To the Editor:

My name is Jerry Taverna, and I am writing this letter as a public citizen and also the lone elected select board member who will be planning to speak in support of Article 37 at town meeting.

Article 37 requests that town meeting approve the removal of the town manager as Hull Municipal Light Plant manager and restore to the Hull Municipal Light Board of Commissioners the statutory authority found in M.G.L. Chapter 164, including, but not limited to, the ability to make policy, hire and fire the MLP manager, and to perform those actions and responsibilities it had prior to 1993. In my absence at the most recent select board meeting, the board voted unanimously against this article, as the entire advisory board did recently. The town manager, various select board and advisory board members, as well as the chair and one other member of the Hull Municipal Light Board of Commissioners have offered reasons why this article should be voted down. Some of these reasons include: “If it’s not broke, don’t fix it,” “This will lead to more costs for the HMLP,” “This is all perfectly fine and it has been in place since 1993,” and “The town manager is not an expert in many areas of town government and effectively manages the sewer, police, fire and other departments.”

While watching the replay of this recent select board meeting, I was astonished to hear the chair and vice chair question the reasoning and scope of this article, which they both stated was not clearly detailed by the petitioner, Jacob Vaillancourt, a member of the HMLP board. After many meetings and discussions going back many weeks, it seems implausible that the general concept of why this article is being brought to town meeting would still be unclear.
I am hoping to lend some clarity to this issue by offering my position and interpretation to this article debate, which will be discussed at length and in greater detail at town meeting.

The Town of Hull had some major problems with a rogue HMLP board back in 1993 and decided to step in and request that the structure be changed to allow the town manager to oversee the HMLP as its CEO, of sorts. Since that happened, there have been a series of financial and other implications that could give a reasonable person the impression of a conflict of interest. Specifically, the payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs) to the Town of Hull have increased substantially and may be currently questionable in that the funds are transferred periodically at a set value. The fully compliant method of determining a PILOT payment includes waiting until year end, determining if there is a surplus and then the HMLP board determining the amount of the PILOT payment. The HMLP board has just recently delivered its year-end financial report, and they are operating at a deficit – rates were recently increased based on this deficit.

There is also the concerning description (from the HMLP board members) regarding the $200,000 transferred from the HMLP to the Town of Hull for three consecutive years starting in 2014 or so for “rent for the land that Hull Wind 2 sits on.” Every single HMLP board member can and will explain this in detail, how hard they fought against the old town manager to stop this, and how they requested a meeting with the new town manager to prevent it from ever happening again. Currently, two of the five HMLP board members have spoken out publicly against this article despite these longstanding issues, while three of the five board members have spoken out publicly in favor of this article. I believe it is imperative to hear each HMLP board member’s position in detail before voting on this article.
The next major issue related to this article is the recent presentation by the town manager and staff on the proposed construction of a dual-use facility that would house both the DPW and the HMLP at the existing flood-prone DPW site. The problem is in the mixing of town and HMLP funds to construct, operate, and maintain this facility, which is frowned upon under M.G.L., Chapter 164. Leaving out the idea that we are using grant money to design critical emergency response facilities on flood-prone land, we will be further complicating this “special agreement” that we currently have in which the town manager has final say on all financial and policy decisions, with the elected board members only responsible for setting rates and advising on policy. The presentation of the HMLP budget to the select board has not been done in many years, until just recently after a citizen sent me an email highlighting this oversight.

In summary, the majority of town officials would have you believe that the existing system must stay in place for a variety of reasons. There are a number of duly elected officials and many others who are supporting this article to restore to the Hull Municipal Light Board of Commissioners the statutory authority found in M.G.L. Chapter 164. We believe that there have been issues that a reasonable person could interpret as a conflict of interest, some detailed above. We believe that the duly elected members of the HMLP board should be allowed to operate as intended, with elections used as a means to remove those who perform poorly.

Currently, we are operating within an autocratic structure that is directed by an unelected, single person. I am asking for those who support a democratic structure of government, with checks and balances, without one singular voice making extremely critical infrastructure and financial decisions, to join us in voting “yes” on Article 37.

Thank you,
Jerry Taverna

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.