Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-04-16 RMLD Board of Commissioners MinutesReading Municipal Light Board of Commissioners Regular Session 230 Ash Street Reading, MA 01867 i April 16, 2002 j Start Time of Regular Session: 7:40 p.m. End Time of Regular Session: 10:10 P.M. "v" Attendees Commissioners: Messrs. Ames, Pacino, Hughes, Herlihy and Soli RMLD Staff: Mr. Cameron, Acting General Manager and Mr. Blomley Mses. Cavagnaro and Gottwald CAB: Messrs. Bartlett, Lessard, and Carakatsane Selectmen Liaison: Mr. Joe Veno, North Reading Board of Selectmen RMLD Employee: Ms. Donna Blomley Guests: Mr. Daniel Halloran, Former Commissioner and Mrs. Halloran Mr. David Swyter, Former Commissioner Mr. Richard LaCapra, LaCapra Associates Ms. Ann Hadley, JC Marketing Ms. Mary Murray, Reading Chronicle Mr. Robert Turosz, North Reading Transcript Mr. John Carpenter, Reading Resident, Town Meeting Member, Precinct 7 Mr. Robert Iorio, Reading Resident Mr. Richard McNamara, Reading Resident This meeting is being video taped, as a public record, for distribution to the community television stations in Reading, North Reading, Wilmington and Lynnfield. Tapes of this meeting can be purchased from RCTV ($2 tape). Mr. Ames, Chairman of the Board, called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m Mr. Ames noted he would like to get the introductions done, however; first he wanted to make a brief statement as Chair due to the fact it is reorganization night. Mr. Ames stated "what doesn't kill us makes us stronger." From the present experience the Department will be stronger, procedures will be tighter and the internal organization will be tighter. Mr. Ames requested all look at the department's strengths and individuals. Mr. Ames thanked Laurie Cavagnaro and Tony Butler for their coming forward at the last Task Force meeting. Mr. Ames also wanted to thank Vincent Cameron as his efforts have been above and beyond the call of duty since this matter was brought forward. Mr. Ames noted as a result of the forensic audit it was determined that inappropriate expenditures were limited to the actions of a small number of trusted individuals in senior management. The Commission's trust was violated. The Commission did not knowingly participate in these activities neither did the Citizen's Advisory Board or the vast amount of employees. In the Melanson Heath report, Mr. Sullivan noted, "the Commission did what they should have done." In both the PriceWaterhouseCoopers and the Melanson Heath reports the number of transactions involved with travel had a questionable amount of $30,000.00 out of a $200 million cash flow. It did not alter the overall finances of the Department. Mr. Ames noted there needs to be better oversight. The Commission trusted the individuals involved. The Commission learned we need to do a better job and it will. Presentation of Meter Lamps to Former Commissioners Halloran and Swyter Mr. Ames thanked Commissioners Halloran and Swyter for their efforts as RMLD Board of Commissioners. Introduction of Commissioners Herlihy and Soli, two newly elected Board members Mr. Ames introduced Commissioners Herlihy and Soli. Mr. Ames noted he commends the two new Commissioners, as they are brave to take this on. Mr. Ames owes them a serious debt of gratitude in carrying the ball; they have a tall job ahead as substantial internal procedures need to be reworked. Report ofthe Chairmanof the Board Price W aterhouseCoopers Mr. Ames pointed out on the RMLD's web page the following reports can be found: PriceWaterhouseCoopers, with links to the Inspector General's report and links to the Melanson Heath report. The RMLD Board of Commissioner's agenda is also found at www.rmld.com. Regular Session Meeting Minutes April 16, 2002 Board Reorganization Mr. Ames noted he wanted to defer the reorganization of the Commission until after the business on the agenda was addressed. ,Mr. Pacino noted he recommended the reorganization take place at this time. He stated "it is a new era, we need to move forward in a more positive manner at this time." Mr. Pacino made a motion seconded by Mr. Hughes that the Commission vote on Board Reorganization at this time. Motion did not carry, vote was 2:2:1. Messrs. Hughes and Pacino in favor, Messrs. Ames and Herlihy against, Mr. Soli abstained. Citizens' Advisory Board, Selectmen Liaison, and Customer Comments Mr. Veno noted he apologized he has not been in attendance at the last couple of RMLD Board of Commissioner's meetings; this was due to a conflict with North Reading's Town Meeting. Mr. Veno stated he read the PriceWaterhouseCoopers report and he was not displeased with the report as it was done in depth, fairly and honestly. Minutes of March 27, 2002 Mr. Hughes made a motion seconded by Mr. Pacino that the minutes of March 27, 2002 