Tuesday – June 6, 2006 – 7 pm
Members Present: Neal Brown (Chairman); Bob Jennings, Lee LeBlanc, Roger Lessard, Miriam Lockhart, Kent Vincent
Chairman Brown called the meeting to order at 7:05pm
Member Kent Vincent taking minutes
Agenda:
1. Minutes from June 1st meeting approved without changes.
Action Taken: Neal will forward copy of Minutes to BOS along with a memo detailing recommended steps to be taken by BOS concerning 6/1 Monadnock Ledger article.
2. Discussion with Duffy Fox, pursuant to request by BOS, primarily focused on three specific areas of concern to the Committee to which Duffy had valuable input:
a) Identifying and describing existing problems and conflicts between DPW and the RC
b) Exploring potential benefits and drawbacks to having the RC be under direct DPW supervision
c) Listing specific possible improvements to enhance the benefits the town receives from operating the RC.
Existing Problems and Conflicts:
Duffy shared examples (i) of resistance by Frank to exploring different ways of disposing of material (i.e. changing buyers, delivery of material, etc); (ii) of how avoidable flaws in the center’s design and layout have made maintaining the center more difficult than necessary (this is not unique to the RC, but fairly common by all departments & projects according to Duffy); (iii) of how Frank’s insistence on certain ways of running the RC have made maintaining the RC more difficult than necessary (i.e. snowplowing, storage of materials, pickup of material, etc.).
Conclusions of Committee:
The Committee concludes the majority of examples raised by Duffy are likely true. This is not to say each, or all, of Duffy’s points require any specific action. nor that Frank is in the “wrong”. The Committee recognizes that Duffy’s view is just that, his view. Frank undoubtedly has a differing outlook, with an equally long list of obstacles created by Duffy.
The Committee concludes there is a personality conflict between Frank and Duffy. This conflict has existed for some time and has hindered the RC from being the best it could be. The Committee is not assigning any “blame” to anyone and recommends no punitive action be taken. Duffy’s list of needed changes to the RC can, and should, be addressed individually as part of the on-going process of supervising and enhancing the RC’s operation (more on this below). Both addressing the existing difficulties and preventing future reoccurrences would be perhaps best addressed by modifying how the Town supervises the RC.
Benefits & drawbacks of placing the RC under direct DPW supervision:
A possible solution, put to the Committee by the BOS, is placing the RC under direct supervision of DPW. Duffy addressed this point in particular and fielded dozens of questions from Committee members. Most notably, Duffy stressed he has no real desire to run the RC. He is not especially passionate about recycling, nor would he be able to dedicate much, if any, specific time to administering the RC, nor participating in personal or State-level initiatives. He is very busy as things stand with little unaccounted-for time. He could supervise a RC Manager, but not be that person.
The main benefit, as Duffy sees it, would be to simplify getting required work done on the RC by the DPW at convenient times and at the lowest cost. As things stand, the DPW is sometimes prevented from some maintenance work (i.e. paving) when it is most convenient (and at lowest cost) and sometimes is compelled to do work (i.e. snowplowing) in a manner not to DPW’s liking. Further, design decisions are made absent DPW’s input as to how to best reduce future costs and, perhaps, enhance the RC operation.
Secondary benefits might be (i) some reduction in hauling costs by better coordinating haulage of RC materials when DPW is otherwise making a trip to the area of the material’s final destination; (ii) better continuity in fulfilling capital improvements at the RC when Frank is absent (i.e. loss of allocated funds for paving this past year while Frank was out ill.
In general, Duffy believes he would offer greater flexibility in operating the RC, allowing for smoother transitions as the future might dictate.
Alternative Solution:
Duffy proposes as an alternative to the status quo and/or placing the RC under the DPW would be for the Town Recycling Committee to provide more direct supervision (on behalf of the BOS) to better coordinate DPW interaction with the RC and to analyze potential enhancements to the RC operation.
Conclusions of Committee:
The Committee concludes that something needs to be done to improve the situation. It further concludes transferring supervision over to the DPW will NOT necessarily resolve current personality conflicts (except by creating a situation that forces personal decisions be made that might eliminate the existing conflict), nor prevent future conflicts of a similar nature. The Committee is aware that the RC has made significant positive steps only when a passionate, dedicated manager was in place. Duffy does not appear to be able to provide that necessary ingredient.
Following up on Duffy’s suggestion, the Committee would like to further explore just what the Committee can specifically do to provide a long-lasting solution and enhancement to RC’'s operation. The Committee will address this issue further at the next meeting (July 6th)
Specific possible improvements:
During the hour Duffy spoke, he set forth, beyond those items mentioned above, another dozen or more ideas for improved service. Many of these items have been mentioned before, and all deserve further attention. The Committee will add Duffy’s ideas to the growing list of suggested improvements to be studied and passed on to the BOS as appropriate.
Suggested Improvements:
Build & use “Bird Cages”
Haul material ourselves
Shop for material buyers
Sort Aluminum into 3 parts
Get Residents to sort better
Provide for florescent lighting
Provide for computers
Extend roof
Relocate compacter
Extend building
Purchase “skid-steerer”
Purchase more bailers
Sort material outside
Re-design building
Build loading dock
Better educate residents
More strict rules
Address Safety Issues
Monitor Market prices daily
Enforce Residents ONLY
Better signage
Relocate dumpsters
Reposition dumpsters to ½ height
The Committee extends its great appreciation to Duffy for speaking
| 
