The Upper Charles Trail Committee on Wednesday met to continue its work on revising its charge, as requested by the Select Board, but progress was slow.

At the start of the meeting, chair Jane Moran asked the members to review the minutes from the past two meetings, noting that they would form the framework for the upcoming discussion.

Alternate member Jamie Wronka asked for revisions to the minutes for the April 3 meeting. She noted a reference to a Trails Committee document that called for the UCTC to become a subcommittee under the Trails Committee. Wronka pointed out that this was the previous line of thinking. But the Select Board decided that the UCTC should remain a separate but restructured committee. There was confusion about this point at the last meeting.

“I believe it,” said Moran. “I believe that the Trails Committee is setting up a subcommittee.”

Replied Wronka: “But the document doesn’t say that.”

Wronka’s comments were added to the revised minutes to show that there was some disagreement.

Member Scott Knous presented a revised charge document. It was based on the proposed charge revisions made by Select Board member and UCTC liaison Irfan Nasrullah. Nasrullah was not in attendance at the meeting.

Moran noted that the committee did not find the revised UCTC charge by the Trails Committee useful, instead deciding to use Nasrullah’s and Knous’ work as a springboard for discussion.

Knous said he hoped his suggestions would provide a base that is “strategic and tactical in terms of talking about what we’re delivering.” He stressed that the charge should not include anything regarding the proposed trail route. Its focus should be to “come up with a multifaceted, well thought out set of recommendations that includes costs.”

One point of contention focused on whether the inclusion of the Center Trail as part of the Upper Charles Trail should be included in the charge.

“From the very beginning, the Center Trail was included in this charge,” said Moran. “And that’s what we based the original plan on.”

Member Tim Ritterbusch said the Center Trail shouldn’t be included in the charge because it would “tie the hands” of the members into including it.

“It’s been tied for 15 years,” retorted vice chair Eric Sonnett.

Moran added that the UCTC had “some some heavy lifting” on the downtown corridor project in the hope that the trail would align with the new bike lane. This would provide a connection to the Center Trail, which she stressed is “an important part of our history.”

Knous added that there is “a high probability that the Center Trail will be included in the final route.”

Moran suggested that the word “shall” be replaced with “may” regarding the inclusion of the Center Trail.

The committee plodded through the document paragraph by paragraph, with each member asked if they agreed or had edits. The group worked through the first two pages.

One addition was to include language about “actively engaging town residents.” This reflected the opinion of the majority of Annual Town Meeting participants last year who felt their desire to not have the proposed trail cross and run along Hayden Rowe Street was not being heard.

Moran suggested that the UCTC meet with the Trails Committee to discuss grant proposals, if the Select Board agreed. She said “there has never been a conflict” between the UCTC and the Trails Committee when they pursued Community Preservation Committee grants. One issue arose when the UCTC won a MassTrails grant during the same time that the Trails Committee had applied for funds.

Stressed Moran: “We need to be very thoughtful.”

Much of the meeting focused on wordsmithing and minor language edits. Later in the session, there was more debate over the choice of words, particularly regarding the inclusion of future topics of discussion on the agenda. Wronka and Knous thought it would be helpful if public comments were incorporated into a future topics section at the end of the meeting agenda, as the Select Board does.

Member Jim Ciriello, who also serves on the Conservation Commission, adamantly stressed that this section was “ridiculous.” He said the agenda should state that the meeting discussion could be modified at the discretion of the chair. It was not made clear among the participants whether that would violate Open Meeting Law.

“The feedback that we got from the general public, whether we agree or disagree, was that they want more transparency,” Knous countered, saying he felt “very strongly” about maintaining a public list of future agenda items.

Another charge edit suggested by Knous included a treasurer and a secretary as officers in addition to the chair and vice chair. The committee members agreed, although Moran said it was historically difficult to fill those roles.

The next meeting will be held May 15.