be approved as presented. Motion carried 2:0:3. Mr. Pacino was not present at this meeting. Messrs. Herlihy and Soli were present at this meeting however, not voted in as Commissioners therefore sustained from this motion. Minutes of April 1, 2002 Mr. Hughes made a motion seconded by Mr. Pacino that the minutes of April 1, 2002 be approved as published. Motion carried 3:0:2. Messrs. Herlihy and Soli were present at this meeting however, not voted in as Commissioners therefore sustained from this motion. Presentation Richard LaCapra and Vin Cameron Purchase Power Adjustment Charge Mr. Cameron noted the reason this has been brought before the Commission is that it appears the RMLD should get some vehicle in place for its rates and to credit back money to the RMLD customers because it appears the Department has too much money in " the Rate Stabilization Fund (RSF). Mr. Cameron prepared a memo about a year ago stating eight to ten million dollars would be the appropriate level of the RSF pertaining to risk abatement. The RMLD restructured power supply deals in effect lowered costs marginally thus funneling more money into the RSF. Currently, there is about fourteen million in the RSF as of year end. Mr. Cameron suggested a purchase power adjustment, which is a vehicle to adjust base electric rates targeting power supply costs. Mr. Cameron looked at it from an RMLD standpoint; he hired Richard LaCapra of LaCapra Associates so he could look at it from a consulting point of view. Mr. Cameron wanted Mr. LaCapra to come back to him to see if the two studies converged or not. Mr. Cameron put a memo to the Commission for their information. Mr. LaCapra summarized the results of the two items he looked at for the Department. The first issue is what is the appropriate level of RSF, how much money should be kept and working capital with a company the size of the RMLD and amount of activity. The second issue is concerning the rates; should the power costs now purchased through competitive markets as opposed to the older regulated forms of purchase be tracked on a monthly basis as opposed to inventitive rates sometimes that last for years. The two questions for the RSF are: what are the uses and how the current risks and liability match with the uses, and if it is not in balance what should we do? If the RSF is too high how do we make sure customers are refunded monies that are not needed. On the power costs side, how a tracking system work that makes the pricing system more closely associated with the cost of running the business and how quickly and rational to make this with the tariffs and classes of customers. RSF are monies reserved by the Department to handle major unusual specific needs. The case law governing DPU now DTE, is docket number 85-121, which specifies the parameters of such funds. Mr. LaCapra briefly discussed 85-121. Mr. LaCapra reiterated the fourteen million in the RSF. What is the current level and the correct mechanism for transferring any additional funds in it? How do you establish guidelines that are sensible and set in regulatory law through the Commonwealth? The working capital allowance is based on forty five to sixty days of the operating maintenance expenses of an operating entity. This is one way of looking at a logical level of working capital. The RMLD can apply this method of $7.5-$9.5 million dollars. Acompletely independent way to look at this is how much cash is required by looking at the practice of debt service coverage. A multiple that a company will earn over and above, what it needs to pay principle and debt, principle and interest and loans it carries, 2.5-3.5 percent of their total amortization. This is standard in the industry and applies these broad industry standard. RMLD cash reserve between $6.5-$9.0 million. Mr. LaCapra recommends $8.5 million dollars. tKegular Jession meeting minutes 3 April 16, 2002 Presentation Richard LaCapra and Vin Cameron Purchase Power Adjustment Charge What are the types of uses RSF is drawn upon, e.g., power supply, decommissioning costs to nuclear units, set apart private funds ,for normal business risk, weathering the change in customer mix, restoration costs which are not collected in rates due to storm 'situations, major supply contractor not producing its energy obligation. An example given of when the Department did tap into the RSF was the buyout of Pilgrim Nuclear Contract, which resulted in substantial power cost reductions. Mr. LaCapra recommends the Cominission to establish an immediate reduction of $200,000.00 a month ($2.4 million per year) with a mechanism that is looking at source of funds coming in and returning the money at the rate to customers continually until the fund converging at a fund deemed appropriate. Mr. LaCapra noted the RSF should not fall below the $8.5 million