The Select Board on Tuesday reviewed the warrant for the Oct. 26 Special Town Meeting and pointed out to a citizens’ petitioner that a Special Town Meeting is an not an appropriate vehicle for presenting his numerous requests.

The STM originally was called for by the town to vote on potential changes to the town charter. 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.

Additionally, Town Manager Elaine Lazarus previously pointed out the need for the Finance Department to present articles to fund emergency town expenses. They included the replacement of the water main at Claflin Place in July and emergency repairs at Department of Public Works facilities.

The town ended up including seven articles on the warrant.

Resident Parker Happ, a Planning Board member, submitted 19 citizens’ petition requests. Their inclusion brought the number of articles to 26. Happ’s proposed articles are pending legal review.

During the meeting, Happ stressed that he has put forward these citizens’ petitions as a resident, not as “an agent or a representative of anybody.”

Vice chair Matthew Kizner chaired the meeting in the absence of chair Shahidul Mannan. He requested that a vote not be taken on final recommendations until the next meeting on Oct. 6 to include Mannan’s feedback.

Charter vote might be delayed

Town Clerk Connor Degan, who also serves as the chair of the Charter Review Committee, said the committee is considering holding off voting on the proposed charter changes until May’s Annual Town Meeting. The committee will discuss this matter at its next meeting this Thursday.

Degan noted that the committee took seriously the board’s feedback about the process feeling rushed. It worked with town counsel to propose two options for an ATM vote.

The first option would allow the Charter Review Committee to discuss its proposed revisions. It then could use the time before the ATM to better educate the public about them. With this process, Degan explained, a two-thirds majority ATM vote would be needed to pass. It then would be included as a ballot question for the Annual Town Election in May.

The alternative, which town counsel recommended, would be to go through a “special act process.” This practice has been used in the past for “small charter changes.” A simple majority would be required for ATM passage. There would be no need for a ballot question.

After the ATM vote, the approved changes would be submitted to state Rep. James Arena-DeRosa to bring before the Legislature for review and ultimate approval.

Member Joe Clark told Degan he appreciated the committee’s research on options.

“I view this as a 10-year decision,” he said. “So a little bit more time to make it so that it’s [presented in] the most thoughtful way is never going to hurt.”

Clark and the other members agreed they would support whatever the committee decides is the best path forward.

Degan noted that the committee still will hold a public forum on Sept. 30 to discuss the proposed changes.

Members question article viability

When the citizens’ petitions came up for discussion, Kizner said he was allotting 15-20 minutes for members to question Happ about his proposed articles rather than going through all 19.

Assistant Town Manager Lance DelPriore told the board that town counsel deemed some of the proposed articles as “nonbinding because they’re outside of the scope and authority of Town Meeting.”

DelPriore added that additional input from town counsel is expected. But the town is “obligated” to consider them because they were submitted as citizens’ petitions.

Member Amy Ritterbusch pointed out that Article 20 refers to “a name of a road that doesn’t exist.” It stated “Hoffman Road.” She noted that drainage improvements for Hawthorne Lane were requested at May’s ATM. The nonbinding article was approved by a 152-23 vote.

During discussion, DelPriore said Happ had reached out to see if the Select Board “would consider adding additional articles” after the warrant closed. DelPriore said town counsel notified him that for an STM, “the Select Board could continue to add articles up until the warrant is signed.”

Member Brian Herr said he was not inclined to support any of Happ’s articles.

“This is not the place for Special Town Meeting to address these kinds of issues,” he stressed.

The process is different from an ATM because it’s an STM Herr explained. An STM is called for “things we have to do inside the fiscal year, not things we want to do because we want to.”

Articles would have a better chance of passage at an ATM because more people likely would be present, he added.

“If any of these are not time sensitive, I think it would be better to wait until Annual Town Meeting,” agreed Ritterbusch.

Ritterbusch added that a petitioner has the right to propose articles. She is awaiting town counsel’s feedback on their legality.

Clark said he was not in support of any articles that proposed financial outlays when the town is facing a projected budget deficit. He also listed four articles that he said could be more effectively considered by the Charter Review Committee.

Kizner noted that some of Happ’s ideas are interesting but may not be practical or financially sound. He mentioned term limits as a tough sell when the town has problems filling vacant board seats, for example.

Petitioner rebuked for approach

The one article Kizner found interesting was Article 26, which proposed a random selection order for Town Meeting articles. He asked Happ to explain it in further detail.

“I think the last one is just kind of fun, you know?” responded Happ.

Kizner said that comment was “not a great start” and urged him to “take a different tact.”

“Mr. Herr and the others are giving you feedback that you’re not taking the process for town business seriously,” said Kizner. “By telling us it’s fun, you’re kind of confirming where they are.”

“I do think it’s fun,” replied Happ. “But I do appreciate the opportunity to present the articles.”

Added Happ: “What I’m really trying to do by this package is something more systemic because I think we have to have mechanisms for periodic inspection of rules and process.”

Happ said his STM goal is to get “legitimate criticism” on his articles before presenting them at May’s ATM.

“I do think there are some compelling things here,” said Kizner. “And I appreciate that — in your own way — you are trying to get feedback from the town and you are very much highlighting things that are issues.”