That's what's been done with most of the subdivisions in town already. This is a request by the developer of this road who's completed the subdivision to have the town do this. The planning board had a hearing. The town planner reviewed the uh road and the requirements for the road. the the selectman then had a hearing as well. The selectmen are favorably inclined to this and voted to support this, but ultimately it is up to you. What what what you're being asked to do is to authorize the selectman to accept the road to take the road or to acquire the road on behalf of the town. And we have some conditions before we would do that. One of which is that the issues that the planner uh noted, which were not significant issues, but had to do with a a couple of items uh repairing some pavement and planting some trees that uh have died uh since they were originally planted.
Until those are done, the planning the uh selectman does not do not intend to accept the road, but we are but we are supporting having the authorization to do so and we do expect that the developer will take care of those. He's told us he will. Thank you. Are there any other comments or questions? If not, we'll go to the vote. This is a simple majority for passage. All those in favor, please say I. I. Those opposed, nay. Motion passes. Article 19, establish speed limits. Madam moderator, Mr. Ley, I move that the town vote to accept the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 90, Section 17C, which would allow the board of selectmen to establish speed limits of 25 miles per hour in a thickly settled or business district and to accept the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 90 sections 18B, which would allow the board of sleen to establish designated safety zones with speed limits of 20 miles per hour.
Second. It's been moved and seconded. Are there any comments or debate? If not, this requires a majority for passage. All those in favor, please say I. I. Those opposed, nay. Motion. I'm having trouble again. Motion passes. Article 20, amend the personnel administration plan. Madam moderator. Yes. I move that the town vote to accept pursuant to chapter 20 section 4 of the general bylaws of the town of Sherburn the amendment of the personnel administration plan by deleting such plan in its entirety and replacing it with an amended and restated personnel administration plan dated April 10th a copy of which is available for inspection at the board of selectman's office during the regular business hours thereof and available on the town's website second. It's been moved and seconded. Am I to understand there's the presentation here? Is there? So, one one quick thing we did, again, this was another item that we uh voted on before the meeting tonight.
Originally at our public hearing, they were still making some changes to this plan and since then they've uh the personnel board has finalized the revised personnel plan which we saw which we talked about tonight and voted 7 to one to one to accept this plan to support this plan. Since 2009, the town's general bylaws have witnessed significant changes in the authority of the town administrator in regards to human resource responsibilities. There's also been a new finance director, town accountant bylaws, as well as other changes in state and federal labor laws such as uh Fair Labor Standards Act, um FMLA, Family Medical Leave Act. Um after nearly six months of review and meetings open to the public and employees, the personnel board voted unanimously on March 10th to approve the plan draft. Um these are just the highlights of it was removal from section seven the paragraph formally C that allowed an employee to request additional sick time from the personnel board after the employee has used up all their earned vacation personal and sick time.
Revisions were made u that are required in order to be consistent with the bylaws. uh that I just mentioned and the addition of a new section on layoffs and position eliminations that states a clear process for handling those events. And there were also many language and procedural improvements to other sections including the work from home request and approval process, performance evaluations, position reclassification, hiring and performance improvement. Um Fred Abdalah is the chair of the personnel board. I think he just wanted to say a couple of words if he's still here. There you are. I'm not sure I'm going to say much more than uh was already said, but uh this is a process that we went through for the last 6 months or so uh to go through and we actually went through page by page. uh and the the personnel board besides myself also comprises uh two uh labor attorneys.
So I think we did a pretty comprehensive job in going through this and making sure that we've got uh got everything set up properly and it and also is reviewed by town council.
Any questions? Okay. Are there any comments, questions? M madam moderator, the selectman voted tonight uh five to zero to support uh this plan after the kinks had been worked out uh over the past few months. Okay. Thank you. If not, we'll move to the vote. This is a simple majority for passage. All those in favor, please say I. I. Those opposed, nay. The motion passes. Article 21, removal of elected financial officials. Madam moderator, Mr. Waldron, I move that no action be taken. Second. Second. It's been moved and seconded that no action be taken. Uh there's a presentation I understand by the sponsor. Do you need the screen? No. Okay. Sorry to to keep you back again. Uh this article provides us with a tool that we should have but hope to never need. Mass General Law Chapter 41 section 39B used to provide the option of having the commissioner petition the court for removal of a finance officer.
