VT Lawmakers: After Equifax, please ban consumer fees for security/credit freezes

After the Equifax security breach, I put a security freeze on my credit reports with the big three credit reporting agencies. Equifax waived the fee but the other two charged $10

each. These fees are set by state law and in at least six states (including Maine and New York) there is no fee. Vermont lawmakers from the Upper Valley, please take note. Amend 9 V.S.A § 2480h, so that no fees are charged to consumers for placing or removing a security freeze on his or her credit report.

This is not the first time credit bureaus have experienced a security breach.  As observed  at the website Krebs on Security: "The credit bureaus - which make piles of money by compiling incredibly detailed dossiers on consumers and selling that information to marketers - have for the most part shown themselves to be terrible stewards of very sensitive data." Protecting my identity should be their cost of business.  Allowing consumers to freeze and unfreeze their credit reports for FREE is a good but small step.



LINK: KrebsOnSecurity [no affiliation with website].

Part II - Unpacking the Fact Finders Report for the Marion CrossTeachers Contract

Part II of II

Here is my summary of the Fact Finders Report discussed some on the listserv. 
I broke my summary into two parts to avoid an extremely long listserv post.  
The Fact Finders Report is an important document regarding the labor impasse 
between the Norwich Teachers Association and the Norwich School District. 
Note that this collective bargaining dispute involves only the Marion Cross 
School, its 296 students and 35 teachers. 

In all, the Norwich Fact Finding Report And Recommendations addressed five 
issues, with Issue Number 3 and Number 4 being the big ticket items of salary 
increases and health insurance. Part I addressed those big ticket items. This 
Part II addresses the remaining three issues. 

Issue Number 1 dealt with bereavement leave. Teachers currently get up to 3 
days “per occurrence” for the death a person within a broad definition of 
“immediate family”. The teachers proposed up to 3 days “per occurrence” 
because of “a death”. The teachers said the proposal was to account for 
non-traditional families. However, the proposal seem to allow bereavement 
leave for death of anyone, including the March death of rock n roll legend 
Chuck Berry. The recommendation of the Fact Finder was to add a death of “a 
person living in the teacher’s immediate household,” Report at 7, although I 
think the use of “immediate” in household might create confusion with the 
broad definition of “immediate family”. 

For Issue Number 2, the teachers wanted to expand from 5 to 15, the number of 
accumulated sick days the father of child of a newborn could use for parental 
leave, in addition to the days allowed under the Vermont and Federal family 
leave laws. The Fact Finder side with the School District, finding that the 
use of 5 sick days “already exceeds what is available to teachers in 
comparable districts.” Report at 9.

Finally, Issue Number 5 addressed college course reimbursement for continuing 
education and advanced degrees. The School District wanted to reduce the 
benefit from $40,000 per year to $30,000. Although the Fact Finder agreed 
with the School that the benefit was “generous”, was not convinced that it 
“should be reduced at this time.” Report at 25.

Unpacking the Fact Finders Report For the Marion Cross Teachers Contract - Part I

Part I of II

Here is my summary of the Fact Finders Report discussed some on the listserv. 
I broke my summary into two parts to avoid an extremely long listserv post.  
The Fact Finders Report is an important document regarding the labor impasse 
between the Norwich Teachers Association and the Norwich School District. 
Note that this collective bargaining dispute involves only the Marion Cross 
School, its 296 students and 35 teachers. 

In all, the Norwich Fact Finding Report And Recommendations (“Report”) 
addressed five issues, with Issue Number 3 and Number 4 being the big ticket 
items of salary increases and health insurance. This Part I addresses those 
big ticket items. 

With respect to salary increases, the School District offered “new money” 
increases of 2.2% and 2.16% in years one and two respectively, arguing that 
the the Consumer Price Index has “averaged between 1.0% and 1.4% over the 
past eight years.” Report at 10. The Teachers proposal amounted to 3.85% in 
“new money in year 1, 3.56% new money in year 2, and 3.46% new money in year 
3.” Report at 11. From context, I assume the term “new money” includes the 
step increases teachers receive each year.  

