The Nantucket Planning and Economic Development Commission on Dec. 10 outlined a draft of legislative changes that would change how its members are appointed, expand its membership and update its stated mission.

Leslie Snell, the town’s director of planning and land use services and executive director for the commission, opened the hybrid meeting and introduced consultants from Dodson & Flinker, who facilitated the presentation and public discussion. "Thank you all for coming out this morning to hear about the NP and EDC's proposed legislative changes," Snell said.

Dylan Sussman, a Dodson & Flinker consultant, said the commission’s draft — developed over multiple meetings beginning in 2022 — aims to modernize the agency’s structure and better reflect current island needs. "The probably the most significant of them is that the commission is proposing to change how its members are appointed," Sussman said, summarizing the central change in the draft.

What the draft would change

The proposal would reduce planning board seats on the commission from five to three, keep representation for the county commission, conservation commission and housing authority, and convert the commission’s three at‑large seats so they are appointed by the county commissioners (the town’s select board) rather than chosen by the commission itself. The commission would grow from 11 to 13 members with the addition of permanent seats for the Land Bank, a historic preservation representative, a business-sector seat (selected by the Chamber of Commerce) and a social‑services seat (appointed by the Council for Human Services).

The draft also recommends three‑year terms for at‑large seats and annual terms for other members. Supporters said the mix of elected and appointed positions is intended to broaden access and bring institutional partners into routine collaboration.

A proposed name change would rename the body the "Nantucket Regional Commission," which organizers said better communicates the agency’s planning and advocacy role at the state level.

Mission and responsibilities

The draft replaces the commission’s older enabling language with a purpose to "plan for a resilient, sustainable, and equitable region by balancing economic, environmental, and social factors for current and future needs." It recasts the commission’s responsibilities to emphasize leadership, coordination, advocacy and development of plans, policies and projects, while retaining explicit authority to retain staff and make recommendations to town, county and state bodies.

Sussman said the next steps are for the commission to finalize the language after public feedback, present the home rule petition at the town meeting in May, and — if adopted — send it to the state legislature as an amendment to the special act that created the commission.

Public concerns: appointments, accountability and engagement

Public commenters and several commissioners raised concerns about representation and accountability. Some questioned whether shifting appointment authority would create an "inner circle" of appointed insiders, while others said appointing stakeholders such as the Land Bank and Chamber could increase technical capacity and interagency coordination.

"There really isn't any [language] that talks about engaging with the public," said Campbell Sutton, a resident. "I think more public engagement is missing and it creates a lot of tension." Several attendees urged the commission to add clearer, measurable public‑reporting and engagement commitments to the draft.

A dispute arose over which housing body should have the appointing authority: one commissioner said minutes from a prior commission vote showed the affordable housing trust was designated; staff said the housing authority was the intended designee and that they would re‑check the minutes and resolve the language before the article goes on the warrant.

Comprehensive planning role and staff accountability

Participants also debated the practical authority of the commission versus other town bodies. Several speakers asked for clearer language about when the commission makes recommendations and when regulatory action rests with boards such as the select board or planning board.

That discussion extended to the memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the town and who manages the planning director. Speakers provided mixed descriptions of the staff reporting relationship and urged clarity so the public understands who sets employment goals and who carries out operational oversight.

Competing citizen petition and calls to harmonize

A separate citizen’s article — led by a resident petitioner and already twice passed at town meeting in previous years — proposes a different mix of elected and appointed seats, including directly elected at‑large members. Several commissioners urged the two camps to try to harmonize their proposals into a single article before the warrant is finalized so voters are not asked to choose between similar but competing drafts at town meeting.

What happens next

Meeting facilitators and staff said the commission will review the public feedback, resolve pending questions (for example, the housing seat appointing authority), and finalize a draft for its upcoming meetings. If the commission places a home rule petition on the town meeting warrant and voters approve it, the measure must then be considered by the state legislature as an amendment to the commission’s special act.

Procedural notes

The local body conducted routine business at the start of the session (approval of the meeting agenda) and adjourned after the public discussion.

The commission and petitioners face a compressed calendar ahead of town meeting. Several speakers urged additional public meetings and clearer outreach so voters can evaluate any final article. The commission said it will continue the conversation at its next meetings and encouraged residents to submit written comments and attend the follow‑up sessions.