But the new governor's modernization bill eliminated that option and pushed that responsibility back to the cities and towns, indicating that they were better suited to take on that role and that most already were taking care of it themselves. Terminating someone's employment is always a sensitive issue which has the potential of landing in court whether the employee is elected or appointed. There is a cost associated with that but there is the potential for a greater cost if a bad situation is allowed to continue with one of your financial officers. This process requires cause, malfeasants or non-feasence, but gives the town and the employee a step that might bring about a resolution short of a court proceeding. We have seen several attempts at recall bylaws, and there is always concern that they are politically motivated, could become a witch hunt, or puts too much power in the hands of a few people.
Since this would apply to me, I hoped that my proposing it would dispel the politically motivated piece. The fact that concerns from a variety of people can trigger the process and that the process spreads the responsibility of determining an outcome over the chairs of many of the relative town boards and committees with council a required participant. It should provide some level of cover comfort to those who fear too much power being placed in a singular person or board. It also takes some of the onus of the outcome off any one person or board. It is generic in that it is not designed around any existing committee or board, but would pull together a review committee from the chairs of the designated boards and committees at the time it's needed. These designated committees would be the people most likely to first be aware of irregularities in the town's financial matters.
Excuse me. At the hearing in March, some concerns were expressed regarding whether the provisions were legal. Town council has reviewed the document several times and given the opinion that if you pass this act in this article tonight and as a home rule petition, it is passed by the legislature. The provisions are valid. When I consulted the attorney at the Department of Revenue, he was quite surprised that the town did not already have such a protection in place. It is not perfect, but it is adequate and will fill the vacuum left by the change in the law. Please vote no on the advisory motion to take no action and vote yes on a later motion that I will submit to support the article. Thank you. Is there any comment or debate? Uh yes, madam moderator. Board of selectmen voted 4 to one to support the advisor's no action recommendation.
Um I think we understand this is a well-intended uh article, but the language in this legislation is is complicated and and uh not necessary at this time. We can I think we'd be happy to work with Nancy on trying to come up with something that works a little better. Uh but this one is uh overly complicated and we support the advisory no action motion. Oh, okay. Person walking in the back is just walking in the back. Um this is a case of a negative motion to take no action. If you agree with the intent to take no action, then you will vote um I. If you disagree with that, you'll vote nay, vote it down. And if that vote is successful, then um my understanding is that Nancy will substitute an alternate uh positive motion. So everybody understand what's happening with this? Okay. All those in favor of the advisory motion to take no action, please say I.
I. Those opposed, nay. Motion passes to take no action. Article 22, conflict of interest, Board of Health candidates. This is a citizens petition. We're going to hear from its proponent. Motion first. Oh, we have to hear the motion first. Madam moderator, Mr. Williams, I move that no action be taken. Second. It's been moved and seconded that no action be taken. Yes, Mr. Morgan. I'm George Morgan. I live at 41 Bear Hill Road here in Sherburn. Warrant article 22 calls for all candidates seeking office on the Serban Board of Health as a local extension of existing state law to complete the state's disclosure statement of conflict of interest at the beginning of any campaign. Present law requires that only those elected to office must file this statement prior to taking office because Sherburn is one of only a few communities out of the 351 in Massachusetts whose water and soil can by envir department of environmental protection determination be particularly and adversely stressed by both artificial and natural means.
It is especially important to the larger Sherburn community that all members of the board of health be able to deliberate, review, and render decisions on all matters brought before it rather than have any members not share equally with the others on the board the vital business of the board of health. The purpose of article 22 is to maximize for Sherburn voters in the interest of a more fully informed electorate information on candidates for the board of health prior to election to the board of health. Disclosing a conflict of interest does not prevent a candidate from running for the office. Disclosing conflict of interest does not prevent anyone from voting for the candidate. Disclosing conflict of interest does not prevent the candidate from assuming office if elected. Article 22 does not limit a candidate to any specific active set of credentials to hold office on the Shervin Board of Health.
Article 22 leaves it up to the individual voter to decide to what, if any, extent any stated conflict of interest or lack thereof, will influence their choice of candidate. The disclosure statement provided at the beginning of a campaign gives voters the opportunity to evaluate on their own to what extent, if any, they may agree or disagree with the opinion expressed in the candidates's disclosure statement. Article 22 officially gives voters this opportunity. The advisory committee has voted with three abstensions. No action on article 22. Reasoning that requiring upfront disclosure of conflict of interest constitutes restraint or constraint on the candidate and that candidates for other town offices are not similarly constrained. Article 22 does not restrain or constrain a candidate from running for office. Article 22 does not restrain or constrain voters from voting for the candidate. Article 22 does not restrain or constrain a candidate from being elected to office.