The Fact Finder recommended a two-year contract with “new money” increases in 
salary of 3% in 2017 and 2018. He stated that 3% was the average salary 
increase in “recent teacher settlements” and acknowledged that salaries for 
Norwich teachers are at the “top tier of teachers statewide”. Report at 12. 
Early in the Report, the Fact Finder observed that Norwich had the highest 
education tax rate in Windsor County. Report at 13. In his analysis, he 
concluded that no “unusual economic pressures” hindered the School District 
ability to increase wages. Report at 13

For health insurance, the Fact Finder agreed with the School’s proposal that 
teachers pay 15% of premiums in year 1 and 16% in year 2. Report at 20. On 
the issue of the out-of-pocket maximum, he sought protection for teachers and 
recommended $400 for individual plan and $1200 for the family plan, reasoning 
that the School would still save about $24,000 or more, even after the 
penalty imposed by the State. Report at 22-23.

The penalty arises from recent Vermont legislation. The law assumes that 
teachers will pay 20% of health insurance costs. State funds are withheld 
from school districts based on this assumption. Report at 4. School districts 
that pay more than 80% in essence lose state funding. Under the Report’s 
recommendation, Norwich will lose over $56,000 in state funds. Report at 21.

In the news lately is the settlement that Burlington reached with its 
teachers, after a four-day strike. The WCAX website reports that the new 
contract gives teachers a 2.5 percent pay boost in the first year, and a 2.75 
percent increase the second. Teachers will pay 19% of health insurance 
premiums in year one and 20% in year two. The out-of-pocket limit is a 
maximum of $800.

Onward to Part II. 

Keep the current lister/assessor mode

The Selectboard is discussing whether to keep the current lister/assessor model. I hope the Selectboard keeps that system in place. The proof is in the pudding - the current system has resulted in fewer disputes about property values, which means property owners think it is fair. The Common Level of Appraisal (CLA), as calculated by the State, remains high. A high CLA is good for all taxpayers when the State determines the Norwich school tax rate. The Town has also been smart to budget for regular town-wide reassessments, rather than expect Listers to keep pace on a piecemeal basis with changing real estate values.

Let's not forget how we got here. The increased reliance on a professional assessor came about because our elected Listers came up short.  In 2008, we saw the Bragg Hill Neighborhood Reassessment litigation, which the Town settled on terms very favorable to the taxpayers, but only for those who fought their reassessments. There was also the not so well-known dispute with the State over the practice of “sales chasing”, which the Town handily lost before an administrative board in 2011. I have reviewed in detail the public record in those cases,including the deposition testimony of the Listers regarding the Bragg Hill matter.   My view is that the Listers were in way over their head, lacking expertise and staff. Having been victimized by “sales chasing” (or more precisely, in my case, chasing real estate listings), I think the Listers action were appalling, particularly because the Listers chose to ignore direct guidance from the State. I got my money back in 2016, after three years of pro se litigation that few could afford. Many taxpayers in the same boat -- our neighbors -- got screwed and paid more than their fair share of property taxes. 

In Vermont, many towns’ Board of Listers hire outside firms to conduct town-wide appraisals. These firms employ their own staff and use proprietary software to create the Grand List. If such assistance is allowed by the statute, then I argue that the Norwich lister/assessor model is also permitted.
The statute is clear that the Selectboard cannot impose this model on the Listers against their will. Here, the Norwich Selectboard is willing to pay for the contract assessor and the results are good. What is not to like? 

Today is the UN's  Asteroid Day, a global day of education to help protect Earth from asteroids.

Learn more at https://asteroidday.org

VT Progressives Wrong on Teacher Contracts

I was disappointed in the fund raising email received from the Vermont Progressive Party. In it, the party crowed about protecting “working people” by siding with the teachers union on Governor Scott’s proposal to create a statewide health insurance contract for teachers. I doubt the union needs protection. The Governor says his proposal will lower property taxes. I think more “working people” are concerned about paying their property taxes and their increasing health care costs. The teachers union is no lightweight. They are capable of bargaining with the State on this issue, rather than volunteer school boards. Property taxes are a real burden to wage earners. Let’s try some new approaches to lowering the tax bill.

Bad Fences make bad neighbors

In a twist to the Robert Frost adage, a bad fence dispute could be brewing in Norwich with one resident saying the Town's Zoning Administrator is not enforcing the rules. Deep in the Selectboard packet for the May 25th meeting, under Item 10) Correspondence, is a letter from John Eller. In that letter,  Mr. Eller says a fence on an adjoining property exceeds the permitted height and the Zoning Administrator is being "evasive and dismissive" about his concerns. Our zoning rules requires issuance of a permit, BEFORE construction begins. No reply from Zoning Administrator and interim Town Manager Philip Dechert is in the packet, so the public knows only half the story.
   
