by John Osborn ·
Friday, July 3, 2026
Harvard’s town charter has no way to remove an elected official who has lost the public’s confidence. That gap, and several other issues, are before a nine-member review committee working toward proposed changes for Town Meeting in the spring of 2027.
Newly appointed Town Administrator Dawn Dunbar brought a written critique to the committee’s seventh meeting last Thursday, walking members through ambiguous language, inconsistent provisions, and at least one instance in which current practice contradicts the charter.
Responses to the committee’s community survey, and the committee’s own research, pointed to the same concerns.
The issues drawing the most attention included the absence of any recall provision for elected officials; the line between Select Board policy and the town administrator’s day-to-day authority; the structure of Town Meeting; and inconsistent language governing the appointment and confirmation of department heads.
The Harvard Charter exists because Massachusetts law gives towns the right to create one, a right granted only in 1966, when voters approved the Home-Rule Amendment to the state constitution. Before then, any city or town wanting to change the structure of its government had to petition the Massachusetts Legislature for a special act. The arrangement benefited neither side. Towns went to Beacon Hill as supplicants for changes that were purely local matters, and the Legislature fielded a stream of petitions that had little to do with state policy.
A charter provides the legal framework for town governance: It defines who holds what authority, how officials are appointed and removed, what the town meeting can and cannot do, and where the line falls between the elected board that sets policy and the administrator who carries it out. Harvard adopted its first charter in 2018. The document requires a review every 10 years; the Charter Review Committee, convened by the Select Board at the end of 2025, is conducting the first.
The charter is direct on the Select Board’s limits. Section 3-2(c) states that “nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize any member of the Select Board, nor a majority of its members, to become involved in the day-to-day administration of any Town agency.” The committee has been hearing, through its community survey and from committee member Bruce Leicher, that the prohibition hasn’t held.
Leicher told the June 25 meeting that the charter contains what he called “intentionally compromised ambiguities” in the relationship between the Select Board and the town administrator. Residents who responded to the committee’s survey were pointed about the consequences: “The Select Board needs to let the TA manage town employees and go through the TA should there be a need to address an issue with an employee” one survey respondent wrote. “The Select Board should not circumvent the TA and speak with the employee directly.” Several respondents connected the concern to the departure of former Town Administrator Dan Nason, who left after less than two years in office, inferring, without evidence, that board interference had contributed to his decision.
Committee Chair Eric Ward and Dunbar read the record differently. Ward said Section 3-2(c) is clear on its face, but that other provisions—purchasing and hiring in particular—muddy the line. His prescription is to add supporting text, not a rewrite. “A charter will never cover everything,” he wrote in response to questions from the Press. “How we handle the spaces in between is a matter of agreement and discipline between parties.”
Dunbar, who was hired by Nason and worked with him until his resignation in February, said she has not experienced board interference. “As long as the board is kept in the loop, that’s all they want and all they need,” she said. Ward said the committee has not specifically discussed Nason’s departure, and that board interference “was not something that came through as something to be addressed in the feedback we received from our current town administrator.”
But it was the charter’s silence on recall that drew the sharpest responses in the community survey, energized by the case of former Select Board member Don Ludwig. He was chair of the Select Board when residents drew attention to remarks he had posted on X, the social media platform, which many considered inappropriate for a town official. The board censured him, and he resigned the chairmanship, but he remained on the board despite his colleagues’ wishes, participating in meetings until his term expired in May. He ran for another term and lost.
Article 7 of Harvard’s charter addresses removal only for appointed officers and volunteers. A felony conviction triggers automatic disqualification under state law, but the charter offers nothing between that threshold and the next election.
Leicher and committee member Pablo Carbonell had surveyed how neighboring towns handle recalls. They reported that most require a signed affidavit under penalty of perjury stating the specific grounds for removal, followed by a petition signed by 15% to 20% of registered voters; the recall vote and a replacement candidate election appear on the same ballot.
Dunbar noted that Groton’s charter includes a recall provision. “It should be a tough process,” she said, “but definitely needed.” SusanMary Redinger, who chairs the Harvard Select Board and serves on the review committee, said recall “will be one of the things I think we have to wrestle with.”
But a recall provision is not at the top of Dunbar’s list. She told the Press in a Tuesday interview that the change she would most like to see is a move to two annual Town Meetings: a spring session for financial articles and a fall session for zoning. Shorter, more focused meetings could draw more residents, she said. The charter now mandates one annual meeting anytime between February and June. Dunbar would also like to see a fixed date for Town Election—one not determined by the date of Annual Town Meeting. Survey respondents called for remote voting options for Town Meeting, a higher quorum than the current 50 voters, and speaker time limits.
The committee plans to invite town counsel to its July 16 meeting to provide guidance on which changes are legally within reach. Following the June 25 meeting, the Select Board voted to approve Dunbar’s employment contract, which requires annual performance reviews presented in a public session—addressing a concern the survey raised about town administrator accountability. The committee aims to submit its recommendations for changes to the charter at next spring’s Town Meeting. “We don’t have a heap of time,” Ward told the committee.