Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Appointments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Charter group proposes online application and new review steps for high‑profile boards
Summary
Group 3 suggested an online application system for town boards, proposed that the board of selectmen review candidates for a small set of high‑profile boards (rather than leave all pre‑filtering to the first selectman), and recommended qualifying language to make appointments 'reasonably and objectively' based on skills.
The Charter Review Commission Group 3 spent the largest portion of its meeting debating how the town should nominate and appoint members to boards and commissions.
Members agreed to add a public online application form and to publish vacancies so residents can self‑nominate or apply through party nominating committees (DTC/RTC). Commissioners also discussed a two‑tiered approach: keep the first selectman’s ability to nominate for most boards but require the full board of selectmen to review and select nominees for a short list of high‑profile bodies (the commission discussed planning & zoning, board of finance, audit and ethics as examples). Several commissioners argued this would increase transparency without unduly burdening the board; others said it would dilute the first selectman’s prerogative and risk politicizing appointments.
To limit potential abuse of screening power, the commission favored adding qualifying language requiring that the first selectman select nominees based on objective, skill‑based criteria (participants discussed phrasing such as "objectively" and "without bias"). The group also discussed practical volume limits — whether the board should interview every applicant or only those the board chooses to interview after an executive‑session review — and proposed executive‑session screening followed by interviews of a manageable short list.
On reappointments, members proposed that reappointments to the four major boards be handled through a visible two‑meeting sequence (notice and discussion at one meeting, vote at the next) and that the town council remain involved where existing charter rules require it. For vacancies in elective offices the group proposed a 30‑day clock for the board of selectmen to appoint a replacement and a rule that a vacancy previously held by a party member be filled by someone of the same party (and likewise for unaffiliated seats).
Next steps: staff will draft specific charter language reflecting the online application form, the list of boards requiring full board review, the qualifying language constraining nominations, and the 30‑day vacancy rule for review by the town attorney.