level. Mr. Pacino noted that the RSF is an emergency fund. Mr. LaCapra went over past events when the RSF fell to a low level at the Department. Mr. LaCapra proposes a formalize design to begin crediting back customers $200,000.00 on a per unit basis. Mr. Soli inquired why? Mr. LaCapra replied rates are computed on a per unit basis, bill usage times price per usage. Mr. Soli inquired if all categories would be the same? Mr. LaCapra replied all categories would be the same. It would be on total kilowatt-hours. Mr. Cameron noted these monies were accrued on an annual basis. Mr. Soli inquired as to whether this is the law? Messrs. Cameron and LaCapra replied it is based on our choice. Mr. LaCapra noted there are other choices, however, other choices raise certain questions. Typically, there a real underlying concern when you are pricing a public commodity like this that you match costs and prices. If you make decisions about returning money in a way that is materially different than how the money got here, there are more questions to answer. It is received by per unit basis by power supply costs; equity issues arise if you were to do this on a head count. Mr. LaCapra noted a rate change has to be filed with the DTE. The Department would need to have in place a billing algorithm that would go into the system so each bill is credited each month as long as there are funds to be returned in the RSF. The system will be monitoring incoming funds such as return of MMWEC and successful power supply litigation. Mr. LaCapra stated for a power cost adjustment he recommends to track power costs and bills on a fairly current basis. Most of the power supply markets are more competitive, price changes occur regularly, past precedent was to set power supply costs for years to come, this is now wishful thinking. Virtually all systems in the Commonwealth and most systems throughout the country have gone to a more immediate billing system, whereby the cost of acquiring power are more or less tracked with the prices. Mr. LaCapra recommends that the RMLD collect its power costs on a very quick turn around preferably thirty days. The customer should be paying for power on the basis of what it costs RMLD for power. Mr. LaCapra went over the timetable, which has been presented, to both the CAB and RMLD Board. The filing would be done after approval by both boards. Mr. LaCapra hoped the reduction could come in June of this year. Mr. LaCapra suggested a new revision of rates based on these mechanisms should be deferred until the new computer system in 2003. Mr. Cameron prepared a study in memo form how he viewed the world in the purchase power side and went over his presentation. Mr. Cameron touched on the RSF credit value .0041¢ cents per kWh based on refunding two millhon seven hundred fifty thousand dollars of the RSF starting in June 2002. Mr. Cameron sees this as a vehicle to getting the RSF to an appropriate level and he has taken a conservativeapproach on the-power-supply. Mr. Cameron noted the Department signed a power deal with Select Energy and this has lowered energy cost, fuel will float. Mr. Cameron noted on the restructured contract the savings over the year would represent .0073¢ cents a kWh. Mr. Cameron noted the average residential customer would save five to eight dollars per month. Regular Session Meeting Minutes April 16, 2002 4 Presentation Richard LaCapra and Vin Cameron Purchase Power Adjustment Charge Mr. Cameron answered Mr. Pacino's inquiry on summer rates. Mr. Cameron noted to have a cost of service study performed at this time to adjust these rates and to put it in the current computer system the programming costs would be $50,000.00. The urrent computer system allowed the Department to get through Y2K; however, it would best to wait for the new system in 2003. He stated that would be the best time to address the differential between the summer and winter rates. Mr. Cameron stated the Department would go outside for a cost of service study. Mr. Cameron noted that in the new markets the summer/winter rates have outlived their purpose. Mr. LaCapra responded the differentials the summer/winter rates were done prior to wholesale markets; they were estimated based on the marginal cost. The prior market was computed on imbedded cost value versus market costs, which are the current practice. The market now sets the differential. Ms. Cavagnaro asked when the last cost of service study was performed. Mr. Cameron replied 1993. Mr. Cameron noted in his prior memo he had suggested eight to ten million in the RSF. Mr. Cameron discussed the list of "horribles" which can affect the RSF such as Millstone issues and large commercials moving out and elaborated on how the Department handled Sweetheart Plastic moving out and the selling off a portion of the power supply. The