If there is any restraint or constraint on the candidate, it could only be on the part of the candidate harboring issues that the candidate would not want voters to consider. In such a case, the interest of the candidate would be taking precedence over the interest of the public who the candidate presumes to serve. We the voters deserve the opportunity to decide for ourselves in advance of the election to what extent we agree or disagree with the stated interest disclosed in advance by the candidate. Events over the last six months in Washington have given all voters an elevated reason to value transparency on the part of candidates. Voter opinion continues to differ on a national scale between an elected candidates's opinion of any conflict of interest and that of the voter. I submit that we the Sherman voters are entitled to have the opportunity pre-election to be more fully informed than is now the case regarding a candidate's opinion of conflict of interest as it may be relevant to serving on the board of health.
Regarding the advisory committee's reasoning that other town officials offices are not subject to a candidate's pre-election disclosure of conflict of interest and therefore candidates for the board of health should not also be subject to such a requirement. We can fairly note that town offices differ from each other in important respects. There is no imperative requiring that pre-election disclosure of conflict of interest apply to any other town department beyond that here addressed by article 22 to the board of health. If one holds that pre-election disclosure of the conflict of interest should apply to all town offices and not just to the board of health, then one could as easily reason that all town offices must have only five members or that all town officials must serve only two2 years or that all town officials must receive equal financial compensation. Sherban's town offices differ in all of these respects as they must in order to best operate in the public interest.
Article 22 permits a degree of transparency by candidates for the board of health that directly serves the public interest of all Sherburn residents. Ultimately, it should be the voters who decide these matters relative to the individual missions and requirements of each town office. In order for article 22 to proceed to the floor for a vote tonight, it is necessary first to vote to set aside the no action vote of the advisory committee. If you vote to set aside the advisory committee's vote of no action, then we will immediately make a motion to allow article 22 itself to come before the voters here assembled to be voted upon. In the interest of a more informed electorate, we ask that article 22 be voted forward for action by those here assembled. Receive your yes vote. Thank you.
Is there any discussion? Yes. in the rear. Warren Wheel Wright, 137 Hunting Lane. The role of the board of health is too important not to provide full disclosure of conflicts of interest before a candidate runs for office and gets elected. Vote no on advisory motion to take no action. Then vote yes. We need full disclosure. Thank you. Yes. In the rear, a couple of questions. Is there a legal definition for conflict of interest? Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello. Yeah, you're on. No. Is it on? Okay. Yes. Sorry. Uh, as far as a a legal definition, there is an entire chapter of the general laws, chapter 268A, that goes into detail as to what various things constitute a conflict of interest under that statute. So there's no single definition. It's there are numerous sections that define different types of conflicts. Okay. Uh, so is there been litigation regarding that definition, that chapter?
I'm sorry, could you repeat the question? Yes. Has there been litigation regarding the application of that section of the law? Has there been litigation? So again, there are many numerous sections in that chapter and I have no doubt that there has been litigation over one or more of them. Okay. And what would be the effect if one did not disclose all of the quote conflict of interests on the outcome of the election if that person won? Would it negate the the uh election? Can you answer that? My understanding is there's no there's no effect according to the the statement from the gentleman. I'm sorry. The again, so the proposal under article 22 is disclosure of conflicts of interest by board of health candidates prior to an election in accordance with state law chapter 268A section 23 or take any other action relative there too. I don't see anything in there that says anything about an effect upon the election.
So, someone could challenge the outcome of the election if they claimed that I didn't disclose all of what they thought was a conflict of interest. I think that's a rhetorical That's not a rhetorical question. That's That's a question that I'd like to have an answer to. Anybody want to take a shot at that one? I think Mr. Morgan's going to take a shot at that. Whoever gets elected gets elected. uh you can say okay you got a conflict of interest but that doesn't prevent you from getting elected so what's the point the point as I iterated earlier is to have I don't disclose anything I get up I get elected so what so if you have a conflict of interest uh and you get elected uh what you actually disclosed at the outset if you claim not to have a conflict of interest is a public document that can be brought to the for to hold the elected official accountable for not disclosing a conflict of interest.