Planning Board member Peter Brooks addresses Town Meeting in favor of Article 43. (Photo by Lisa Aciukewicz)
MORE TOWN MEETING PHOTOS
By a margin of 18 votes, Annual Town Meeting voted Saturday to hire a town planner, opting for an “independent contractor” rather than a salaried town employee. Proponents successfully argued that a “temp-to-perm” model would allow the town a year to audition a planner before committing to the long-term costs of a municipal employee. But as several skeptical speakers noted, the metrics to be used in evaluating a planner’s fate after the one-year trial period are as yet undefined.
The article passed by Town Meeting differed from the version published in the warrant, having been amended by the Planning Board earlier that morning to specify an “independent contractor.” Before debate began, a pair of procedural motions first moved Article 43, a citizen petition, to come before Article 10, and called for consideration of the two to be done concurrently, their wording being identical. Once Article 43 had passed, the selectmen withdrew Article 10.
New position, new costs
In approving the position, voters also agreed to spend $40,000 in the coming year, to partially fund the new position. The balance of the planner’s wages will be provided by a one-time, $20,000 contribution from last year’s Master Plan allocation of $100,000, which has not been spent. After fiscal year 2014, the position will be paid for through the town’s omnibus budget as either a salaried or contract position. “The expense will become a line item in the land-use boards’ budget,” said Finance Director Lorraine Leonard on Monday.
In the weeks before Town Meeting, the Planning Board’s bid for a permanent town planner met outright opposition from the other land use boards (including by one member of the Planning Board), and resistance from three of the town’s five selectmen. The idea of a one-year trial period surfaced publically at last week’s Board of Selectmen’s meeting and found its way into the amended warrant article on Saturday morning. When it came to the final vote, all the selectmen except Lucy Wallace supported the article.
A pressing need for the town
Echoing the arguments that prevailed during the run-up to Town Meeting, proponents argued that the hire was a pressing need that the town could afford, and foes of the article objected to the proposal as precipitous and poorly defined.
Planning Board member Joe Hutchinson noted that the Master Plan, which has been on hold for a year, should set the direction for a town planner’s job.
“Until you know what you’re building, how do you know who to hire?” he said, criticizing the current job description for the planner as “four pages of cut and pasted stuff from all over the commonwealth.” Hutchinson said the job description lacked the focus necessary to hire the right person. “It’s a comprehensive list of skills, but what is more important is the [planner’s] role, which has not been discussed. Let’s take the next year to reflect on the planner’s role,” he said.
Planning Board Chairman Peter Brooks spoke for the article, noting that his board had been in “a state of upset” and needed help with “long-range planning and analysis.” Recent proposals for wind and solar energy, for instance, “challenged us because our bylaws are outdated.”
In the end, Brooks’ argument won the day. The 18-vote margin of victory came by a vote of 119 to 101 at a Town Meeting where attendance was the lowest it has been in 15 years.
