Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Government topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Uxbridge Select Board debates posting board packets in advance, cites risks and benefits
Summary
Select Board members split over whether to post full board packets before meetings: proponents cite transparency and earlier public engagement; opponents warned draft figures have caused confusion (citing a recent Blanchard example) and prefer chair/town manager discretion with a day‑of posting practice and disclaimer.
During the June 23 meeting, the Uxbridge Select Board devoted extended time to whether to post full board packets and working documents in advance of meetings.
Several residents and the finance committee chair had advocated in public comment for making materials available before meetings so the public can prepare informed comments. "Making meeting materials available in advance is not just best practice. It's a cornerstone of transparent governance," public commenter Travis D'Orisario said earlier in the meeting.
Board members described competing concerns. Supporters of advance posting said it improves resident engagement and allowed the finance committee to prepare for public hearings this spring. Critics warned that circulating working or preliminary numbers can cause confusion; members cited a recent instance involving the Blanchard Apartments and preliminary water and sewer rate estimates that prompted an inappropriate reaction before the numbers were finalized.
Town staff explained current practice: packets are prepared in advance and reviewed by the town manager; personally identifiable information is redacted and a disclaimer is affixed noting the packet is a working document and materials may change. The packet is posted on the town website at noon on the day of the meeting. Several board members suggested an electronic internal repository (SharePoint or Teams) where materials are maintained and then selectively released at the chair and town manager's discretion.
The board did not adopt a permanent change at the June 23 meeting; members asked for further discussion with a full board present. The chair proposed continuing current practice with caution: maintain transparency where appropriate, enforce a strict three‑minute citizens' forum limit to avoid repeat comments, and use chair/town manager judgment about releasing sensitive or preliminary materials.
Next steps: the board will revisit the posting policy at a future meeting with a full board present and may pursue an internal electronic database for staff and members to manage documents.
