It’s been said that Harvard runs on volunteers, and with the town’s most important business in the hands of 35 town committees, each staffed by unpaid residents, it’s easy to see why. From the Board of Health and Conservation Commission to the Fourth of July and War Monument Restoration committees, it’s ordinary citizens, with the support of professional staff in Town Hall, who do the work.
But townspeople who aspire to join a town committee have not always known which seats are open, how or when to apply, or whether an incumbent had already asked to be reappointed.
Appointments to most town boards, commissions, and committees are made by the Select Board, a power established by voters when they approved Harvard’s town charter in 2018. While no term lasts longer than three years, there are no term limits, and incumbents who ask to remain on a committee for another one- to three-year term have usually been reappointed, narrowing opportunities for newcomers eager to participate.
Now, following dissatisfaction among its members over the handling of some of their appointments this fiscal year, the Select Board has revised its appointment policy. The updated document is the work of Executive Assistant Julie Doucet and Select Board member Kara Minar and was approved, after six months of discussion, by a unanimous vote of the board on Feb. 2.
The idea behind these changes, Doucet wrote in an email to the Press this week, is to provide more time for others in the community to express their interest in serving on a committee and not to automatically reappoint officeholders when others might be interested or better suited.
Co-author Minar said in a phone interview that the board wants to balance the institutional knowledge of sitting committee members with the expertise and energy “a new group of enthusiasts” can bring to a board. And boards need to think about succession planning, she added. “We’re always looking for new people to step forward.”
The updated policy establishes a clear process and timeline for filling board seats whose terms will expire at the end of the fiscal year. Among its provisions, the policy:
- Requires the executive assistant to prepare and post on the town website, by Feb. 1, a list of committee members whose terms expire at the end of the fiscal year. Residents may apply by completing a volunteer application form (available at the town website) and submitting it to Town Hall no later than May 1.
- Requires incumbents to write a letter of intent to the Select Board by March 15 stating whether they will seek reappointment and their reasons for wishing to remain for another term. The policy is not clear, however, in stating how this information will be made public.
- Requires committees with soon-to-be open seats to recommend whether to appoint an incumbent member, new applicant, or some combination of the two in writing to the Select Board by May 1.
- Sets June 30 as the aspirational date for filling all fiscal year-end vacancies.
Contained within the revised policy are two additional changes meant to reduce favoritism in the appointment process, while involving the board more directly in committee affairs.
First, Select Board liaisons—and every committee has one—are expected to work with the chairs and members of their assigned committees to develop criteria for a vacancy that are specific to the needs of those committees. They are also to “assist with succession planning and term limits.”
And second, the policy sets general criteria for choosing whom to appoint to an upcoming slot. Appointment criteria, the policy says, “will focus on relevant expertise relating to the [committee’s] mission, the recommendation of the committee [or] board, and the [candidate’s] stated interest in the committee’s purpose and activities.” Although the policy commits the board to appoint members “from diverse backgrounds,” expertise and a commitment to the work of a committee are now front and center.
When a position is contested, incumbents and new applicants will be asked to appear before the Select Board for an open discussion of their qualifications and what they hope to contribute to the work of the committee in question. The chair or a representative of that committee will also be asked to join the interview.
Behind the board’s decision to revise its appointments policy was members’ unease with their handling of two fiscal 2021 appointments, one to the Board of Health and four to the Conservation Commission.
On June 30, just before the start of fiscal 2021, the board’s five members voted 4-1 to appoint Chris Mitchell to the Board of Health, replacing Tom Philippou, a six-term, 18-year veteran of that committee. Chair Alice von Loesecke and Lucy Wallace wanted to encourage the involvement of new members from the community, admitting, however, there was no perfect time to make such a change. All five members later lamented that Philippou’s removal had been “unceremonious.” Member Rich Maiore said the board needed to do a better job of stating the criteria behind the decisions it makes.
At that same June 30 meeting, the Select Board also had to decide among six candidates for four upcoming vacancies on the Conservation Commission. Three of the applicants were incumbents. Lacking a recommendation from the commission, board members voted to table their decision until ConCom members had stated their preference. In the interim, three more residents stepped forward, increasing the number of candidates to nine. After deliberation, the Conservation Commission recommended that the three incumbents be reappointed to three-year terms. One of the newcomers was appointed to a one-year term as an associate member,
“This issue with ConCom was [that] there was not a set deadline for volunteer forms,” wrote Executive Assistant Doucet. “That has now been set to May 1.”
The role of filling committee vacancies is not an easy one for the board, she added. “However it is in their hands as the appointing authority.”
Said Wallace, shortly before the board voted 5-0 to approve the revised policy: “That’s what we get paid the big bucks for.”