The Eller letter deserves attention. The zoning regulations apply to everyone. If Mr. Eller's allegations are true, he deserves a response -- the fence is exempt or a permit is needed. Not that long ago, the Town was involved in zoning litigation in Richards v.  Nowicki.  Spot enforcement of zoning rules might also expose the Town to damages and attorney's fees if the failure to enforce the regulations violates the Equal Protection Clause.

May as ALS Awareness Month!

What is amyotrophic lateral sclerosis?

ALS is a disease of the parts of the nervous system that control voluntary muscle movement. In ALS, motor neurons (nerve cells that control muscle cells) are gradually lost. As these motor neurons are lost, the muscles they control become weak and then nonfunctional.

The word “amyotrophic” comes from Greek roots that mean “without nourishment to muscles” and refers to the loss of signals nerve cells normally send to muscle cells. “Lateral” means “to the side” and refers to the location of the damage in the spinal cord. “Sclerosis” means “hardened” and refers to the hardened nature of the spinal cord in advanced ALS.

In the United States, ALS also is called Lou Gehrig’s disease, named after the Yankees baseball player who died of it in 1941. In the United Kingdom and some other parts of the world, ALS is often called motor neurone disease in reference to the cells that are lost in this disorder.

Who gets ALS?

ALS usually strikes in late middle age (the late 50s is average) or later, although it also occurs in young adults and even in children, as well as in very elderly people. Some forms of ALS have their onset in youth. Men are slightly more likely to develop ALS than are women. Studies suggest an overall ratio of about 1.2 men to every woman who develops the disorder.

What causes ALS?

The causes of the vast majority of ALS cases are still unknown.

What is the life expectancy in ALS?

Each person's disease course is unique. There are a number of examples of people who are leading productive and active lives more than two decades after an ALS diagnosis.

Standard longevity statistics citing an average survival time of three to five years after diagnosis may be somewhat out of date because changes in supportive care and technology — especially for breathing and nutrition — may help prolong life.

For more information:
ALSA: http://www.alsa.org

MDA: https://www.mda.org/disease/amyotrophic-lateral-sclerosis

Town Proposes $23,000 Gift To Norwich Fire District For Sidewalk Repairs

Sidewalks need repair and maintenance and that takes money.  Many years ago, our Norwich  forefathers decided that the homes and businesses in the Village, rather than the entire Town, should pay for the Village sidewalks. Hence, the Norwich Fire District, a special municipal entity that can tax and spend, is responsible for most sidewalks in its geographic area.  Today, the District’s principle purpose is to supply potable water to approximately 310 homes and 20 commercial businesses in the Village, but the sidewalk responsibility is not unusual for Fire Districts in Vermont.
On Wednesday, July 29, the Selectboard will consider two proposals that will shift the responsibility for the sidewalks from the Fire District to the Town.    Item 8 on  the Selectboard agenda for its meeting sounds innocuous  — “Main Street Sidewalk from Hazen Street to Koch Road” — but these proposals will increase taxes for Town taxpayers.  Both proposals shortcut the democratic process without much analysis of the pros and cons.

The first proposal is that the Town pay $23,000 for sidewalk repairs that should be paid by the Norwich Fire District. Call the payment what you like, but the money will not be repaid, and that is simply a gift from the taxpayers of Norwich, Vermont to the Fire District.  I doubt the gift was part of the budget approved by the voters at Town Meeting in March, but I could be wrong.  For budgetary reasons, the Town has not funded the sidewalk reserve fund for several years, so its sidewalk budget is not flush.  If the Norwich Fire District budget is tight this year, because of the pump house fire, then the Town should be patient and tackle the work next year or after fire insurance issues are resolved.

The second proposal carries the recommendation of the Town Manager and is for the Town to take over ownership and the ongoing responsibility to repair and maintain sidewalks of the Fire District.  This is a complete reversal of the cost sharing policy that our Norwich forefathers established.  However, nothing in the packet explains why a change is justified, other than that the Town previously assumed responsibility for some sidewalks from the Fire District.  The cost to the Town is not clear; nor is it clear why the Fire District can not raise the money in the coming years, as it has done in the past.
Both proposals deserve an airing when the agenda description gives better notice to the public.  A vote of the public at Town meeting is appropriate before the Town takes over the obligation of the Fire District.