goal is to prevent price spikes. Mr. Pacino asked Mr. Cameron if he would he recommend maintaining the $8.5 million in the RSF to the Commission. Mr. Cameron replied he can recommend this amount in the RSF to the Commission, it is the appropriate level, how we get there is another issue, "this is not a sprint but a marathon." Mr. Cameron noted after the cost of service study is performed coupled with the new computer system parallel billing would have to be undertaken and this will create a six-month trial prior to implementation of new rates. Presentation Commissioner Soli Mr. Soli presented his findings on the RMLD rates. Mr. Soli has two issues, should the Department reduce rates monthly by $660,000.00 and how should this be allocated, a reduction to account categories, residential, commercial and municipal. Mr. Soli noted Policy 19, which states it is the policy of the Light Commission that its residential rates are lower than any privately owned electric utility in Massachusetts and lower than any electric utility whose service area is contiguous with the RMLD's. Mr. Herlihy inquired if we are compliance of this policy. Mr. Cameron replied the Department is in compliance. Mr. Soli pointed out a rate reduction in a year based on straight kWh, two thirds of money would go to industrial customers and one-third to residents if above proposal presented tonight was adopted. Mr. Soli referred to the handout of March 20'x' American Public Power Association rates for the year 2000 all of Massachusetts, forty-nine municipals and the industrial utilities. Mr. Soli pointed out of the forty-nine utilities in Massachusetts twenty-two are located in eastern Massachusetts of which the RMLD is number eighteen. Mr. Soli noted Middleton is contiguous 8.6¢ cents in year 2000 for residential rate, RMLD 10.3¢ cents, for residential rate. Mr. Soli pointed out Massachusetts Electric was lower than the RMLD in 2000. Mr. Soli noted if the Department does a 1.2¢ cent reduction, he feels the Department could do better for the customer. Mr. Soli showed a graph with residential and industrial with the other eastern Massachusetts municipals. The RMLD industrial customer ranks number nine. Mr. Soli asked how can we comply with Policy 19, $660.000.00 apply to the residential side reduces to 6.3¢ cents, and the RMLD could be lower than Norwood. Mr. Soli noted this would give thirty dollars back to the residential. Mr. Soli went over a seventy percent industrial and thirty percent residential scenario. Mr. Soli noted tonight's proposal is a 1.2¢ cent reduction for both industrial and residential customers. Reading would be ahead of Middleton in lower rates. Mr. Soli offered various options with both industrial and residential reductions of rates. Mr. Soli expressed concerns as far as being in compliance with Policy 19. Mr. Soli proposed that a larger portion of the rate reduction presented above be applied to residential customers than industrial customers. Mr. Soli was elected by and wants to ensure he addresses the residential customer not just the industrial customer. =Mr. Pacino noted he must respond as half of the team that negotiated the settlement with the Town of Wilmington. He suggested that the new members read the ruling put out by DPU 85-121 and also should look into the history of the dispute with the Town of Wilmington. The Town of Wilmington took two votes to leave the system fourteen years ago. That vote would have resulted in greater costs to be paid by the customers left behind in the system. Regular Session Meeting Minutes April 16, 2002 Presentation Commissioner Soli Mr. Pacino noted what Mr. Soli was proposing would have consequences of rethinking and retaking those votes. Mr. Pacino is not sure if it would also violate the Twenty Year Agreement that was part of the Wilmington settlement. Mr. Pacino noted Mr. Soli's proposal has very serious consequences, which potentially could end up with industrial customers voting to leave the system due `o rate discrimination and that would involve potentially increasing instead of decreasing the rates for residential customers. Mr. Pacino pointed out people did not realize fourteen years ago they would have faced very serious rate increases by the Town of Wilmington pulling out. The Town of Wilmington is sixty percent of the system, most of which is industrial, they are the ones who paid into the system, it is only fair and economical that they share in the reduction. Mr. Pacino stated to send the rate reduction only to the residential customers is absurd. In terms of the way Mr. Pacino looks at it he represents all rate customers, not just the Town of Reading customers. This Commission has been on record that it represents all rate customers not just the residential rate customers and that is how we should act. What is