To the Editor:

The Boards of Health of the Towns of Rochester and Marion wish to reply to recent newspaper articles and statements by Rochester’s Town Administrator and Town Counsel concerning the status of the Marion Rochester Regional Health District, in which they have attempted to build a case for withdrawal from the District for what they claim to be reasons of liability and savings. We believe that neither justification bears scrutiny, and that the Town will suffer in several respects if the change is made.

Despite numerous public statements to the contrary by the Town Administrator, we are confident that the law is clear that there is no need for the District to secure its own liability insurance. Because state law provides that District employees are treated as employees of the town of Rochester when performing duties in and for Rochester, the District’s employees are insured under the town’s “public officials” liability policy in connection with any activity in and for Rochester; they are similarly covered by Marion’s liability policy when they are performing duties in and for Marion. This point has been confirmed by written opinions from the District’s counsel, from Marion’s counsel, from counsel for the Massachusetts Association of Health Boards, and from a representative of the insurance carrier for the Town of Marion. Although Rochester’s Town Administrator has produced no written advice from that Town’s insurance carrier, and has directed District staff and officials not to Contact the carrier directly, he has continued to publicly state, as recently as April 22, that the insurer has advised him that there is no coverage.

Town Counsel for Rochester has recently conceded that he does not necessarily share that view, but states that he has concern about “gaps” in coverage, which he has declined to specify with sufficient particularity so that a question could be directed to our counsel and the Town’s insurer. At this point, the District feels that the Selectmen are attempting to engage it in a game of “whack-a-mole,” but we are prepared to respond in writing to any serious concern regarding liability that the Selectmen likewise state to us in writing.

The savings to the town from withdrawal from the District were largely premised on the contention that it should be purchasing liability insurance separately, which disappear when viewed in the light of the opinions cited above. Other than that, the only expense that would not be duplicated if the town withdrew is that of the District’s Treasurer, whom we pay $891.50 per year. We believe that modest expense is substantially outweighed by the savings enjoyed by the District and grants available to the District as a result of the economies of scale realized by pairing with Marion.

As we understand the Selectmen’s proposal at this point in time, they wish to withdraw from the District and hire a health agent part time, in contrast to the full-time agent that the town now employs. (When they first proposed this change, they suggested an inter-municipal agreement with the town of Marion that would permit continued sharing of a full-time employee; they apparently now concede that that arrangement will not work.) They have not asked the town of Marion whether it would be willing to likewise engage a part-time agent; nor have they asked the District or its agent whether she would be willing to accept part time employment, which would eliminate her health insurance coverage and other benefits of full-time employment. Given this lack of interest on the Selectmen’s part, our conclusion is that the Selectmen either intend that the town replace the current agent, or are simply indifferent to the issue. The District is highly doubtful that the town can attract an equally qualified candidate for a part-time position.

The Boards of Health of Rochester and Marion have had a long and successful collaborative relationship under the auspices of the Marion Rochester Regional Health District. Our current agent is highly qualified and she and we enjoy mutual respect. The existence of the District allows the town of Rochester to apply more effectively for state grants, and to participate in public programs that would not be feasible if the town chose to go it alone. We cannot understand why the Selectmen want to forego all these advantages, and we respectfully urge Town Meeting members to vote against the Selectmen’s article for Withdrawal from the District.

Dale Barrows

Rochester Board of Health

The views expressed in the “Letters to the Editor” column are not necessarily those of The Wanderer, its staff or advertisers. The Wanderer will gladly accept any and all correspondence relating to timely and pertinent issues in the great Marion, Mattapoisett and Rochester area, provided they include the author’s name, address and phone number for verification. We cannot publish anonymous, unsigned or unconfirmed submissions. The Wanderer reserves the right to edit, condense and otherwise alter submissions for purposes of clarity and/or spacing considerations. The Wanderer may choose to not run letters that thank businesses, and The Wanderer has the right to edit letters to omit business names. The Wanderer also reserves the right to deny publication of any submitted correspondence.

To the Editor:

The Rochester Board of Selectmen and the Town Administrator have decided, on their own, to put an article on the Rochester Town Meeting Warrant to dissolve Rochester’s ties with the Marion Rochester Regional Health District. The Rochester Board of Health and the Marion Board of Health members have expressed their firm opposition to the article.

Many townspeople may ask, ‘what is the Marion Rochester Regional Health District?’ and ‘how does it serve the Town of Rochester?’

Back in 1989, the towns of Acushnet, Rochester and Marion formed a health district. Accordingly, each town voted to form a district for employing a health officer, necessary assistants and clerks, all of whom shall be appointed and removed by a joint committee composed of the Boards of Health of those towns. The employees of the district are under the direct supervision of the district members, who are also responsible for approving their compensation. The reason for forming the district was to provide administrative and professional expertise in public health matters to the Board of Health.

In 1997, the Town of Acushnet Board of Health members voted to leave the District. The reason for this was that development was at an all-time high and Acushnet needed a full-time agent.

So what does the Health Director do as an employee of the district? As Health Director, my duties are shared between the town of Marion and the town of Rochester. I enforce the many facets of Title 5, which includes the witnessing of percolation tests, reviewing proposed septic plans, conducting septic construction inspections and reviewing septic inspection reports for real estate sales. As the agent for the Boards of Health, I am also responsible for restaurant inspections, plan reviews for kitchens and housing inspections. In addition, I inspect summer camps for children and do water quality monitoring of beaches. I am also responsible for ensuring compliance with local Boards of Health and State-mandated regulations.

On the medical side, the Board of Health investigates communicable disease incidents, provides blood pressure monitoring, offers flu clinics for residents and monitors state reporting of mosquito born diseases, such as West Nile Virus and Eastern Equine Encephalitis, in the area.

