‘You have to work this out’ – counsel urges compromise on conflict over light plant management
/
By Carol Britton Meyer
During a two-and-a-half-hour, sometimes animated special light board meeting this week, Hull Municipal Light Plant counsel Nicholas Scobbo presented his interpretation of voter-approved Article 37 to change the management structure of the light plant, as well as the light plant’s payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs) to the town, both controversial issues in recent months.
All five members of the light board were present, along with Town Manager and Light Plant Manager Jennifer Constable.
Calling Article 37 “a very hot issue” and stating that he was “loathe to get into the politics of the town,” Scobbo prefaced his remarks with an explanation of the light plant manager’s and board of commissioners’ roles.
Scobbo was not present at the in-person meeting and presented via video conference. At a couple of points during the meeting, he urged that the select board and light board work together to resolve the issue.
“There’s a need to balance the interests of the town with the interests of the light board. You shouldn’t be fighting each other,” he said. “You have to work this out.”
Article 37, approved by a 116-83 vote, proposed restructuring the light department governance by removing the town manager as light plant manager. Constable told the select and light boards earlier that the article is “not actionable … because town meeting can’t direct the select board” to take that action. The wording of the article did not include provisions about filing the required special legislation at the state level to make the management change.
Town Counsel Brian Winner recently told the select board that he believes the article was flawed and prevents the board from taking further action.
‘Perhaps not artfully worded’
Following a lengthy presentation that included details of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 164, which deals specifically with the manufacture and sale of gas and electricity and includes various sections that define key terms, establish regulatory frameworks, and outlines the responsibilities of energy companies, Scobbo spoke about Article 37, noting that it was “perhaps not artfully worded and is ambiguous to a certain degree.”
The key question, he said, is whether it’s “conceivable – not that it has to be possible” that the required special legislation could be filed by an entity other than the select board.
After painting different scenarios, Scobbo suggested the possibility that either the select board or light board could request Hull’s state representative draft or submit the proposed legislation.
“The local rep could say yes or no” and if yes, the special legislation may or may not be approved by the full Legislature. “There are no hard-and-fast rules about who can submit special legislation,” according to Scobbo.
Resident Lisa French asked Scobbo to confirm Winner’s earlier statement about whether the select board was compelled to act by a vote at town meeting. She was referring to Winner’s remark during a select board meeting that even if the article was in the correct form, or a future article in the right form was presented and approved by another town meeting, “the select board has the discretion as the town’s executive authority whether or not to proceed.”
“Even if the warrant article were worded correctly, can the select board ignore [the affirmative vote] legally?” she asked.
“I didn’t really dive into this, but I’m not sure the select board can ignore what town meeting voted,” Scobbo said.
Op/ed questioned
At the beginning of the meeting, Constable questioned an op/ed that appeared in the July 31 edition of The Hull Times submitted by light board Chair Tom Burns and members Dan Ciccariello and Jacob Vaillancourt in support of carrying out the wishes of the 116 voters who supported the article at town meeting. Members Stephanie Landry and Patrick Cannon’s names were not on the letter. Vaillancourt proposed the town meeting warrant article as a citizens’ petition.
“The [op/ed] was submitted by three [of the five members], which is a quorum,” and the submission was not discussed in open session and “is in fact a direct violation of the Open Meeting Law,” Constable said.
Burns responded was that he makes “a special effort to not violate [the Open Meeting Law] and appreciate your input.”
With regard to the PILOT payments, following a lengthy discussion, Scobbo’s interpretation was that after the light plant has paid all its expenses, the light board and the town manager can decide whether the light plant would make a PILOT payment out of any “unappropriated retained surplus” or loan the money to the town under an agreement to meet a short-term need. He also noted that under Department of Public Utilities regulations, “There’s no legal obligation to make these types of payments.”
“The board should have had authority over PILOT payments all along,” Cannon said.
Constable said that prior to the submission of the citizens’ petition, she told the commissioners that they “have more authority than just setting the rates.” She also noted that “PILOT payments are part of the town budget.”
‘The town manager has offered to work with us’
“The town manager has offered to work with us and discuss it with us,” Landry said. “I think it’s a good thing we’re discussing the PILOT program as a board. The town manager has gone out of her way to welcome us as a board and to say, ‘Have a seat at the table to discuss these issues and what you’re concerned about.’”
There will be future discussion about this issue, with Scobbo participating, and a vote by the light board at a future meeting on a proposed PILOT policy crafted by Vaillancourt, with input from Scobbo on the wording. This document is posted here.
Scobbo said the proposed policy is “too wordy” but “heading in the right direction,” and that further discussions should involve the town manager after “looking at [the light plant’s] accounts. It all has to be factored in.”
No decisions should be made, Cannon said, “until we sit down with the town manager and the numbers. … We're not even close yet.”
“We have to make this decision soon,” Ciccariello said.
During the discussion, Scobbo said regarding the overall issues of Article 37 and PILOT payments, “I’m not trying to describe nefarious intent here. I don’t think that’s what’s going on. It’s a messy situation.”
Following Scobbo’s discussion of both Article 37 and PILOT payments and showing related slides, Vaillancourt said the board had just heard “some unexpected information” and requested a copy of Scobbo’s presentation “for the board to digest.”
A replay of the light board meeting will be available on demand at Hull Community Television’s website, www.hulltv.net.
Like what you’re reading? Stay informed and support our work with a Hull Times subscription by clicking here.
Do you have an opinion to share? Click here to write a Letter to the Editor.
© 2025 The Hull Times. All rights reserved.
