Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Survey And Outreach topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Concord study committee finalizes plan to pilot town‑meeting survey, aims for Oct. launch
Summary
The Town of Concord Town Meeting Study Committee reviewed a revised survey, discussed piloting and outreach strategies, proposed public forums in October–November, and set an interim presentation to the Select Board in early December.
The Town Meeting Study Committee in Concord moved forward on plans to field a public survey and stage community forums as it prepares interim recommendations to the Select Board.
Chair Eric Moore said the committee is entering a new phase of work, moving from historical framing to testing solutions and preparing deliverables for December. Committee members agreed the survey should focus on three goals: identify problems with town meeting, test candidate solutions and collect basic demographic information to inform recommendations.
“We have a phase change for us,” Moore said, arguing the fall should prioritize identifying solutions with the most potential. The committee discussed launching the survey around Oct. 1 and leaving it open for about a month to allow analysis in November before an interim December presentation to the Select Board.
Members debated how long the survey should be and which questions to keep. Parashar Patel urged the group to set clear success metrics and suggested a stretch response goal of about 10 percent of registered voters. “I would hope we get 10%,” Patel said, referencing the town’s registry size discussed during the meeting.
Committee members emphasized parsimony to limit respondent fatigue and recommended piloting two short versions (an A/B test) with friends, family and board/committee chairs before a full launch. Katie Bresnick and others recommended simplifying complex grids into fewer, clearer items and testing the instrument on common mobile platforms (Google Forms or SurveyMonkey).
The meeting catalogued specific question areas members want to test: whether proposed changes (shorter sessions, multiple-night formats, weekend or Sunday sessions, presubmitted questions, electronic tools such as clickers) would make residents more likely to attend, and how to present legally complex proposals (remote voting, remote town meeting) with explanatory pro/con language.
Panelists also discussed outreach strategies to increase response and reach underrepresented groups. Alice Kaufman circulated draft preambles and short, audience‑tailored asks for distribution; members agreed on concise, voter‑focused language. The committee identified local channels for outreach including letters to the editor, The Bridge (local news), PTAs and direct contact with board chairs.
Carmen (a member of the public present) reported Select Board meeting dates of Dec. 2 and Dec. 16, and committee members agreed to target an early December Select Board slot for an interim report. The committee also discussed piloting logistics, sample‑size expectations (the members cited roughly 13,000 registered voters in town), and the possibility of aiming for a 1,300‑person response as an aspirational target.
The committee closed the substantive discussion by assigning follow‑up tasks: Katie will circulate an updated survey draft; Kristen Hegarty agreed to draft clearer descriptions of candidate interventions; Shannon (town staff) will support SurveyMonkey/operational setup; and members will identify pilot respondents and outreach contacts at schools and community groups.
The committee plans to use the meeting on Sept. 10 to finalize survey items and to continue refining outreach copy and a pilot timetable ahead of the October launch window.