These are some of the many ways that the Health District services the towns. The way that the District is designed affords a collaboration of personnel and services provided by the public health nurses of both towns, who share information, cover clinics for each other, and provide specialized services, such as Mantoux testing for both towns. A perfect example of how the collaboration works and how Rochester benefits from the District occurs yearly with our flu clinic. Planning for flu clinics is a work in progress between the public health nurse in Rochester and the public health nurse Marion. A lot of effort goes into scheduling clinics, ordering the vaccine and supplies, scheduling the clinic location, advertising, getting forms ready, packing up supplies and carting them to and from the clinic.

This past January, we had an influenza epidemic. Persons that were not immunized during the fall became ill with the flu. Marion purchased flu vaccine and Rochester was not able to because of a shortage of vaccine. Because we have a Health District, we were able to allocate 50 doses to Rochester. Collaboration of services through the Health District goes a long way to solving problems.

Because we have a District, we work under one management and do not have to duplicate work and services. Massachusetts Department of Public Health has made regionalization a priority to effectively and efficiently address the public health needs of Massachusetts’s residents. For many communities in the state, this requires forging new relationships. Rochester and Marion have this relationship through the Health District.

Do we really need to move backward by disbanding the District that has worked so well for 24 years? Do we want to move to a system that increases costs to both communities by creating inefficiencies and duplicating services? I think not.

Regionalization has provided the District the opportunity to apply for grants that benefit public health in both communities. The number of people served by the District is greater than the number of people served by each community and this is a relevant factor in the awarding of grants. Examples of the grants we have obtained include the Tobacco Control grant whereby one person worked on a regional basis to write regulations and keep our kids safe from the tobacco industry. We got that grant because we served more than one community.

In 1990, we got a recycling grant for a recycling truck for both towns. In addition, we were recently notified that a grant application we had submitted for the Shingles vaccine had been successful. We applied for this grant as a District because of the efficiencies of meeting the needs of the towns as a district and because the Commonwealth placed a premium value on regionalized grants, granting more funds to a district application than if each town applied separately.

I encourage Rochester residents, especially those who have benefited from the Board of Health, to come to town meeting and vote your support to keep the Health District in town to serve the people. If you have sought a building permit, had a septic system installed, or had a pending real estate sale, then you know first hand how efficient the Health District is. I am able to sign off quickly on applications because I have help of others, i.e., food inspectors, so that your permit application is a top priority when I get to the office. Other services, such as an influenza shot or medical question, are answered by a knowledgeable nurse.

Both the Marion and Rochester Boards of Health have expressed their firm opposition to severing the Health District. They recognize the value of regionalized services offered through the District. Remember, the budget is scrutinized and reviewed by the six Board of Health members representing both towns. If those members thought this was a good move, they would be in agreement with the Selectmen.

Regionalization is about saving money. It is done through the provision of effective and efficient professional services. I know the Marion Rochester Health District has proved this by providing services to the residents of the towns of Rochester and Marion. The town will lose these efficiencies by withdrawing from the District.

Rochester residents, I urge you to vote NO on Article 10 and keep the Marion Rochester Regional Health District working for the Boards of Health.

Karen Walega, MPH, CHO, RS

Marion Rochester Regional Health District Director

The views expressed in the “Letters to the Editor” column are not necessarily those of The Wanderer, its staff or advertisers. The Wanderer will gladly accept any and all correspondence relating to timely and pertinent issues in the great Marion, Mattapoisett and Rochester area, provided they include the author’s name, address and phone number for verification. We cannot publish anonymous, unsigned or unconfirmed submissions. The Wanderer reserves the right to edit, condense and otherwise alter submissions for purposes of clarity and/or spacing considerations. The Wanderer may choose to not run letters that thank businesses, and The Wanderer has the right to edit letters to omit business names. The Wanderer also reserves the right to deny publication of any submitted correspondence.

To the Editor:

Good grief!

A press report states that a member of the Mattapoisett Planning Board suggests the area all along Route 6 in town, from the Fairhaven town line to Aucoot Road (close to the Marion town line) be rezoned business.

In my younger days, the cry was, ‘Let’s not let Route 6 become like Route 6 in Buzzards Bay!’

Next came the horror show along Route 6 in North Dartmouth.

Route 6 in East Fairhaven has now approached the point of no return.

Let me remind those Mattapoisett newcomers about the action town meeting took in May 1985.

Article 26 called for extending the General Business District on the north side of Fairhaven Road (Route 6) easterly for 1,939 feet. That was defeated 90-20.

Article 27 called for 1,277 feet of the General Business District on the south side of Marion Road (Route 6) to be changed to rural residence. That passed 109-2.

I suggest the current Board stop wasting time on this ridiculous suggestion and work on more important land use issues (such as larger lot sizes outside of the river valley) for the benefit of those who elected them and for future generations.

Recent town surveys show the percentage of residents favoring open space and rural character remains very high.

Brad Hathaway

Mattapoisett

The views expressed in the “Letters to the Editor” column are not necessarily those of The Wanderer, its staff or advertisers. The Wanderer will gladly accept any and all correspondence relating to timely and pertinent issues in the great Marion, Mattapoisett and Rochester area, provided they include the author’s name, address and phone number for verification. We cannot publish anonymous, unsigned or unconfirmed submissions. The Wanderer reserves the right to edit, condense and otherwise alter submissions for purposes of clarity and/or spacing considerations. The Wanderer may choose to not run letters that thank businesses, and The Wanderer has the right to edit letters to omit business names. The Wanderer also reserves the right to deny publication of any submitted correspondence.