More information about Fire Districts in Vermont is available at the Colchester Fire District No. 1 web site.

The portion of the Selectboard packet relating to sidewalks is here.


LINKS
http://www.cfd1.org/about_fire_districts.html
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5p_pfaeTTstNzkzUXgyWDVSWlU/view?usp=sharing

Asteroid Day

Today,  June 30, 2015, is the inaugural Asteroid Day, a "global day of education and awareness about asteroids — especially those that threaten Earth."

The day marks the anniversary of the Tunguska Event in1908, when an asteroid exploded above a remote area of Siberia, leaving over 800 square miles of blown-down trees.

The Asteroid Day web site is here: http://www.asteroidday.org  or Asteroid Day.  Check it out and consider signing the petition.
Twitter: #AsteroidDay

Newsweek had an article about the asteroids on June 11, available here: We Can Save Ourselves From Earth-Killing Asteroids, But Someone Has to Pay

Planetary Radio released a pod cast today: Saving the Planet: Voices From the Planetary Defense Conference | The Planetary Society

A few questions for the Selectboard and the Town Manager for Wednesday’s Special Meeting of the Selectboard.

A few questions for the Selectboard and the Town Manager for Wednesday’s Special Meeting of the Selectboard.

1. (Item #1) Cut to the chase.  Is the current Town Manager willing to sign an employment agreement similar to that signed by Peter Webster, but for one year (two or three years?) at his current compensation package?  If not, why not?

2.  (Item #3) Plan B. If the bond passes, is the Selectboard legally obligated to borrow the money?

3.  (Item #4) Fulton Memorandum.  Was Mr. Fulton’s memorandum an appropriate response to Ms. Layton’s “Public Vote of No Confidence” document?  

4.  (Item #5) Trust but verify.   Should the Town Manager provide more recent construction projects that he supervised to establish his qualifications as  project manager, because the projects he cites at page 6-8 of his resume are from the 1980’s?

5. (Item #5)  Let’s get special.   Should a special town meeting be considered to vote on the project manager issue? Is that a reason to delay the Special Town Meeting scheduled for next week?

Agenda for the Special Selectboard Meeting of Wednesday, May 6, 2015 at 6:30 PM

1)    Funding to Seek Legal Advice (Discussion/Possible Action Item)
2)    Receive Petitions (Discussion/Possible Action Item)
3)    Consideration of Cancelling the Special Town Meeting Scheduled for May 12, 2015 (Discussion/Possible Action Item)
4)    Town Manager/Selectboard Relationship (Discussion/Possible Action Item)
5)    Project Management (Discussion/Possible Action Item)

7 questions for the Selectboard at its April 22 meeting

7 questions for the Selectboard at its April 22 meeting

1.  Digging deep into the Accounts Payable warrant, there are two invoices from law firms.   How come the Selectboard has no money available to hire a lawyer for advice?  Since we are pinching pennies, are these law firms subject of RFP’s or approval by the Selectboard?  [Agenda Item 4 -Accounts Payable]

2.  One more lawyer question. What are the “Union Matters” covered in the invoice from the law firm of McNeil Leddy?  

3.  There is always an agenda item for Capital Facilities.  Will this meeting include a discussion of hiring an independent project manager per the proposal of Selectboard member Mary Layton? [Agenda Item 7 - Capital Facilities]

4.  With respect to the Layton proposal, will the Selectboard get the Town Manager’s views in writing or are we left with his comments in the Valley News? He says he is in charge.  But the statute makes an exception for projects  “specially voted” under 24 V.S.A § 1236 (4).  What does that mean? 

5.  Agenda Item 9 (c) - “Employee Contract” is downright mysterious.   Turns out this is a discussion about the Town Manager’s contract.   Why not just say that?  (Note to Selectboard: talk to an employment lawyer in executive session before saying anything in public. Please, please.)  Of course there is a contract — it is year to year.  Would the Selectboard that hired Mr.  Fulton give him lifetime tenure as a Town Manager binding all future Selectboards in Norwich, in light of the Town’s history with Town Managers? 

6.  Flip flop?   Mr. Fulton says he has no contract but was happy with protections provided by the statute.  In the past Mr.  Fulton has said publicly he did not need a contract because he already lived in Norwich and was not moving from away.  Why the change in position in his email to Ms. Layton?  

