by John Osborn ·
Friday, April 17, 2026
Tensions over Harvard’s perceived approach to the future governance of Devens spilled into the April 8 quarterly meeting of the Devens Jurisdiction Framework Committee, fueling an hour-long discussion on the differing roles of the framework and town committees, and whether Harvard—through its Harvard-Devens Jurisdiction Committee—was violating the group’s mission.
Devens residents were concerned, said John Katter, who represents them, that the framework committee was moving away from its stated mission. “Some parties,” he said, without naming Harvard, wanted to accelerate a decision on the future governance of the state-managed Devens Regional Enterprise Zone and were focused solely on a scenario in which the towns resumed local control.
Katter served notice that Devens residents would not participate in the framework committee’s ongoing discussion of future governance unless members reaffirmed their commitment to study all four options for Devens’s future: (1) the three towns resuming jurisdiction along their historical boundaries; (2) Devens becoming its own town; (3) some form of hybrid governance; or (4) continuing the status quo under MassDevelopment.
He then moved that the committee discontinue any discussion of accelerated jurisdiction or a “sole focus” on town resumption until a consultant had been hired and all members were ready to proceed together.
Over the past two years, the committee has identified 19 issues that must be resolved in any plan for the future governance of Devens. These range from the placement of town and county boundaries to education, and police and fire services. State law requires the three towns, the Devens Enterprise Commission, and MassDevelopment to begin a study of future options on or before July 1, 2030. A final joint report is due the governor and Legislature no later than July 1, 2033. State law says all five parties must sign off on the final document but remains silent on a role for Devens residents and businesses.
Last week’s committee meeting, held at Ayer Town Hall, also marked the first appearance of MassDevelopment’s newly appointed executive vice president for Devens operations, Michael Sweeney, who attended as an observer. His presence was significant. The Devens Jurisdictional Framework Committee had convened for the first time on Sept. 5, 2019, with MassDevelopment as a voting member alongside representatives of Ayer, Harvard, Shirley, the Devens Enterprise Commission, and Devens residents and businesses. In November 2021, the founding parties voted to require unanimous approval of the final study, with each party having one vote. Any member would be allowed to express its reservations or concerns in the study’s appendix. In 2023, however, MassDevelopment withdrew from the group, pledging to return in 2030, but not earlier.
Katter’s motion touched off a searching discussion. Members were genuinely puzzled. As far as most were concerned, the committee had never abandoned its four-option mission and, in any case, without unanimous agreement, it could not act. Robert Pontbriand, Ayer’s town manager, pointed out that the towns had been asked to report on what they would do if they resumed jurisdiction of their historical lands. That was their assignment. It did not mean the towns had committed to that outcome.
Pontbriand said Devens residents were conflating what Harvard’s jurisdiction committee was doing—pursuing its own mandate to plan for resumption of jurisdiction—and what Harvard’s representatives were doing at the framework committee, where all four options remained open. Recent public comments, including the discussion of an “end run” around MassDevelopment reported in the March 27 Harvard Press, had created a perception among Devens residents that Harvard “has already made up its mind,” Pontbriand said. “And not only has it already made up its mind but wants to accelerate to push that forward.” Perception is reality, he added.
SusanMary Redinger, vice chair of the Harvard Select Board and one of Harvard’s three framework committee representatives, compared her situation to that of a juror. She might have opinions going in, she said, but was willing to set them aside to serve the process. “I have two hats on,” she said. “I have a Harvard hat on—and I can still come here and say, in the framework committee, I am operating with all of those four things in place, with no accelerated timeline.” The actions of Harvard’s representatives at the DJFC table, she added, had been consistent with the committee’s charge. “All options are on the table.”
Victor Normand, who chairs the Harvard-Devens Jurisdiction Committee and whose meetings Devens residents have been following closely, is also one of Harvard’s three Devens framework committee representatives, along with Redinger and interim Town Administrator Dawn Dunbar. The recent discussion in Harvard, he said, had been about whether a decision could be reached by 2033 given the complexity of the work ahead—not about “taking Devens over” before that date. “Taking over Devens—that’s crazy talk,” he said. “No one at a committee level has suggested that’s realistic.”
After extended debate and the eventual withdrawal of Katter’s original motion, DEC Director Neil Angus offered a cleaner formulation, one that amounted to a reaffirmation of the committee’s founding mission: “The consensus of the committee is that we are not in favor of any one option, and that accelerated jurisdiction decision is not an issue for us at this time.” The motion passed unanimously.
What residents fear, Katter said in a subsequent interview, is being rushed into a decision before they fully understand their options. “We have heard from residents over the last few years that they need the space and structure to make informed decisions on the best path forward for Devens,” he said. “Accelerated jurisdiction does not allow either to happen effectively.”
Redinger, in a subsequent phone interview, was more direct. “I’ve been told that they’re afraid that if they become part of Harvard they will be a very small minority in voting for or against things that Harvard proposes, especially with regards to housing or other developments,” she said. “They’re also concerned about their level of services not being maintained at the quality they are now.”
Pontbriand of Ayer and Brian Sawyer, Shirley’s town administrator, both said their boards had taken no position on any of the four options. Sawyer added that talk of “acceleration” had never been about reaching a conclusion faster—it had been about getting MassDevelopment back to the table.
During public comment, Harvard resident Paul Green, a member of the Harvard-Devens Jurisdiction Committee, asked for time to present his estimate of the steps and time required to reach consensus and submit a report to the Legislature. It had been his idea, he said, to seek an earlier start to the mandated study as a way to “call MassDevelopment’s bluff” and test whether the agency’s pledge to return to the table was genuine. He urged the framework committee to continue its work, negotiating in good faith and seeking unanimity. “[The Devens Jurisdiction Framework Committee] should act as one,” he said, “ because that’s where [its] power comes from.”
Whether that vision still holds, given MassDevelopment’s continuing absence as a contributing member, is an open question. Normand, in a subsequent interview, was skeptical. “If one of the parties to an agreement has gone dark, then it’s hard to say the agreement is valid,” he said. State law requires MassDevelopment to sign off on any recommendations submitted to the Legislature. “It’s hard to believe that any consensus reached by those at the table would be subsequently endorsed by MassDevelopment.”
The framework committee next meets July 8. Members have already reported once on how each of the five remaining parties would handle the 19 governance issues a change in jurisdiction would require. At the July meeting they will take up education, police, and fire, looking across the four scenarios this time for common ground and shared interests.