Concluding 18 months of hearings and deliberations, Harvard’s nine-member Charter Commission voted last week to accept and recommend its final charter report to voters. The 7–2 vote came just days before the Oct. 12 deadline set by state law. Although the commission planned to meet one last time this week, its work is essentially done, and it will be up to voters to accept or reject its proposed restructuring of town government at next spring’s Town Election.
Most of the commission’s Oct. 6 meeting was spent on a line-by-line review of the most recent revision of its final report. Although several minor alterations were made to the order and wording of articles and sections, few changes were substantive. The most significant of these was a clarification that although the selectmen should take into account town boards’ input when appointing new members to them, no formal recommendation by the boards needs to occur before new members could be appointed. According to commission member Sharon McCarthy, “When you’re on a board and you’re down a few people, you want that position filled as soon as possible.” The commission members agreed that this should accelerate the process of filling board vacancies.
When the review reached previously contentious sections, especially those concerning town boards that would change from being elected to appointed bodies, commissioners agreed that the relevant debate had occurred at previous meetings and that nothing would be gained by repeating the same arguments for and against.
When it came time to vote, eight of the nine commissioners were present, with Cindy Russo absent for medical reasons. The commission called her for her vote so that the vote could represent the opinion of the entire body. Peter Warren and Charles Redinger voted against the proposed charter. In a phone interview, Warren said he objected to the omission of a recall provision and term limits for elected officials.
Redinger has been a long-standing opponent of the provisions of the charter that change several town boards from elected bodies to bodies appointed by the selectmen. In a brief phone interview, he said he thought the commission had shown “arrogance and hubris” in ignoring community resistance to the change and in labeling opponents as members of “the status quo.” Redinger said he also objected to the decision to drop a recall provision from the document.
Commission Chairman Paul Cohen, meanwhile, stated his belief that although the charter was an imperfect document, it was far superior to the alternative of having no charter at all.
The commission’s final meeting was set for Wednesday afternoon, Oct. 11, in case there were last-minute edits to be made to its report. The document, formally called the “Charter Commission Final Report,” will next go to the Board of Selectmen, the attorney general, and the Department of Housing and Community Development. The selectmen are obligated to place the charter on the ballot of the next Town Election, currently scheduled for May 8, 2018. Citizens should expect to receive copies of the document weeks in advance of the election so that they can familiarize themselves with it. Approval of the charter rests entirely in the hands of voters at Town Election, not Town Meeting, and not the state Legislature. If a majority votes in favor of adopting the charter, the transition would begin immediately.
John Osborn contributed to this article.
