Expecting a high turnout for its next meeting that will feature a proposed CVS location at the northeast corner of Front Street and Route 6, Marion Planning Board members on September 15 voted 5-1 to hold its October 6 meeting at the Marion Music Hall to accommodate anywhere from 50 to 100 residents who may turn out for the public hearing to voice their concerns.

Planning Board member Eileen Marum made the suggestion to hold the meeting at the music hall, to which all board members concurred, with the exception of one member – Jerry “Rico” Ferrari.

“There was a great deal of interest generated,” said Marum during a follow-up interview about the CVS plan. “Not everybody concerned could be accommodated in that [Town House] hall.”

A number of residents attended the September 2 meeting when representatives of Mark Investments LLC, the developers of the proposed 14,000 square-foot CVS location, first appeared on the Planning Board agenda.

“There was a real reaction from voters,” said Marum. The initial discussion raised more questions than answers, and Marum felt strongly that a larger space would be necessary to accommodate a possibly larger-than-average turnout

Marum’s three concerns, she said, were the health, safety, and welfare of the residents in attendance, pointing out that, should there be a fire or some other emergency, the Town House conference room could pose a hazard to a large group attempting to evacuate the room.

“And I said, ‘people would be crammed in here,’” said Marum. “Are we going to be able to get all these people out?”

Board member Steve Gonsalves said he would support holding the meeting at the music hall, provided it was televised live for those at home to watch in real time, which the Town House is equipped to do, unlike the Marion Music Hall. Gonsalves ultimately voted in favor of Marum’s motion to hold the meeting at the music hall, seconded by board member Norman Hills.

We are elected officials, said Marum. “And this is a democracy. Everyone should have the right to express their point of view … and we should be able to listen to them.”

Marum said Marion Planning Assistant Terri Santos confirmed that the Marion Music Hall was available the evening of October 6, but final confirmation of the meeting’s location could not be made by publication deadline.

There were no public hearings listed on the agenda, only items listed for discussion.

The next meeting of the Marion Planning Board is scheduled for October 6 at 7:00 pm, tentatively to be held at the Marion Music Hall.

By Jean Perry

In light of the State’s new policy mandating fingerprinting of all school employees, members of “The Joint” must now figure out its own policy regarding how to fingerprint others, such as parent volunteers, who take part in school activities.

“The CORI (Criminal Offender Record Check) is still there,” said Superintendent Doug White. “And CORIs are done on a regular basis.”

CORI checks, however, only report on criminal activity documented within the State of Massachusetts. The new fingerprinting law extends that search nationwide.

During the September 11 meeting, White suggested that anyone who is responsible for taking a student off on their own – that is, any individual tasked with one-on-one supervision of students and/or anyone tasked with supervising a group of students – should be fingerprinted.

Then there are parents volunteering on field trips. The policy could require that parent volunteers pay for their one-time fingerprinting at a cost of $35.

“I want the parents to want to volunteer,” said Rochester School Committee member Jennifer Kulak. “I’m not too sure I’m comfortable with that level.” She said parents who would supervise a group of students overnight should be required to undergo fingerprinting, but classroom volunteers? “I’m not sure we have to set the bar that high.”

Mattapoisett School Committee Chairman James Higgins agreed.

“I don’t think we should charge for volunteering,” said Higgins.

Marion School Committee Chairman Joseph Scott concurred and expressed concern that the move might inhibit volunteerism at the schools. He wondered if the funds from student accounts might cover the cost.

Marion School Committee member Christine Winters, who also sits on the Budget Subcommittee, said it is important the committee brainstorm now and get the first read of the initial draft done, so the subcommittee can revise it and send it back to The Joint for approval as soon as possible.

“We always say they’re living, breathing policies,” said Winters. “But it’s good to have something in place.” She added that the policy could always be revisited further in the coming months.

Also during the meeting, The Joint considered consolidating school committee meetings in order to more efficiently relay information to all school committees while reducing the number of meetings key central administrative staff had to attend.

White, who attends all five times the five school committees meet every month, often gives the same presentation multiple times to all the multiple school committees. He suggested banding together two school committees during one evening to attend White’s presentation and then convene their own individual meetings.

“I would be in favor of minimizing the number of meetings that we have to go to,” said Higgins.

White suggested that certain topics, such as reporting MCAS scores, could be delivered to multiple school committees all at once instead of four times individually, referring to the concept as “an economy of words.” This would eliminate two meetings per month for some admin staff.

“I don’t know if that alleviates the problem,” said Higgins. “I don’t think two meetings goes that far.”

Marion School Committee member Christine Marcolini said she would support admin staff, like the facilities director, food service director, and director of student services attending meetings on an as-needed basis rather than attending every meeting.

“I think that’s appropriate,” said Mattapoisett School Committee member James Muse, adding that a combination of the two ideas might offer a solution.

The committee discussed having back-to-back meetings of two school committees one evening each month, with one convening first, then White addressing both committees, followed by the convening of the second committee.

“I’d love to only do twice instead of four,” said White. He said two is better than four when it comes to school committee meetings.

In other matters, White gave a slide presentation outlining his individual professional evaluation goals for the school year.

Some highlights included supervision and use of the superintendent rubric to score White’s performance.

“Now that I have Patrick (new Business Administrator Patrick Spencer),” said White, “I’d rather be in the schools than in my office communicating through email.”

White called his presentation “a conversation on where we want to be.” Much of the information the committee will use to score White’s performance will be based on self-assessment and White’s own data. Higgins said he found difficulty in this type of set-up, with White reporting to the committee on how he has been performing.