being proposed involves serious consequences. It could cause the Town of Wilmington and the Wilmington Chamber of Commerce to reactivate the case and potentially vote to leave the system and leave the existing contracts. Mr. Soli replied the chart shows five options. Mr. Pacino noted to just give the rate reduction to residential ratepayers is rate discrimination that could subject the Department to lawsuits. Mr. Herlihy pointed out looking at the graphs presented, he does not buy Wilmington will up and leave as in Mr. Soli's graph there is a multitude of options this is what Mr. Soli was trying to point out. Mr. Herlihy asked if the Department is in compliance with Policy 19, 4A, Section 8 and was told "yes" by Mr. Cameron but looking at this information he has doubts, he does not want to be out of compliance. Mr. Ames endorses Mr. Herlihy's point. Mr. Ames suggested to Mr. Soli to review the data, as APPA data is something to be desired. Need to review comparative rates if using this as a basis for any policy decision. Mr. Ames noted rate setting is not arbitrary; he learned this in 85-121 and Mr. LaCapra showed them how to understand the rates. Mr. LaCapra noted this is a public policy matter, however, rates need to be looked at most felt by changes in 2001. The Town of Reading rates are lower than Massachusetts Electric. (Discussion ensued. Mr. Lessard noted that if the rate reduction is not for everybody and just for residential customers then Wilmington; being one of the largest industrial areas and he is not speaking for everybody but as one CAB member; would have a serious problem with the Twenty Year Agreement and Wilmington would probably go back to re-thinking what was established fourteen years ago. Mr. Ames noted the Commission is not going to vote on this tonight, the soonest is at the next meeting which will be after the CAB takes its vote. Mr. Ames thanked Mr. Soli very much for stimulating serious discussion in an area there has not had anything approaching this level of discussion in some time. Mr. Ames noted a rate study would be forthcoming. Mr. Ames noted Mr. Soli is correct as Policy 19 does address cost base setting, how we structure the rates with respect to the outside communities, he is confident when the numbers come in we will have met the latter requirements, clearly are not cost base at this time. Mr. Veno wanted to thank the Commission for addressing summer/winter rates. Mr. Veno has been an advocate for such change. Mr. Veno wanted to thank RMLD Board and particularly Mr. Pacino for advocating this rate reduction consideration. Action Item Rate Stabilization Fund Mr. Hughes made a motion seconded by Mr. Pacino that the Commission authorize the department to transfer the amount of $2,233,988.16 from the Department's Operating Fund and deposit it into the Department's Rate Stabilization Fund on the recommendation of the Acting General Manager. This transfer represents fiscal year end activity for 2001. Mr. Pacino requested explanation, clarification on the funding transfer of Mr. Cameron. Mr. Cameron replied this transfer represents two payments. One payment represents a flush of funds from MMWEC the Department received in August which is kept in the Operating Fund, $1.3 million and the remainder represents an over recovery of the eight percent of net income at year end when the Department closes out its books in the amount of approximately $750,000.00. Motion carried 5:0:0. Regular Session Meeting Minutes April 16, 2002 Acting General Manager's Report Payroll and Warrant Signatures Mr. Cameron pointed out in February the issue of payroll signatures and warrant signatures arose between the Accounting ,Services Manager and the Town of Reading Accountant. The Commission is required to vote one person responsible to sign payroll. After discussion this item was put off to after the Board reorganization later in the agenda. Policy Reviews Mr. Cameron updated the Commission on the unsigned letter policy. Mr. Cameron noted he and Ms. Antonio, Human Resources Manager, have been working on this policy. Mr. Cameron will bring this to the Commission at a future meeting. Mr. Cameron noted he and Mr. Fournier have gone over credit cards and petty cash. Mr. Cameron noted the travel policy which as changed in December needs to be revisited. Mr. Cameron noted such items as per diem need to be addressed. Mr. Cameron will bring back policy changes back to the Commission soon. Melanson Heath and PriceWaterhouseCoopers Reports Mr. Cameron reiterated these reports could be found on RMLD's web site. Mr. Cameron noted he believes the Melanson Heath ("Melanson") report was accepted by the RMLD Oversight Task Force last week at its meeting. The Commission needs to take up the next step on restitution. Mr. Cameron noted PriceWaterhouseCoopers ("PWC") did