Members of the Planning Board reversed themselves this week and voted their preference to continue under a possible town charter as an elected rather than appointed board, as has been proposed by the Charter Commission in its preliminary report.
The 3–0 vote, with members Fran Nickerson and Stacia Donahue absent, contradicts the board’s previous position. Appearing before the Charter Commission earlier this year, Chairwoman Erin McBee told the commissioners that none of her colleagues had strong feelings either for or against the proposed change. If people were “clamoring” to get on the Planning Board, members might feel differently, she said. “I’m just not seeing that,” she said at the time, noting that the five-person board was short two members: a voting member and an alternate, positions that have since been filled.
As of Monday night, however, the opinions of the three members who were present had apparently hardened in favor of preserving the board’s elected status. Board minutes for the past year do not record any discussion of the matter at a regular meeting. “I can’t remember how we came up with our [neutral] stand the first time,” said member Rich Maiore. However, former Planning Board Chairwoman Kara Minar insisted during her chairmanship and more recently as a selectwoman that the Planning Board be elected. At a Sept. 8 commission hearing that was also attended by members McBee, Nickerson, and Michelle Catalina, Minar said that the work of the Planning Board was of such consequence to property owners and the character of the town that members should be accountable to voters, not the selectmen. Elected officials answer to their constituents, whereas appointed officials do not, Minar said.
Maiore echoed her position Monday night: “When board members are appointed by the selectmen, we’re ultimately accountable to five people,” he said. Given the kinds of zoning decisions the board makes, which have consequences for property values and the character of the town, “I’d prefer to be accountable to all residents, not just five,” he added.
“I’ve gone back and forth on this,” said Catalina Monday evening. Elections increase voter awareness of the work of town boards and the positions available on them, she said, and leaving appointments to the selectmen deprives voters of the right to choose who will represent them. Moreover, the selectmen may be inclined to fill seats with like-minded volunteers, she said.
Seeking a diversity of opinion
Town Planner Bill Scanlan, who does not have a vote on the board, agreed: “If there’s a conservative board, they’re more likely to appoint conservative people and vice versa,” he said. “Having an election takes it out of their hands. If you have [an] election, you’re more likely to get a diversity of opinions.”
The preliminary report of the Charter Commission—sent to the selectmen and the attorney general Aug.14—attempts to deal with these objections in two ways. First, it states that the selectmen are not to interfere with the day-to-day work of appointed boards, whose duties, in the case of the Planning Board, are spelled out in state law. Second, should the charter be approved by voters next spring, appointments to the Planning Board would require a 4–1 “supermajority” of selectmen, eliminating the possibility of divisive 3–2 appointments in times of controversy.
In deciding to recommend the appointment of Planning Board members, a majority of the nine charter commissioners has concluded that giving the selectmen the authority to recruit and appoint Planning Board members would increase the likelihood that the Planning Board has the expertise it needs to carry out the town’s vision and Master Plan. By eliminating the need to run for office, they say, more residents are likely to volunteer to fill empty seats, ensuring that the board is fully staffed at all times.
A question of ‘leverage’?
Politically, the authority to appoint, as Maiore and others have commented, would give the selectmen “leverage” in aligning the work of the Planning Board with the goals of the town, leading to a more “integrated” town government. This is in addition to the most powerful tool of all: the power of the purse. By placing responsibility for creating an annual budget in the hands of the selectmen—subject to the approval of Annual Town Meeting—the proposed charter provides a means to align the spending of any board with those same goals, they say.
In an email to the Press on Tuesday, Charter Commission Chairman Paul Cohen declined to comment on Monday’s Planning Board vote. Comments on the preliminary charter report “from the Planning Board and others are welcome,” he wrote. “I do not plan to comment until after the completion of the Charter Commission’s public hearing that is scheduled for Wednesday, Sept. 13.” A legal review of the report by the attorney general is also expected by then.
Meantime, the Planning Board intends to draft a memo this week asking the commissioners to return the Planning Board to the list of those that will remain elected, which currently names the Select Board, School Committee, Library Trustees, and Warner Free Lecture Trustees. The memorandum is to also include recommendations for a full-time planner and suggestions for reorganizing the town’s land-use boards. These concerns will also be relayed to the commission at its Sept. 13 public hearing, after which it will be up to the commissioners to amend the charter, or not, before submitting their final report in October.