7.  Agenda Item 8 (d): Memo from Neil Fulton. Is this the “measured” response we want from the Town Manager to a newly elected official? I thought it rude and non responsive.   Plus parts of the memo gloss over key facts.   More on that later.

No Confidence In Town Manager To Supervise Construction, says Selectboard Member Layton

Selectboard Member Mary Layton does not want the Town Manager to oversee the building of the Fire, Police and Public Works Facilities, if the bond for the project is approved at a special town meeting in May. Ms. Layton proposed that the Town hire a separate "Owners Project Manager".

In a statement, titled "Public Vote of No Confidence",  distributed at last night's Selectboard meeting,  Ms.  Layton said the March 2015 defeat of the Bond was a "referendum about lack of public trust in the Town Manager’s judgment and sensitivity to what the Town wants and needs." The Statement concludes that the Project "cannot go forward under the supervision of our current Town Manager."
Ms. Layton's Statement can be viewed here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5p_pfaeTTstcGtEdWpNQ3Rwd0U/view?usp=sharing

Town Manager Fulton responded with his own memorandum indicating the Layton Statement contained "gross inaccuracies".  Mr. Fulton's memorandum can be viewed here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5p_pfaeTTstTzJBTGtPWE1OU28/view?usp=sharing

In an interview with the Valley News, Mr.  Fulton indicated that by statute, the Town Manager is in charge of construction.  Even if the Selectboard hired a project manager to supervise the construction that person would be the Town Manager's employee.  “They make their policy; I get to implement it,” Fulton said, according to the Valley News article.  The article also indicates the Selectboard did not discuss "Layton and Fulton’s dueling memos on Wednesday night".

The Valley News article Norwich Tries to Shore Bond Support by Rob Wolfe is available online at:
http://www.vnews.com/news/townbytown/norwich/16526565-95/norwich-tries-to-shore-bond-support.

Town Of Norwich Pledges $5000 To Conserve Sample’s Woods And Rosemary Rieser Trail

The Selectboard pledged $5000 towards the acquisition of a Conservation Easement on the Rieser Property on Hobson Road in Norwich.  The vote took place at the April 8 Selectboard meeting, following a brief presentation by David Hubbard of the Norwich Conservation Commission.

The 11-acre site includes the historic Sample’s Jump, a ski jump site listed in New England Lost Ski Areas Project.  The trail will be named for Rosemary Rieser, an avid walker and devoted member of the Norwich community for more than 50 years.
The Upper Valley Land Trust and the Upper Valley Trails Alliance are leading the effort to raise the $50,000 needed to purchase the easement, with fundraising expected to be completed by the end of April.  This price is less than the fair market value of the land.  The money pledged by the Town of Norwich comes from the Town’s Conservation Trust Fund, which is funded by donations not taxes. 

For more information, see the brochure at the web site of the Upper Valley Land Trust at http://www.uvlt.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/SamplesWoods_RieserTrail21.pdf or make a secure online contribution at: www.UVLT.org.

Norwich Fire Department Rescues Molly

Photo and caption from Selectboard packet for April 8, 2015 Selectboard meeting

Police Chief Robinson To Stay In Norwich; Says Thanks

from the listserv  October 7, 2014

To the residents of Norwich:

I would like to convey my sincere thanks to you for all your recent support.   It was just what I needed but never expected! I am truly touched by your letters, e-mails, phone calls and those that stopped in to see me.  Thank you again for being so supportive.  

It appears that the Thetford Police Chief position has been offered to one of the other candidates, although disappointing, I am very relieved that I will not have to make an extremely difficult if not impossible decision to leave Norwich.   It has been an honor to be part of such a special community, and will be an honor to continue as your police chief.

Thank You

Doug

Chief Douglas A. Robinson

Norwich Police Department

lists.valley.net/lists/arc/norwich/2014-10/msg00193.html

Police Chief Situation

from the listserv

Over the past days there have been several posts on the Listserve regarding the possible departure of our Norwich Police Chief, Doug Robinson. I am writing to respond as an individual member of the Selectboard.  Except as listed below, I haven’t discussed this with any member of the Selectboard or our town’s government.

Like many of you I was concerned to hear that Chief Robinson might be leaving.  I have know him since his time as a School Resource Officer in Hartford, and I believe that he is an outstanding match for the Chief of Police position in Norwich. 

