Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Historic-board members challenge city plan to split administrator duties after position was defunded
Summary
Board members expressed legal and practical concerns after the city zeroed funding for the historic-board administrator; staff proposed three planners co-administer duties with final sign-off by the senior planner, and the board voted to continue the discussion in September pending solicitor input and statutory clarification.
A debate over administration of Lowell’s historic-preservation review dominated the July 13 Lowell Historic Board meeting after the city removed funding for the historic-board administrator role earlier this year.
The city’s planning staff proposed having three existing planners (senior, associate and assistant planner) share administrative duties for the historic board, with final signatory authority limited to the senior planner. Staff framed the plan as a person-neutral, interim approach that mirrors administration for other land-use boards; the department said the historic-administrator position remains on the org chart but is currently unfunded.
Several board members pushed back, citing statutory language they said requires the board’s role in appointing an administrator. One committee member read from what they identified as "statute 5 6 6," which they said established the Lowell Historic District and spelled out duties of the historic-board administrator; that member said the city’s May decision to terminate the historic-board administrator ‘‘was in violation of both statute 5 6 6 and the related bylaws.’’
Planning leadership and staff responded that the position was zeroed out as part of budget cuts and that zeroing a position is not the same as deleting it from the city’s classification; they said the arrangement for rotating staff mirrors how other boards are staffed and that the board can always require items to come to full discussion before the board. The director said he would abstain from voting on any personnel-related matter from his department.
Board members raised practical concerns about rotating staff: consistency of decisions, loss of expertise and institutional relationships (for example with the Lowell National Historical Park), enforcement and outreach functions handled in the past by a dedicated administrator, and the need for clearer communication and consolidated meeting materials. Several members requested legal guidance and a clearer process for how enforcement and fieldwork would be conducted under a co-administration model.
The board voted to continue the discussion at its September meeting and asked staff to obtain a written opinion from the city solicitor and to coordinate with the Lowell National Historical Park and other stakeholders before returning with a more detailed proposal.
