August 31, 2004
TO: All RTM Members
FROM: Thomas J. Byrne, RTM Moderator
RE: The Nathaniel Witherell Sense of the Meeting Resolution
One of the major issues confronting the Town in recent years has been what to do with The Nathaniel Witherell (TNW). Any decision in that regard would ultimately need the approval of the RTM. Rather than wait for a proposal to appear on our Call, we proactively set up a special committee to dig into the facts and figures being relied upon by the Board of TNW and to consider alternative solutions. We were fortunate that the three standing committees with jurisdiction over this matter – Budget Overview Committee, Finance and Health & Human Services – cooperated in putting together a team of RTM members with the special skills and motivation required for this Herculean task.
Robert J. Richardson, member of District 10 and Chair of our Health & Human Services Committee, took the lead in giving structure and direction to this group, and was elected Chair of the special committee. Fred A. DeCaro III, member of District 12 and Vice-Chair of our Budget Overview Committee, lent his expertise in technology to the effort and was elected Vice-Chair of the special committee. Volunteering for this special effort were 12 other RTM members:
Robert K. Brady, District 5 Mary B McNamee, District 1 (formerly)
Linda R. de Seife, District 4 David L. Melick, District 8
Patricia Elsaesser, District 7 Gerald A. Pollack, District 6 (formerly)
Gina F. Higbie, District 11 Stephen M. Soler, District 8
Randall Huffman, District 7 J. Robert Tuthill District 3
Arline Lomazzo, District 6 Nancy Weissler District 5
As a result of the skill, hard work and perseverance of these 14 individuals, we now have a well-organized and comprehensive written presentation of the issues and underlying facts. By the time you receive this memorandum, the special committee will also have conducted three informational sessions regarding its findings and recommendations for both the press and RTM members.
The work of the Special Committee on The Nathaniel Witherell will serve as a model to the RTM in the future on how an issue of such a large scope can be handled. I have sent a letter to each member of the special committee thanking them on behalf of the entire RTM for their extraordinary service.
Yet I want to emphasize that the RTM’s work on TNW is not done. Our most important work remains ahead of us – the vote we must take on the future of this facility. The special committee has provided us with all of the tools we need to make an informed decision on what we want the Town to do with this nursing home. It is now the obligation of each of us to use those tools to become fully informed. We must read the entire report, attend an informational session, listen to the public, and ask questions at our committee and district meetings. After all of this, it may well be that we want to adopt the recommendations of the special committee. But we must each make our own decision on how best to proceed.
Everyone should be aware that the special committee’s proposed Sense of the Meeting Resolution is like every other resolution that comes before us. It can be amended in part, or it can be amended in whole by proposing a wholly different sentiment regarding the facility’s future. Any such amendment, however, should be presented to one of the standing committees that will review this item. It is not good process to raise a substantive amendment for the first time at the full RTM meeting.
A further word on procedure: I met with the special committee in May to discuss the possibility of calling a special meeting in June or during the summer to consider this item. The timetable incorporated into the approval of the Certificate of Need (CON) Application makes the time the RTM considers this issue a matter of some urgency. After reviewing the status of the committee’s written report and considering my preference to avoid summer meetings, I informed the committee that we would have to take the matter up in September. I wanted to ensure that there was sufficient time for the committee to complete its work as well as for the RTM and the community to discuss the committee’s recommendations.
In my view, the current schedule should provide full opportunity for all to digest the information and have an informed debate prior to our September 20 meeting. In the event that on September 20 the RTM believes more time is needed on this issue, it would be in order to move to postpone the item to our October meeting. Such a motion, however, could only be made after committee reports. Given the interest this proposal will generate, we will likely need to adopt some form of limit on debate. Although we typically employ a limit only on the length of an individual speech, we should also be aware that we can impose a limit on the total time devoted to an item prior to calling for a vote. I ask that the reviewing committees consider these issues
so that we can be advised as to all possible ramifications of adopting any particular approach.
Thomas J. Byrne
RTM Moderator
| 
