Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Naming Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Select Board debates criteria and petition threshold for naming town property
Summary
The Select Board reviewed a first draft policy to govern naming town-owned properties and assets, discussing criteria, whether to require a petition (25–100 signatures suggested) versus a simple letter of support, and whether the board should retain authority to consider input received after a hearing; no vote was taken.
The Select Board spent substantial time on Dec. 3 reviewing a first-draft policy to guide requests to name town-owned assets such as ball fields and facilities. The draft — compiled after reviewing other municipalities’ policies — proposes criteria and an application form; board members debated when to require public petitions and how many signatures should be necessary.
Some members, including one who favored petition thresholds, argued a requirement (25–100 signatures were cited in discussion) can demonstrate community backing; others said petitions can be gathered in ways that do not reflect informed support and preferred a letter-and-criteria approach with the board retaining discretion. Several members favored giving the board time to deliberate after a public hearing and explicitly allowing staff to consider input received between the hearing and the deliberation. The chair said the draft is a starting point and asked for feedback before the board schedules a vote.
Board members also stressed the long-term nature of naming decisions — noting that honorary namings effectively last for decades and should be considered carefully — and discussed limiting the number of honorific namings so future opportunities remain available. Members agreed to tweak the draft to clarify the process for accepting post-hearing input and to revisit the proposal for a future vote.
