|Noreen Williams|
At its July 27th meeting, the charter commission discussed how public comments will be heard at future meetings, public engagement, the feedback from community members at the recent public hearing, and how to prepare for drafting a charter.
Public comments
A single emailed public comment was received and read from Debra Smith. Her comments spoke to the degree of representation with the current town meeting’s low attendance. She hoped that the commission might consider that “form follows function” a good approach in the way forward for the charter and our town government. The chair reminded the public that the commission encourages public comment in person and through email. The commission discussed whether any issues related to the charter could be discussed during the public comment section of these meetings or whether, as it seemed they decided in the previous meeting, they must relate to agenda items. The decision was that as long as the comments related to the charter they should be heard, whether in person or to be read at the meeting.
Chair report
Ben Tettlebaum apologized for sending material late and will get the agenda and packet of information for each meeting posted on the town website section for the charter commission earlier from now on. He asked that people get items to him by the Tuesday before the meeting so he has time to work with Sharlene Myers to post everything. Patti Mikkelsen will now be taking minutes for the commission and Peter Bragdon will substitute as needed with advanced notice. An email usage policy presented by the chair was accepted by the committee (see town website package for details). Communication from the commission, other than an automatic reply to a comment, will be to the entire listserv. Engagement letters from three legal firms with individuals with charter experience were included in the package for this meeting, including one from a member of the firm that is the town’s legal counsel as requested. This will be on the next agenda for discussion.
Treasurer report
Steve Libby presented time and cost for copying for the meeting.
Public Engagement Committee
Penny Hilton, John Salisbury, Ben Tettlebaum and community member Caitlyn Davison met and the draft of the charge of the committee that resulted was presented to the commission. Julie Fralich has also volunteered to assist with outreach and the commission clarified that Fralich and Davison are not members of the committee but volunteered to assist as needed. The charge with minor modification was accepted as follows: “The Public Engagement Committee of the Charter Commission shall encourage public interest and participation in, and discussion of, Charter related items”. The Community Fair was discussed as a way to reach out to the community. Commission members thought a survey would be useful but preparing it in time for the Fair might be challenging. It was decided that information will be presented and commission members will be at the booth. The commission approved purchase of a banner to be used at events. The committee will come back to the next meeting with additional ideas for the fair. The engagement committee also will plan additional events and signage to increase comments and participation at future public meetings.
Public hearing
Commission members were asked to share their thoughts from the first public hearing held July 21, 2021. There was general agreement that the members of the commission appreciated the diversity of opinions and that they hoped to see more participation as the charter process continued. Several commented that they thought the participants made their choice of the form of government clear and that there was a majority who felt that the current form worked but needed some improvements. Included in the agenda packet was a summary of the public comments which indicated that there was a majority favoring keeping town meetings, including term limits and a clear recall process, and additional process for committee and board service. The level of participation at town meetings was a concern.
Major policy considerations
The discussion of the outcome of the public meeting led to the next discussion of what each commission member thought were the 3-5 major policy decisions they needed to make before the charter drafting process could begin. Nearly all of the commission members focused on the form of government as the first priority. This included the question of how responsibilities (legislative or executive) might be divided among the arms of government and how they communicate with each other. Another common theme was how to improve the participation at town meetings and which decisions would be handled outside the town meeting (ballot, referendum, initiatives, etc.). Other policies from some commission members included how the charter would be reviewed or amended over time, the process of appointing committees, nepotism, and recall efforts.
Fact finding
The final major question of the night was to ask what fact finding the commission thought was needed to proceed. There was a range of thoughts on the fact finding needed. Steve Libby thought “public input whether it be through the process at the podium or surveys” was needed as well as guest speakers who are knowledgeable about charters. Peter Bragdon wanted to better understand what “truly a Select Board can do as an option and what a Council can do” by state statute and understand the differences. Mike Arata felt a survey of the commission members would be useful to “focus our discussion going forward” on areas of common viewpoints first. John Salisbury thought they should “get all of the policy issues identified” first and has a created a survey for this purpose. Penny Hilton suggested they look at “historically what kind of decisions have been made at town meetings and which things can be moved and which can’t” to think about functions. Linda Chase wanted to know how many people don’t attend town meeting because they are “ok with the numbers” and identify the “processes that are bogged down or as Peter likes to say broken” and need to be fixed. Steve Hathorne suggested that rather than have the “stigma of Selectman or Council,” they could give the group a new name such as Municipal Officers which was suggested at the select board meeting. Don Libby agreed with Arata that it would be “good to know where we sit first” and with Bragdon on the question of “what can a select board do or not do and what can a council do?” He was also concerned about “unintended consequences”. Ben Tettlebaum asked “about historical attendance at town meetings, record of what towns of various populations have as their form of government, … towns of a comparable size that don’t have charters,… historical ballot tallies,” and he was also interested in a panel of experts who might address what has worked and not. Later in the meeting a number of potential panelists were suggested including those with current or past managerial experience (Seaver, Sturgis, and Morelli).
Next meeting
The agenda for the next meeting on August 9, 2021 at 7 PM in the Town meetinghouse was set. Agenda items include: time for public comment, reports from the chair and public engagement committee, a discussion of legal counsel, identifying potential panels for fact finding, and the first policy discussion on the form of government.
Finally, there was a discussion on whether the meeting should have Zoom participation by the public. Several different opinions were expressed. Ben Tettlebaum reminded the commission that the select board has not yet decided on whether meetings can occur through Zoom and a decision from them is needed first.
