Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Engagement Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hardwick board debates public‑engagement policy; asks staff to craft a town‑specific procedure
Summary
Select Board members debated a draft public‑engagement policy adapted from a model and asked staff (with Select Board volunteer Larry) to return a Hardwick‑focused procedure that balances transparency with realistic staff capacity.
The Hardwick Select Board spent a lengthy portion of its June 18 meeting discussing a proposed public engagement policy adapted from model language. Staff said the draft came from the League model and recommended converting it into a practical public engagement procedure to avoid creating undue workloads for town staff.
Town Manager David Utson described the intent: the model provides a checklist and structure for projects that require outreach, but staff wants a concise local procedure that checks required grant and statutory boxes without adding unnecessary administrative burden. “We put this policy in front of staff… and some good points were raised,” Utson said, noting the goal was to produce an approach that fulfills grant and procedural requirements while remaining workable for staff.
Board members debated whether to define required engagement by dollar thresholds, project type, or sensitivity. One Select Board member cautioned against rigid, hard‑and‑fast rules: “At a certain point, you know, we are the governing body that has to make those decisions, hell or high water,” the member said, arguing that excessive procedural constraints could slow action. Other members argued that some standardized guidance would reduce inconsistency in how outside groups and projects are handled.
Discussion covered these practical points: when existing grant processes already include public outreach, whether small/high‑visibility projects require the same level of engagement as large capital projects, how to maintain an up‑to‑date website and meeting calendar, and the need to improve virtual access (Zoom/HCTV) so remote attendees can participate.
The board asked Select Board member Larry to draft a Hardwick‑specific version of the policy/procedure, incorporating the meeting feedback, and staff committed to working with him and returning a revised draft for future review. One follow‑up date referenced in the meeting for related coordination was July 16 for preliminary outreach and check‑ins; the board will consider a revised draft at a future meeting.
