The Charter Review Committee voted 5-0 Thursday night to continue the charter review process and present its recommendations at May’s Annual Town Meeting rather than at the upcoming Oct. 26 Special Town Meeting. It also will engage the Select Board for feedback on which of two choices it prefers to take to seek the charter’s passage.

A charter review is conducted every 10 years so that modifications can be made to align it with current laws and reflect the town’s changing needs.

Town Clerk Connor Degan, who serves as the committee chair, explained that this would give the committee more time to engage the public and refine any proposed changes.

Options explained for ATM

Town counsel Jay Talerman explained the options to members. The first is to engage in a Chapter 43B Section 10 process. Talerman did not recommend this, calling it “a little archaic.”

Before the proposed charter amendments can be submitted as a warrant article, the Select Board would have to hold a hearing 90 days before the ATM, he said. The changes also might need to be reviewed by the Attorney General. The article, if approved by a simple majority, then would go on the ballot for the May 2028 election.

He stressed that each of these steps has time limits.

The second option would be to proceed by special act. Talerman said this would be more efficient because the committee had suggested “a bunch of tweaks,” not major revisions. In this case, it would not have to go before the voters.

“Another key difference between the special act and the provisions of Chapter 43B Section 10 is that it’s a simple majority vote at Town Meeting versus a two-thirds,” Talerman said.

Also, a Select Board hearing is not required. With this route, the changes would have to go through the Legislature and be reviewed by counsel from both houses.

If there are any controversial items, Talerman said a Chapter 43B Section 10 approach could be “the kiss of death.” Because the charter article will include several areas for review, a group could “torpedo” it if it disagrees with one part.

The committee still should till go forward with presenting information at the STM to make voters aware of the changes it has in mind, Talerman added.

Member Jean Bertschmann expressed concern that if the first process is pursued, the ballot question won’t reach the electorate until May 2028. She questioned whether a special election would be necessary.

Talerman said a special election would be a “five-figure event.”

“It’s challenging that this is information that we didn’t have at the outset of the process,” Bertschmann added. “No matter what we do, we’re going to be a little flat-footed in explaining this in a way that still inspires confidence in the work we’re doing.”

Degan added that the Select Board appeared more amenable to the special act path at Tuesday’s meeting. Members stressed that more public meetings be held before May. He noted that the committee’s first public forum will take place Sept. 30.

The special act process has been used successfully several times during the past 10 years, even when there were “controversial topics,” Degan shared.

Talerman said public engagement would be a “stress test” to gauge if the amendments would pass at the ATM.

Said Talerman: “If it fails, then it’s dead.”

Town planner role generates feedback

Degan noted that when the committee last met, there was discussion about moving the principal planner position under the appointment and supervision of the Planning Board. This would mirror the structure used by the Board of Health, the Board of Library Trustees and the Parks & Recreation Commission.

The committee also discussed removing the defunct town planner position from the charter. Members suggested replacing it with information about the principal planner’s role.

Town Manager Elaine Lazarus explained the history of the town planner position. She was appointed as the town planner in 1992. This was the last time someone was appointed by the town.

Over the past three decades, Lazarus has been the town’s assistant town manager, planning director, director of the Land Use Department and town planner. She was appointed as town manager in 2024. Former principal planner John Gelcich took over the Land Use Department director role.

Unlike the other departments with similar structures, Lazarus explained that the principal planner has a wide range of duties beyond supporting the Planning Board. Members agreed that this role is unique.

Degan called the Planning Department the “poster child” for efficient support. He suggested that the Planning Board have a bigger role in review and goal setting for the person in this position. The current principal planner is Aneri Patel.

Later in the meeting, Planning Board chair Matthew Wronka said the board was waiting for a recommendation from the committee before forming a board statement about the town planner or principal planner roles.

In his research, Wronka said he learned that there have only been two appointed town planners, one in 1987 before Lazarus in 1992. The last record of a town planner review was in 2016, he pointed out.

Wronka advocated going back to the Planning Board at its next meeting on Sept. 28 to discuss these two positions and what members envision for them.

Peter Mimmo, the Charter Review Committee vice chair and a Planning Board member, said he was not in favor of adding principal planner reviews to his role.

“I did not run to be a personnel manager,” he stressed.

He added that committee dropped its previous idea of reducing the Planning Board membership number from nine to seven after hearing “a resounding no” from members.

Recall provisions debated

The other major issue discussed was the adjustment of recall provisions for elected town officials.

This topic arose because in early 2024, “a galvanized group” initiated a recall effort against members of the Select Board, Degan explained. Because of this, the committee is looking at language that would specify legitimate reasons for recalls. Felony convictions, ethics violations and meeting attendance of less than 50% were discussed.

Member Muriel Kramer was the Select Board chair when the recall movement occurred. She noted that misdemeanor convictions is a gray area. It would be hard to sift through state law because there are “more than 300 pages” of misdemeanors that could be used. Some, she said, may stigmatize people with substance use or other disorders unfairly.

“This could be like pulling a thread here,” said Talerman.

Degan said the recall petition process helps determine if the recall effort is being driven “by an angry minority” that may have not liked one vote.

“I’m very comfortable with it being a hard process and a high standard for recall,” said Kramer.