Need for memo of understanding debated

There won’t be a memorandum of understanding between the Springfield Select Board and Springfield On The Move anytime soon.

www.rutlandherald.com    

http://www.vermonttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/RH/20160512/NEWS02/160519829 Published May 12, 2016 in the Rutland Herald Need for memo of understanding debated By SUSAN SMALLHEER SPRINGFIELD — There won’t be a memorandum of understanding between the Springfield Select Board and Springfield On The Move anytime soon. In a series of at-times tense exchanges and votes, the Select Board rejected a move by Select Board member George McNaughton to approve an MOU. The issue was voted on three separate times, with slight alterations, and all were voted down on 3-2 margins, with McNaughton and fellow Select Board member Walter Martone voting in favor of an agreement. The final vote, rejecting any agreement “at this time,” saw Chairman Kristi Morris and board members Peter MacGillivray and Stephanie Thompson voting in support of pushing it back. The three Select Board members also voted not to put it on the next meeting’s agenda. MacGillivray, whose wife Sandy is involved with Springfield on the Move, and Thompson, who is the Select Board’s representative on the SOM board, both said they felt that the agreement wasn’t needed, and that SOM was working hard on the town’s behalf. MacGillivray made a motion to table the issue “permanently.” But that motion failed. Plus, MacGillivray said, the town wasn’t seeking written agreements with any other organization that receives funding from the town, including Springfield Regional Development Corp., or organizations such as the Visiting Nurses. McNaughton said he had recused himself from the SRDC discussion because he does legal work for the organization, but that if an organization gets money from the town, there should be some kind of written agreement on what is done in exchange for the funding. “Where is our money being spent and how is it being spent?” said resident Walter Clark. SOM receives $20,000 a year from the town, which represents about half of SOM’s budget. And resident Richard Andrews said that the voter-approved organizations were in a different class than the two direct-funded groups. Both SOM and SRDC receive their funding directly from the Select Board, rather than the voters, who approve more than a dozen special appropriations at town meeting for organizations such as the Springfield Family Center and Visiting Nurses, MacGillivray pointed out. Both of those organizations receive more money from town taxpayers than SOM or SRDC, he added. After the meeting, Morris said that he opposed the MOU as drafted by McNaughton because of several changes he had made to the document sent by the downtown group. Complicating the debate was the fact that McNaughton and Martone both wanted a downtown plan written for Springfield On The Move last year by the Southern Windsor County Regional Planning Commission to come before the Select Board for review. Town Manager Tom Yennerell objected, saying it would be “going backward” by reviewing the document. “It’s not a timely thing to do. I thought we were all about going forward,” said Yennerell. But Martone said that since the document was funded by a grant obtained by the town, the town had an official responsibility. Morris said the document, which was presented to the public by SOM more than a year ago, had some “pie in the sky” proposals that he personally didn’t think were realistic, such as a “riverwalk” through downtown Springfield. “That’s not easily obtained,” he said. He said the board had more important things to do than to review an old document. He said the development group had submitted a two-page MOU, but that the board hadn’t acted on it yet. No one from Springfield On The Move was at the meeting, an absence which was obvious, Yennerell said. “It’s pretty obvious they’re not interested,” said Yennerell, saying the MOU was “pretty superfluous.”