their report quickly and did not come up with specific figures on restitution issues. Melanson Heath did work at restitution amounts; however, the RMLD consultants need to look at the report and address the restitution issues. Mr. Patin pointed out restitution is an important issue; it is up to the Commission. Mr. Pacino noted the Task Force addressed withholding funds from vacation and sick pay owed to the former GM and believes it is illegal under labor law. Mr. Pacino suggested using the PWC and Melanson reports as a basis to send the individuals involved a bill for the costs they incurred beyond their authority. Mr. Pacino noted these individuals could pay voluntarily and if the individuals refused the Commission could sue those involved. Mr. Pacino noted the legal expenses could be $50,000.00 to retrieve $30,000.00. Mr. Pacino stated the individuals involved far ,exceeded the authority of granted by the Commission. He further stated that it is bitter pill to swallow for those who put their trust in the former GM and that trust was betrayed by the former GM. Mr. Pacino asked the Department to obtain restitution numbers by having PWC review the Melanson report and quantify the numbers. Mr. Hughes noted the Department should proceed to seek voluntary repayment. Mr. Hughes inquired if an individual's retirement amounts can be affected for funds wrongly spent. The answer to the question is unknown at this time. John Carpenter, Town Meeting Member Precinct 7, addressed the cost of recovery versus the cost of pursuing that recovery. Mr. Carpenter noted that in pursuant of wrongdoing that does not result in a profit to cover costs that the profit is an immaterial part of the discussion. Mr. Pacino agreed with Mr. Carpenter. Mr. Hughes pointed out the former General Manager sold the Commission on the fact spending dollars to recover monies would teach a lesson. The lesson should be returned. Commission discussion ensued. The consensus of the Commission is they instructed the Acting General Manager to get a cost estimate from the attorneys to pursue the restitution as well as the legal applicability to this endeavor. The Commission instructed further that PWC review the Melanson report to determine restitution amounts. Petty Cash Mr. Cameron stated petty cash closed down in December thus all money to employees in such areas, as boot allowances are sent to Town Hall for processing via accounts payable. Mr. Cameron noted the only consideration to reopen petty cash would be for specific expenditures and specific emergency expenditures. Mr. Hughes replied upon reviewing the account payable warrants there was a $5.41 warrant item. It does not seem cost effective for so many hands to touch such a small expenditure. Mr. Hughes expressed his concern relative to the cost of processing this via all the individuals involved. Mr. Pacino noted he has no problem re-instituting petty cash as long as there are controls; proper controls need to be in place as this allows the Accounting Manager to do the job he is charged with, we do not need to repeat what has happened. Mr. Ames stated petty cash should stay shut down. Regular Session Meeting Minutes April 16, 2002 i Petty Cash Mr. Cameron noted isolated issues pop up such as storms and payroll problem that could be addressed by a petty cash fund. Mr. Ames pointed out all policies need to be revisited. Credit Cards Mr. Cameron noted there are no department credit cards being held by RMLD employees. Mr. Cameron noted the MIS Manager who possessed the last credit card expressed he did not want his credit card, Mr. Cameron cut up his credit card. Mr. Pacino inquired about the gasoline credit cards. Mr. Cameron replied there are no department gasoline credit cards being held by RMLD employees. Board Reorganization Mr. Ames stated he is not enthusiastic about staying on as Chair. Chairman Mr. Pacino made a motion to nominate William J. Hughes, Jr. as Chair, Mr. Herlihy seconded the motion. Mr. Pacino made a motion to close the nomination; Mr. Hughes seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0:0. Main Motion carried 5:0:0. Secretary Mr. Hughes made a motion to nominate Philip B. Pacino as Secretary, Mr. Ames seconded the motion. Mr. Hughes made a motion to close the nomination; Mr. Herlihy seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0:0. Main Motion carried 5:0:0. Mr. Herlihy inquired relative to the position of Vice Chair. Mr. Pacino noted traditionally, there has only been one instance ;where Vice Chair has been filled. Mr. Pacino stated that in the absence of the Chair that the Secretary steps in for Chair. Mr. Hughes sensed to delete the position of Vice Chair. Mr. Pacino pointed out the position can be filled at any time the Commission chooses. Mr. Pacino made the request that the meeting minutes be