After Doug’s announcement about the possibility of his leaving, I have had conversations with him and with Neil Fulton, our Town Manager. Based on these I am sure that the situation is exactly as has been reported; Chief Robinson has been exploring an employment possibility, and hasn’t decided what will happen if indeed the possibility becomes an actual job offer.  I am highly confident there aren’t any official town reasons leading to this situation.

As far as Norwich residents trying to influence the situation, the Norwich Selectboard and Town Manager do not have any role in its outcome. All anyone can do is to convey their appreciation to Doug for his efforts for our town.  If indeed events keep him here, great!  If indeed he moves on, then I for one am deeply grateful for his 10 years of outstanding service to Norwich.

This is a good moment for all of us to reflect on and appreciate the efforts that so many people- both employees and citizens -contribute to make Norwich a great community.

-- 

Christopher Ashley

Norwich Selectboard

Please note that any response or reply to this electronic message may be

subject to disclosure as a public record under the Vermont Public

Records Act.

 

 

Town Manager -- Police Chief

If you believe the September 24 story in the Valley News, then one must wonder about the seemingly nonchalance of Norwich Town Manager Fulton about Police Chief Robinson looking to Thetford for a new job.

The Valley News reports that the Town Manager did not know that Robinson was a candidate, until Fulton read about it on the Thetford listserv.  That seems strange, since in June, Town Manager Fulton negotiated the contract with Thetford for Chief Robinson to act as interim chief.  No courtesy call to Fulton by Robinson or by Thetford?  Perhaps next time we lend out our officials, the agreement should say no poaching.  Stranger still, if the story is accurate, Fulton and Robinson have “not discussed his potential departure.” Why?

Although the Town Manager said the Chief “does a great job,” the Town Manager was not quoted as saying he wants the Chief to stay. Maybe that was an oversight by the Valley News or it goes without saying.  The article reports that Fulton has no worries about “filling the position because of Norwich’s competitive salary.” On this point, Fulton is wrong.  Changing police chiefs will be a distraction and disruption to the community, even with a perfect hire.   Money is not keeping Robinson, since the Thetford job pays less.  

Godspeed to Chief Robinson, whether he stays in Norwich or moves to Thetford. The Thetford Selectboard meets Monday evening.

The Valley News story is at http://www.vnews.com/news/townbytown/thetford/13681516-95/interim-chief-is-finalist-in-thetford-norwich-polices-robinson-is-one-of-three-in



---------------------------
You received this message as a subscriber on the norwich@lists.valley.net discussion list.
http://lists.valley.net/lists/arc/norwich/2014-09/msg00954.html

Pause

Norwich Selectboard Agenda -- June 26, 2013

Agenda for the Selectboard Meeting of Wednesday, June 26, 2013 at 6:30 PM

(Times Are Approximate)

1)      Approval of Agenda (Action Item) 2 minutes

2)      Public Comments (Discussion) 10 minutes

3)      Town Manager’s Report (Discussion) 10 minutes

4)      Finance – Board to Sign Accounts Payable/Warrants (Action Item) 5 minutes

5)      7:00 pm – Facilities Planning Process – Bread Loaf (Discussion) 30 minutes

6)      7:30 pm – Meeting with Conservation Commission (Discussion) 15 minutes

7)      7:45 pm – Meeting with Milton Frye Nature Area Committee (Discussion) 15 minutes

8)      Reappointment of Linda Cook and Stephen Leinoff as Norwich Town Forest Fire Warden and Deputy Fire Warden, Respectively (Action Item) 5 minutes

9)      Selectboard Priorities and Calendar for 2013-14 (Discussion) 10 minutes

10)   Correspondence (Discussion/Possible Action Item) 10 minutes

a)    Letter from Elaine Warshell Re: Town Manager’s Refusal to Follow Vermont Law

b)    Letter from Demo Sofronas Re: Letter of Thanks

11)   Selectboard

a)    Approval of the Minutes of the 5/22/13 Meeting (Action Item) 5 minutes

b)    Review of Next Agenda (Discussion/Possible Action Item) 5 minutes

Next Regular Meeting – July 15, 2013 at 6:30 PM

To receive email notices of Selectboard meetings and hearings, agendas, minutes and other notices, send an email to manager-assistant@norwich.vt.us requesting to be placed on the Town Email List.