Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Boards And Commissions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission weighs which appointed boards belong in the charter, adds proposed rules for attendance and public audience
Summary
The commission reviewed the long list of appointed boards and commissions, discussed which must remain in the charter versus those better created by ordinance, and asked staff to draft standard attendance/removal language plus a requirement that regular meetings include a public-audience opportunity.
Commissioners reviewed chapter 6 — the list of appointed boards and commissions — and asked staff to determine which bodies are statutorily required in the charter and which may be moved to ordinance. Commissioners and staff agreed that a small number of bodies must remain because state law dictates membership and terms (for example, the Housing Authority and Historic District Commission) but that others (economic development, design review, some advisory committees) could be maintained by ordinance if the selectmen prefer.
Members also considered recurring public concerns about transparency. Several commissioners proposed adding a uniform attendance-and-removal rule so boards can remove inactive members after a chair recommends removal and the Board of Selectmen votes. One drafted provision the commission discussed would permit removal upon the chair’s recommendation and an affirmative vote of four selectmen if a member misses three consecutive regular meetings or more than 40% of meetings in the prior 12 months.
Commissioners also discussed a public‑audience requirement. A recommended sentence put forward by a commissioner reads: “All elected and appointed boards and commissions, as part of their procedures, shall allow for public audience at all regular meetings.” Members asked staff to refine that sentence so it fits legal constraints for land-use agencies (planning and zoning) where un-noticed remarks on pending applications could be treated as an illegal public hearing; staff will craft tailored language and carve‑outs for land‑use bodies.
The Economic Development Commission drew particular scrutiny because its powers are largely defined in ordinance and through an MOU with Main Street Partnership; commissioners noted that if the EDC’s functions are meant to be operational (e.g., negotiating incentives, soliciting developers) those powers must be specified in ordinance or an MOU, not just listed in the charter.
The commission approved a motion to defer detailed appointed‑board restructuring to the next meeting while staff verifies statutory requirements (membership counts and term lengths) for boards that must remain and prepares proposed language on removals and public audience.
