| Noreen Williams |
Charter Commission meeting August 9, 2021
Ben Tettlebaum (chair), John Salisbury (vice chair), Steve Libby, Penny Hilton, Linda Chase, Steve Hathorne, and Don Libby present.
One of the main points of business of the evening was to hear from Scott Seaver, a New Gloucester resident, with extensive experience in municipal governance. He has been involved in town governments with and without charters since 1978. He first read a statement about his experiences and then responded to questions from the commission.
Mr. Seaver spoke first of his experience with North Yarmouth which developed a charter that was a simple six-page document. Over time that town changed its governance from a town meeting/board of selectmen/administrative assistant model to one with a town meeting/board of selectmen/town manager. He also served on Chebeague Island which seceded from Cumberland and used an ordinance-based system of governance. He noted that this latter system was quicker to amend and that might be good or bad. He said that a ”formal process and rigorous standards to enact change are important.” He also said he “was not sure there is a right or a wrong” type of governance. He feels that the town meetings are an “historic and representative form of expression” and that the staggered three-year terms for the Select Board work well. He spoke of viewing term limits in the positive as “an opportunity for those who want to serve” rather than a way to force those with experience to take time off.
Recall. During the question and answer period, there was discussion among the commission members and Mr. Seaver about the basis for a recall and whether the charter should specify reasons for a recall. Steve Hathorne reminded the group that two formats had been taken to the town meeting and the town chose the more general terms rather than specific ones.
Town meeting. Another topic was whether there should be a quorum specified for the town meeting. Scott Seaver said he thinks that everything possible should be done to get the numbers up to ensure representation of all the town. Steve Libby asked why town meetings are not well attended and whether it is because people are comfortable with what is proposed. John Salisbury wondered whether there is a better time to have the select board elections since using a November election might allow more time for them to prepare for the next budget in July. Penny Hilton wondered whether election of the Select Board at the town meeting was different in gaining interest than a ballot of the candidates.
Budget. The budget and who might be more knowledgeable about the budget was a subject of discussion. John Salisbury asked if the Select Board was more knowledgeable than the citizens concerning the specifics of the budget or whether budgets might be handled as a two-step process with a town meeting and then a referendum. Several members also wondered if there should be language in the charter concerning dealing with a surplus of money or a cap on surplus money. Don Libby asked how many people in town government are engaged in the budget process and Scott Seaver felt most were.
Term limits and participation in town government. Ben Tettlebaum thought that “the opportunity to serve could be strengthened.” Scott Seaver felt that term limits that vacated positions would encourage people who would be interested in serving and that was the only good reason for term limits. Several commented on the difficulty of getting people involved on committees and boards. Scott Seaver felt that it was important to cultivate the interest in serving the town and they should “make sure that the activities of these groups are put out to people.” Over time people who are active in governance can burn out and new people need to be involved. He said that committees should think well in advance of a vacancy about who they could bring on.
Town government. Ben Tetttlebaum asked what Scott Seaver thought was the purpose of town government. Scott said it was the transportation network, education, and social services. Ben also asked what might cause a town to shift from town meeting to a town council and Scott said “when you no longer have confidence that an elected board of selectmen can get the interest going to get things done. A council seems to have the ability to more take the bull by the horns.” He doesn’t “think the need is present” in our case. John Salisbury and Don Libby discussed how to get more informed decisions on more technical or specific issues (select board, special meeting, town meeting, or referendum).
Chair report. Ben Tettlebaum indicate that the MSAD 15 superintendent has offered to speak with the commission.
Public Engagement Committee. The Community Fair was discussed. The plan is to have members of the commission be present at the booth to answer questions and seek input from the public. They will have handouts and easels with questions to encourage public input. An anonymous comment box and a sign-up sheet for people to provide their emails for the charter commission listserv will be in the booth.
Legal Counsel. Three offers for legal counsel were present in the agenda packet (Bernstein Shur, Drummond Woodsum, and Jensen Baird). Linda Chase proposed tabling this issue until they knew who the town will choose as counsel since she felt using the same firm might avoid duplication of work. Others felt it was not necessary for the same counsel to be used. Ben reaffirmed that all three had charter experience but would find out with which town charters they had been involved.
Survey. Included in the agenda packet were two surveys. John Salisbury submitted a 26-question survey and Ben Tettlebaum had submitted one that was more general with 11 questions. Several on the commission thought the longer survey would be good for the commission to use as an internal process. Some discussion concerned how the public input would impact the commission’s writing of the charter. Don Libby didn’t want to have it “take responsibility from us” to do the hard work of drafting the charter. Penny Hilton wanted to be sure “to do it with the public feeling that they have been listened to.” The commission discussed how to get a survey to town residents and ensure a solid return of the completed surveys. For their next meeting the members of the commission will come up with 10-15 questions that they believe will get a good response from the town. In the effort to get more people involved, a mailing will be designed to go out to the town to encourage people to join the commission listserv. (To join the listserv, send an email to ngchartercommission@gmail.com)
Next meeting. The agenda for the next meeting on August 23, 2021 at 7 PM in the town meetinghouse was set. Agenda items include: the time for public comment, reports from the chair and treasurer and from the public engagement committee on the fair, a discussion of legal counsel, identifying additional panelists for fact finding, and the first policy discussion on the form of government, which was deferred from this meeting. Matt Sturgis and Scott Morelli will not be presenting to the commission since they felt it might be a violation of their code of ethics as managers. The commission was encouraged to send other suggestions to the chair.
To view the video of the Charter Commission August 9 meeting, click here. For links to agenda packets, meeting minutes, and commission information, click here.
