1997-01-13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

230 Council is not prepared to withdraw from the reversion process, Ms. Richards said she assumes that the process will continue through litigation not negotiation. Ms. Richards said she does not feel Council can remain neutral on reversion and vigorously' make a case for reversion, and noted that Council's recent statement says that Council has not made a decision regarding reversion. Mr. Toscano said that the City is in a litigation process and needs to figure out its position. Mr. Toscano said that he feels an intensive level of involvement will require the employment of experts to support reversion and make the best case for town reversion. Mr. Toscano said that the position of Council should not be driven by the actions of the petitioners. Ms. Richards said that she has heard from many citizens who do not agree with pursuing reversion, and she does not feel it is the City's job to pay for the petitioner's actions. Ms. Daugherty said she feds it is Council's responsibility to put together a strong case for the long-term benefits of the community and Council should now take the lead in the process. Mr. Cox said Council has been elected to take a position and that should not be a weak position. Mr. Cox said that if reversion ultimately takes place it should take place under the best case possible. Mr. Toscano asked Council to consider what is likely to come out of the Commission on Local Government and court process. Mr. Toscano said he feels that to argue for an intensive level of involvement means arguing for reversion since the Commission is predisposed to recommend reversion. Mr: Toscano said if one looks at the South Boston case and the existing reversion statute, certain things are known now, including the fact that no ruling will involve negotiations regarding schools or voting districts and no agreements on these subjects are binding because of the lack of legislation on voluntary settlements. Mr. Toscano said at this time he could not support a reversion order that would transfer the control of the City schools to the COUnty. Mr. Toscano said he feels that Council has been sucked into the reversion process and every step taken has resulted in more doors being closed with the County. Mr. Toscano said that he agrees that things need to change and the question remains about whether the City can meet its future needs, but he is not satisfied that reversion is the best solution for the City. Mr. Toscano said he feels it should be up to the petitioners to prove the case for reversion. Mr. Toscano said he feels the Muller report needs updating to see if the "gap,' has narrowed or widened, and that data should be collected as requested by the Commission on Local Government that will enable them to do their study. Ms. Daugherty said the Council's obligation is to become intensely involved in and present a case for reversion. Ms. Daugherty made a motion to approve an intensive level of involvement for the first six months of the process. Mr. Cox seconded the motion, noting that he does not see how Council can go forward without committing to an intensive involvement. Ms. Richards said there are two stages to the process, the Commission on Local Government and the court process, and she does not think first six months can be separated from the rest. Ms. Slaughter said it seems that Council has not made up its mind to revert, but is involved in the process, and should now get the best possible information for itself and the public. Ms. Slaughter said she is most interested in a further educational study and voting study. Ms. Slaughter said she would like to vigorously pursue the issue, but not beyond the Commission level as she does not feel she has enough information. Ms. Slaughter said Council should try to negotiate with the County possible terms for a negotiated settlement. Ms. Richards said she sees significant attorney involvement, not data gathering as part of the intensive level.