Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Select Board continues debate on townwide code of conduct, will seek town‑counsel review
Summary
The Select Board resumed work on a townwide code of conduct that would apply to elected and appointed boards and committees. Members discussed enforcement for appointed officials, recourse when the chair is the subject of a complaint, and whether to require members to 'respect and abide by decisions made by a majority of the board'; the draft will be sent to town counsel for review.
The Town of Sudbury Select Board revisited a proposed townwide code of conduct on Oct. 22 and agreed to send a revised draft to town counsel for legal review before adopting new language.
The draft under discussion is a merged version of two policies the board considered previously and relies in part on a model policy from the Massachusetts Interlocal Insurance Association (MIIA). Town Manager Andy Shanton said the subcommittee combined a select‑board policy and a broader policy for appointed boards and committees "to join those two policies together as a single policy that would apply to everybody from the select board on down," and described the draft as largely aspirational for elected officials.
Board members focused on four implementation questions: who receives a conduct complaint (the chair is the first contact in the draft), whether the town manager should act as mediator and recommend removal to the appointing authority for appointed officials, how a complaint should be handled if the chair is the subject, and whether to add a clause that members must “respect and abide by decisions made by a majority of the board.” Several members supported restoring or adding that majority‑respect language but asked that counsel review any new wording before final adoption.
Select Board member Dan offered specific replacement language modeled on Wellesley’s policy to require members to respect majority decisions and to restrict attempts to override a board decision except by requesting reconsideration. Members asked that Dan’s edit be added as a highlighted insertion so town counsel can advise on legal risk and enforceability. The board asked staff to prepare a clean draft that incorporates prior counsel‑vetted changes and to submit Dan’s proposed text separately for review.
What’s next: staff will produce a consolidated, clean version of the code‑of‑conduct draft, mark Dan’s suggested addition as new language, and send both to town counsel for legal review. The board agreed to hold a follow‑up discussion after counsel provides feedback.
Key quote: "If council is fine with it, that's fine with me," said one member supporting review by town counsel before adding new enforcement language to a counsel‑vetted draft.
End note: the board did not take a vote on the code of conduct; members emphasized the need for clarity about how enforcement would work for appointed officials and for safe recourse when a complaint involves a committee chair.
