Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bylaws topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Readfield planning board debates scope and language of new bylaws, seeks concise procedural guidance
Summary
The Readfield Planning Board reviewed a draft internal set of bylaws and discussed narrowing or deleting language on 'bias', ex parte communications, voting affirmations, alternates, and quorum to avoid legal exposure and unnecessary repetition of the Land Use Ordinance. Members asked the drafter to circulate revisions.
The Readfield Planning Board reviewed a first draft of internal bylaws intended as a procedural guidance document rather than an externally enforceable ordinance. The drafter said the goal was to keep the document internal to the planning board’s operations and avoid repeating material already contained in the town’s Land Use Ordinance.
Board members raised detailed edits. Several argued that the draft’s reference to 'bias' in conflict-of-interest provisions was vague and could be used unfairly, and recommended removing or tightening that term so the language focuses on defined conflicts of interest and recusal procedures. The drafter acknowledged overlap with a select board conflict-of-interest and ex parte communications policy and said they would cross-check and harmonize phrasing.
Members also discussed a sentence in the draft stating that a member 'affirms' by voting that they have reviewed an application. Some members warned that 'affirm' sounds enforceable and suggested replacing it with 'confirm' or deleting the sentence to avoid creating a perceived legal obligation. The board debated attendance expectations and whether wording such as 'expected to attend regularly' should be softened to avoid creating a standard that could be used against members.
The group reviewed rules on alternates and quorum, agreeing that alternates should vote when designated by the chair or when a regular member is recused, and that a quorum for a seven-member board is four members. Members asked that the text make clear when alternates may be appointed (for absence, recusal or disqualification) and that written decisions be signable by the chair or vice chair when appropriate.
On ex parte communications the board sought to narrow the draft language so it applies to communications 'in connection with the substance of matters' rather than to any mention of a meeting or procedural question. Members emphasized that routine scheduling inquiries should not be swept into a broad prohibition.
Next steps: the drafter will circulate a revised version that addresses the suggested edits and consolidates repeated sections. Board members were invited to submit marked-up language; the group expects to review a new draft before scheduling a public hearing if any language requires action beyond internal guidance.
