Manchester selectmen knew for months about harbor shortfall

MANCHESTER — At least five months before submitting a report outlining a $31,000 shortfall in mooring revenues and other issues to selectmen, members of Manchester's Harbor Advisory Committee had raised concerns with them about harbor regulations, management and record keeping, according to e-mails obtained by the Times.

But most selectmen have still not publicly taken up the issues — and are still not slated to discuss the advisory panel's 8-page June report until Aug. 16.

According to an e-mail exchange, former Harbor Committee Chairman Jim Starkey notified selectmen on Jan. 19 that the mooring revenues between 2007 and 2008 dropped by a little over $15,000 each year, despite a waiting list for moorings and no drop in the number of moorings in the harbor.

But Selectman Lee Spence, in an e-mail dated Jan. 29, asked that Starkey "work with" selectmen on the issue. He said in a later e-mail that Starkey should further discuss his concerns with the harbor committee.

"Things are screwed up, but as I said to you before, the problem is to fix them, not to drag all of us through the mud," Spence wrote in the Jan. 19 e-mail to Starkey. "As I stressed to you the other night, we have to put the past behind us and go forward."

Selectmen are now scheduled to discuss the Harbor Advisory Committee's report in a special Aug. 16 meeting — two months after they received the harbor report. Selectmen that night are to meet with police Chief Glenn McKiel, who also serves as the harbormaster, and Town Administrator Wayne Melville to review the issues and discrepancies raised by the report, Spence said last week. Selectmen Chairman Tom Kehoe said selectmen are also looking to meet with the Harbor Advisory Committee at an undecided time.

Among other recommendations, the report calls for the town to conduct an independent, outside audit of harbor revenues and management — and Selectwoman Mary Hardwick has added her voice to that call.

But to date, selectmen's only action related to the advisory committee was their decision to decline re-appointing Starkey to it. Hardwick had nominated Starkey to continue in his post, but no other selectman seconded her motion. Another former Harbor Advisory chairman and committee member, Paul Dozier, has also resigned.

The Harbor Advisory Committee's report sought, in part, to answer the question about how people obtain moorings and how long it takes for an applicant to receive a harbor mooring, Starkey has said.

The report cites 14 moorings issued to boaters either out of order or off the waiting list between 2007 and 2009, along with differences in funds collected and reported by the town.

McKiel has pegged the revenue shortfall to a change in computer software and a glitch that lost track of more than 100 moorings during those years. He has said he's still looking into ways the town can recoup the uncollected revenue.

The committee based its report on Excel spreadsheets received from the Harbor Department, and alleges it has not received the actual records from the Harbor Department.

The committee is also recommending that the town place an official or employee not affiliated with the Harbor or Police departments in charge of keeping mooring records, and that the town revert to a system of serialized mooring stickers.

The advisory panel has also asked that the Harbor Department post the current permit list, waiting list and mooring changes to the town web site, establish a policy that retains mooring numbers after a mooring, waive wait list fees for three years for applicants prior to 2010, and hire a full-time harbormaster, who could give 100 percent of his or her attention to the harbor.

After conducting his own internal investigation of the Harbor Department records, McKiel — assisted by former harbor clerk Michele Gavin — found that during a software change in the Harbor Department, 105 moorings from the inner harbor were essentially lost in translation, and that those 105 moorings account for a two-year $15,000 discrepancy in collected mooring funds.

The original files in both software programs were not sent to the Harbor Advisory Committee because, according to McKiel, bank and credit card information would have to be redacted for personal security reasons.

According to a Feb. 18 memo sent to selectmen, McKiel said that the users not billed in 2007 and 2008, when, focused on reforming the Police Department, he issued the 2007 billing for 2008. The department members discovered this problem in 2009 and began reconstructing the mooring records.

"It appears that, when (former Police Chief Ronald) Ramos transitioned the files from the Q&A program to the new Sesame program, he failed to include these inner harbor users," McKeil wrote in the Feb. 18 memo.

Melville said last week he believes a reconstruction of those records needs to be finished before the town can call for an audit. He said that he spoke to the town's auditing firm, Powers & Sullivan, about the records and found that the condition of harbor documents doesn't provide enough information for the auditors to work with.

"Imagine if your tax returns burned in a fire, how are you going to construct the last year?" he said. "It's not with no information. We've got a few pieces, but it's a forensic exercise."

Selectwoman Hardwick, however, sees no reason not to conduct a review of the department's records now.

"Why not?" she said. "It's a mess, let's get Powers & Sullivan in there and do an audit."

The rest of the selectmen have essentially kept their hands off harbor questions and issues.

Dozier's resignation letter noted that selectmen's failure to second the re-appointment of Starkey to the harbor advisory panel — without any discussion — sent a message of "don't rock the boat, and play nice."

However, Melville said they did not re-appoint Starkey for remarks he allegedly made regarding McKiel. In another e-mail correspondence provided to the Times last week, Melville wrote that Starkey had "publicly and in writing accused the town and several town employees of violating the law," and said Starkey had essentially accused McKiel of misappropriation of funds in front of him at a meeting.

He said the town had sought legal counsel and found that the chief could not take action against Starkey while he sat on a town committee without bringing action against the town.

The growing flap over harbor money, moorings and management practices is hardly the first time the town's waterfront has been at the center of controversy.

In 2006, selectmen charged the Harbor Advisory Committee to "review all marine enforcement and recreational services offered to boaters and make recommendations to the Board of Selectmen regarding mooring assignment procedures and associated fees by Dec. 1 of each year."

To date, the committee has filed three full reports, one on mooring inspection protocol drafted in 2007, a draft of mooring regulations in 2008 and the current report. Only one — the new one — was formally submitted to selectmen, though the panels have discussed the mooring regulations, according to meeting minutes from June 15, 2009, and talked about other regulations at another meeting, according to Spence.

In both cases, selectmen again thanked the advisory committee for their work — and asked them to go back, revise and continue, with no other action.

Dozier acknowledged that the harbor committee has not pushed the issue; that's largely because members believe the needed changes cannot occur without a full restructuring of the department and the hiring of a full-time harbormaster. He questioned the need even for a committee, without a separate Harbor Department.

"I can't in good conscience presume what the (selectmen's) priorities ought to be," Dozier said, "but if improving harbor administration does not rate highly, then let it be said publicly."

Steven Fletcher can be reached at 978-283-7000 x3447, or gt_reporter@gloucestertimes.com.

Local News

Search Results

Discussion

Site Map

Contact Us