“It’s one source,” said Higgins. “I think it’s hard to ask committee members to give him status, to give him feedback, when the only source is him.” Higgins said the situation calls for more of a “board of directors scenario.”

“If the numbers are good and the progress is good, you give them the thumbs up,” said Higgins. If progress is poor, he continued, then you get further information from other sources.

The next meeting of the Joint School Committees is scheduled for November 13 at 6:30 pm at the Old Rochester Regional Junior High School media room.

By Jean Perry

The owners of a dog kennel at 368 North Avenue will have to reduce the number of dogs at their kennel until they construct a proper building in which to house their breeding dogs after the Rochester Board of Selectmen decided September 15 how to handle the complaints of incessant barking that has created a nuisance within the neighborhood.

Liberal and Melinda Teixeira were ordered to reduce the number of dogs on their property from 16 to no more than six at a time within two weeks, while they comply with the board’s requirement that the dogs be fully housed in an enclosed building within 90 days.

The Teixeras were not present at the meeting, but their attorney Robert Moore advocated to no avail on their behalf.

Town Counsel Blair Bailey, before a roomful of the Teixeras’ neighbors, offered several options from which the board could choose to rectify the nuisance, with the board opting to reduce the number of dogs, demand a properly ventilated structure to house the dogs, limit the number of dogs outside at one time, and construct a solid fence for when the dogs go outside to control the noise and limit exposure to outside stimulants that can trigger the dogs to bark.

“They have to be kennel buildings,” said Bailey. “These dogs are housed, and I use the word ‘housed’ loosely.” He likened the existing kennel structure to a greenhouse of sorts. “Which, in my mind, is an echo chamber.”

Bailey said he came up with his proposed solutions by looking into what other municipalities have imposed upon kennel owners under Massachusetts General Laws and existing case law.

Moore argued that the Teixeiras would need ample time to figure out the size of the mandated kennel structure, and he opposed the restriction on the number of dogs in the meantime.

When asked how many dogs are currently housed on the property, Moore said that while the Teixeiras had recently told him there were 16, he was unsure at that time.

“Where is she now?” asked one neighbor aloud about Ms. Teixeira’s inability to answer the board’s questions due to her absence from the meeting.

Moore requested another month to assess the building needs before selectmen placed any restrictions on the Teixeiras’ kennel, but that request was denied.

“It doesn’t make any sense for this board to do nothing,” stated Bailey. “That’s not fair. That’s not fair to the neighbors.” Bailey later said there have been further complaints about the dogs barking since the public hearing opened on August 25.

Blair told Moore that the Teixeiras could have all their dogs back on the property once the noise is mitigated, the structure is built, and the nuisance eradicated.

“They’re certainly free to come back and amend the decision,” Blair told Moore. “Because right now there’s 16 and the situation is not good.” Blair acknowledged the Teixeiras would likely appeal the board’s decision and the matter could move forward to litigation.

Also during the meeting, Southeastern Regional Planning & Economical Development District (SRPEDD) Director of Municipal Management Ross Perry asked the Town of Rochester to join 14 other communities in an aggregation program to lower the cost of electricity while choosing the sources of electricity, green or otherwise.

Perry said the concept was three-pronged: to save money, stabilize energy prices long-term, and designate a percentage of green energy sources.

According to Perry, the aggregation program so far represents over 140,000 households from other towns, roughly 1.7 billion kilowatt hours.

“That makes us bigger than any large business in the area,” stated Perry. He said residents could opt out of the agreement if they wanted to maintain their energy-purchasing status quo, which did not appear to fly with Selectman Naida Parker.

“Why would they have to opt out rather than opt in” asked Parker.

Perry explained that Town Meeting would vote on whether or not to join the aggregation program, which would include the whole town in the deal unless individual households wanted to opt out.

“I don’t like to be told I have to get out of [something],” said Parker. She said she would like to see it be the other way around.

Perry explained, though, that consumers are already automatically “opted-in” with their energy sources through NSTAR. The aggregation program would, essentially, be a way for consumers to opt out of the price rate for the energy they receive today and seek a lower price rate through other sources.

“Nothing will change,” said Perry, “other than the name on the [NSTAR] bill that says ‘supplied by.’” NSTAR would continue to be the energy distributor and only the negotiated power supplier would change – along with, hopefully, cheaper electricity rates.

SRPEDD is close to narrowing down the contractor it will select to do the negotiating for the towns represented in the aggregation program, and John O’Rourke of Good Energy was on hand to explain his role further.

“We sit on your side of the table when it comes to putting out the RFP,” said O’Rourke. He said this way, consumers in each town can get a better rate on their electricity and the company does all the outreach and education on behalf of the towns. “We take care of all that necessary work,” said O’Rourke. “There’s no cost to the Town.” No cost, that is, except for a fraction of a cent per kWh per customer that would appear on electricity bills.

“We are the largest, most successful aggregation company in the country,” said O’Rourke. He said each town would negotiate their own contract length from a “matrix of bids” the company would provide the towns, by term, and towns would decide on their own specific percentage of green energy sources.

“The larger the buying group, the better your negotiating power,” said Perry.

The board considered an article for the Fall Special Town Meeting, but held off on making a decision until a special BOS meeting scheduled for September 22 to approve the Special Town Meeting warrant.

In a follow-up interview, Town Administrator Michael McCue said the aggregation plan did not appeal very much to selectmen because the Town has already entered into a contract to purchase some of its electricity from the a local wind energy source slated to be online in the coming months. The board will decide at its next meeting on September 22 at 6:30 pm in the Rochester Town Hall.

By Jean Perry