attended was by the new person that
was just hired by the Attorney General to be the Department Director of the Department of
Government, otherwise known as DOG. I wouldn‟t want to have that, but that‟s what they call
it. I‟ve heard him speak twice now on the Open Meeting Law and he‟s the one who is going to
enforce it so he should know.
          Then I heard a presentation by Katherine Hesse from the firm of Murphy Hesse
Toomey & Lehane. She is an excellent speaker and in fact I have a PowerPoint from her that I
would be happy to give you. I‟ll send it to Diane. Her presentation was really very well done.
          Those are the two that I can remember.
          Ms. STRIEBEL: What I was thinking of is that just having read what was in the
newspaper today and, as you said, it has to be available 24 hours a day, I think it might behoove
towns to get in touch with perhaps this man – the head of DOG – somebody that can really
explain this. We‟ve had Ethics meetings for years. People have been required to go to Ethics
meetings. But I think with this new Open Meeting Law it has so many rules and regulations, and
what you can do and what you can‟t do, I think it would behoove towns, or even if the County, if
somebody could hold a hearing and let people come to it and hear about the requirements.
          Commissioner FLYNN: We could invite him here and ask him to speak to all of us.
I‟m sure he probably would. Although I‟ll tell you the best one that I heard was from Katherine
Hesse and I‟m sure that that PowerPoint will give you a lot of good information.
          Speaker BERGSTROM: Maybe we‟ll add her to our summer agenda.
          Commissioner FLYNN: Yes.
          Speaker BERGSTROM: Because it‟s getting increasingly difficult for people, even
volunteers in government and officials like us, to basically navigate these ethics waters and I
know a lot of people who have decided not to pursue public service because of the ethics
requirements and so on and so forth. We don‟t want to discourage people. We will see if we can
get somebody here because it definitely has to be more defined. If somebody comes up and
broaches a subject and then maybe one of the Delegates says well here is what I think about that,
at what point does it go from simply a public comment to a general discussion and you really
have to know that. I think the other Delegates have to know how much. Do we simply not
respond? I agree with you, I think the policy in Chatham is always to say thank you very much
and we‟ll put it on the agenda and not accept any comments from the Assembly. But until we
get the definite rules, we won‟t be able to do that.
          Commissioner FLYNN: It really depends if the public comment is really requesting
deliberation. If it‟s just information, you want to ask them for more information and you have an
exchange of ideas, there‟s nothing wrong with that. The key word again is “deliberate.” The
only word that you really have to remember is that you can‟t deliberate unless you actually have
it posted on your agenda.
          Ms. THOMPSON: The changes to the Open Meeting Law are different from what is
required by the State Ethics Commission. I am working to make sure that your meetings will
comply with the new requirements of the Open Meeting Law and that involves the new posting
requirements too. The Speaker and chairs of committees will be further advised after I have
received a legal opinion that deals with many of the questions raised here today. We will keep
working on this until everyone is comfortable with the new procedures.
Cape Cod Regional Government - Assembly of Delegates
Approved Journal of Proceedings – June 16, 2010                                       page 26

          Ms. STRIEBEL: One other statement. I saw in the paper about minutes of meetings
and how under every item that is on the agenda there has to be a specific statement about what
was discussed and how it was handled.
          Commissioner FLYNN: Yes. It also requires that if there are any documents that were
part of the agenda –
          Ms. STRIEBEL: – they have to be attached.
          Commissioner FLYNN: No, not the documents themselves. You just need to have a
list of the documents. You don‟t have to actually keep each one of them. If you had building
plans and all of that, you just have to list what the documents were, as long as they‟re held
somewhere, just one copy, but they don‟t have to be attached to all the minutes.
          Ms. STRIEBEL: I hope maybe we can get this attorney to come, as well as look at this
          Commissioner FLYNN: I‟m sure he could.
          Speaker BERGSTROM: I think this also might be an opportunity to remind everyone,
I hope by now everyone has filled in their State Ethics Disclosure. I was a little late and I got a
very nice little note from the State Ethics Board that I should hustle up something so I did due
diligence. I presume everyone has gotten one.
          Ms. STRIEBEL: To that, Mr. Speaker, do you know what the consequences are of
volunteers in towns that have not complied with that requirement because I chair a committee of
which three of my members have not complied? The deadline was April 1st and I‟m still trying
to get them to comply.
          Commissioner FLYNN: Remember too, some of these regulations were due to become
effective July 1st but there‟s also the potential that some of them may not go into effect until
September or November of this year. Not all of them are going to be required as of July 1st and
we don‟t have that list yet from the state as to which ones can be delayed. That‟s a very onerous
requirement, too, for volunteers and there‟s been a lot of discussion about it and a lot of
communication back to the State Ethics Commission saying that this is over the top.
          So that may be one of them that won‟t be required until later on. But as of last
Wednesday when I heard Katherine Hesse speak, even she, at that point, did not have the list of
those requirements that are being delayed but some of them will be for sure.
          Speaker BERGSTROM: The nice little note that I got from the Ethics Commission
said that if I did not respond within ten days that I would not be able to take part in deliberations
and that there was a possible fine involved. This is for the filing of the Ethics report, not these
other things. So I did that and it took me ten seconds and I felt guilty that I hadn‟t done it
months before. So thank you very much. But it‟s important so I just thought that I would bring
it up.

Other Business

       Speaker BERGSTROM: Do we have any Other Business to be brought before the
Cape Cod Regional Government - Assembly of Delegates
Approved Journal of Proceedings – June 16, 2010                                          page 27

Hyannis Father‟s Day Event

          Mr. LYNCH: I normally don‟t like to just plug events that happen but a good Father‟s
Day event on Main Street in Hyannis would be the annual car show. There are hundreds of cars,
all the streets are blocked off, always well-attended, and we promise good weather and you‟ll
have a good time.
          Speaker BERGSTROM: Under Other Business, I simply would like to remind the
Delegates that it is summer and people are busy and they‟re scattered. If you can‟t make it to the
meeting, please notify the Clerk so that we are sure that we have a quorum.
          Is there any Other Business?
          Deputy Speaker KEYES: Mr. Speaker, move to adjourn.
          Mr. SCALESE: Second.
          Speaker BERGSTROM: Motion has been made and seconded. All in favor say “aye.”

Whereupon, it was moved, seconded and voted to adjourn the Assembly of Delegates meeting at 5:35 p.m.

                                                          Respectfully submitted by:

                                                          Diane C. Thompson, Clerk
                                                          Assembly of Delegates

To top