sent to him via e-mail to reduce the paper waste. Mr. Hughes expressed his need to redirect the fixture. Mr. Hughes commented on his concerns and hopes to set the sails straight. Mr. Hughes would like to see a more open dialogue among all. Mr. Hughes will put the RMLD Board Subcommittees on the agenda at the next meeting so the new Commission members can review and have more time to make their decisions. RMLD Oversight Task Force Replacement for Dan Halloran Mr. Hughes polled the Commission as to the continuance of its involvement in the Task Force. Mr. Pacino replied he was in favor of this in the beginning, however, the work of Task Force is complete with the completion of the PWC and Melanson reports. He is not in favor of the Commission's continuing involvement. Mr. Pacino noted the Commission at this point, needs to take its own action. Mr. Ames replied the Task Force has been useful, as it has assisted the Town. Mr. Ames noted the role of the Light Commission in the Town has been misunderstood aiding in minimizing miscommunications and misunderstandings, it has been a vehicle for communication. Mr. Herlihy agreed with Mr. Ames the Task Force is necessary as there is a disconnect between town government, it is a conduit for communication. Mr. Soli noted the community dialogues group he is involved with came up with communication in Reading is not good. - Mr. Pacino recommended Mr. Herlihy to fill the vacancy left by Mr. Halloran. Regular Session Meeting Minutes April 16, 2002 RMLD Oversight Task Force Replacement for Dan Halloran Mr. Herlihy noted Mr. Ames' contribution to the Task Force has been exemplary, he should not be replaced. Mr. Lessard pointed out he, as a member of the Task Force echoes Mr. Ames' purpose of this has not ended, the Task Force was 1harged to complete a mission, however, it is up to the Task Force itself to determine if its unnecessary for them to proceed 'further. Mr. Pacino had a question of Mr. Lessard as to whether the CAB had agreed to have the RMLD pay for the Melanson report. Mr. Lessard replied he wanted to bring this when all members are present, the full CAB and would get back to the Commission on its recommendation for payment of the report. Mr. Pacino wanted to go on record that he intended to present to the Commission a motion for payment of the Melanson report, once a positive recommendation from the CAB is received. Mr. Pacino made a motion seconded by Mr. Ames to appoint Mr. Herlihy to the RMLD Oversight Task Force. Motion carried 5:0:0. Payroll Warrants Mr. Pacino noted he and Mr. Hughes would come back in the middle of next month with guidelines of what the Commissioners should be looking for when they sign the accounts payable warrants. Mr. Soli pointed out the Accounting Manager in the Melanson report had annotated to the General Manager on an account payable credit card item, "more explanation". Mr. Soli noted the General Manager's response was "you have your explanation". Mr. Soli suggested an exception report should be instituted in Accounting. Mr. Soli stated it is difficult to be put in a situation where one is questioning the person who can impact salary increases. Mr. Pacino asked Mr. Soli to submit put something in writing regarding the exception report for the Subcommittee to consider. Mr. Cameron cautioned the Accounting Services Manager needs to be incorporated as part of this process. The Commission agreed and will seek his input. ``Mr. Pacino made a motion to designate Mr. Herlihy as the primary signature for the Payroll Warrants, and Mr. Pacino as secondary, Mr. Ames seconded the motion. Motion carried 4:0:1. Mr. Herlihy abstained. Account Payable Warrants The following Commissioners were nominated for signers of the Account Payable Warrants, Mr. Ames, Mr. Herlihy, Mr. Soli as primary signer. Mr. Pacino and then Mr. Hughes as alternates. Mr. Hughes due to a conflict of interest cannot sign any account payable warrants in matters involving the Tine case. Mr. Pacino stressed he would view that a separate warrant run on matters involving the Tine case should be prepared. Mr. Pacino made a motion to appoint Messrs. Ames, Herlihy, and Soli as primary signers to sign the Account Payable Warrants with Mr. Pacino and then Mr. Hughes as alternates, this was seconded by Mr. Ames. Motion carried 5:0:0. Board Discussion Mr. Hughes noted at the next meeting he would like to discuss compensation of the Acting General Manager. The next meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, April 30, 2002. Motion to Adjourn At 10:10 p.m., Mr. Pacino made a motion seconded by Mr. Ames to adjourn the Regular Session. Motion carried by a show of hands 5:0:0. A true copy of the RMLD Board of Commissioners minutes as approved by a majority of the Commission. Philip B. Pacino Secretary RMLD Board of Commissioners