At its Nov. 5 meeting, the Harvard-Devens Jurisdiction Committee (HDJC) reached consensus on controversial issues facing the Devens Jurisdictional Framework Committee.
The Devens Jurisdictional Framework Committee is tasked with determining the ultimate fate of Devens, and it consists of representatives from Harvard, Ayer, Shirley, MassDevelopment, and the Devens Enterprise Commission. It has temporarily halted operations due to COVID-19. The Harvard-Devens Jurisdiction Committee’s task is determining Harvard’s perspective on what should be done with Devens, and it has continued work despite the larger committee’s recess.
Before suspending operations, the framework committee had nearly completed drafting a memorandum of understanding laying out the next steps of its process, but it required feedback from the various parties on a few issues. The HDJC plans to determine Harvard’s views on the issues before the framework committee resumes operations in 2021.
One issue was how many voting stakeholders would need to approve the framework committee’s final plan for it to move to the next stage (voting by the towns at a super town meeting). Would it require a simple majority, all but one party, or unanimous approval? HDJC member Paul Green argued that the approval should be unanimous. He spoke against accepting a simple majority vote on the final plan by saying: “We don’t all have an equal stake in this; Harvard has by far the most developable land. The problem with the votes being equally weighted is that the outcomes are not equally weighted.” The HDJC agreed to support this position.
The memorandum calls for the hiring of a consultant with experience in municipal finance and organization, but does not yet specify how the cost should be distributed among the voting entities. HDJC and Select Board member Lucy Wallace argued that MassDevelopment should cover the entire cost of the consultant. HDJC and Select Board member Kara Minar agreed, saying that MassDevelopment’s current handling of all Devens governance expenditures sets the precedent. She also claimed that MassDevelopment is responsible for presenting a study on Devens’ governance every decade and that it has not done so recently, so the consultant could be considered a version of that existing commitment. The HDJC also supported this position.
The framework committee is in the process of adding Devens itself to the negotiations as a sixth party, with three voting members, just like the existing five parties. HDJC member and Devens resident George Glazier said that two of those seats should go to Devens residents and only one to Devens businesses. He said the actions of the businesses have a greater impact on the residential properties than the actions of the residents on the businesses, and further argued that MassDevelopment and the Devens Enterprise Commission already represent the interests of Devens businesses.
While Minar agreed that the request was fair, she cautioned that restricting businesses to a single seat might cost the committee their goodwill, causing businesses to oppose the committee’s plans. The HDJC did not reach a final decision on this matter.
At the HDJC’s next meeting, members will continue discussing the composition of the Devens delegation as well as taking up Minar’s request to review the memorandum’s list of potential final Devens governance structures.
