Select Board Still Has Issues With Draft Charter

HARWICH – The charter commission conducted a sparsely attended public hearing on Oct. 22, receiving very little public input into the draft charter that will go before voters in the annual election in May. 

The public hearing is required by law after the draft has been completed and sent to the Attorney General’s Office to assure it is consistent with the commonwealth’s constitution. The commission has received a response from the Attorney General’s Office recommending a couple of minor changes but generally confirming its consistency with the state constitution. 

The charter commission will make its final adjustments to the proposed charter over the next couple of weeks and must resubmit it to the state by Nov. 21. 

While there was limited comment in the public hearing — it lasted eight minutes — select board members on Oct. 19 provided their individual opinions on the reshaped town constitution. A couple of main issues could stand in the way of gaining board support for the charter revisions, particularly the establishment of two annual town meetings. A fall town meeting would be added to primarily address non-financial matters. Separating financial and non-financial issues provides for better focus for both town administration and the participants in town meeting, according to the commission. 

 “I am 100 percent opposed to this,” said select board member Jeffrey Handler. “If I’m to support anything that spends one dollar of taxpayer money, I want clear, irrefutable data that it's necessary, and in this specific case there is no clear data that it's necessary.” 

He said the sense he got from the draft was “it’s more about feeling, like I feel it's going to bring more people to town meeting. I feel the annual meeting in May will be shorter. I feel it will be more burdensome and less productive to the staff.” 

 “I disagree with that completely,” Handler said. “I feel we’d be lighting money on fire, a waste of taxpayers money. It’s all or nothing, I can’t get by the legislation of a fall town meeting.”

Select Board Chair Peter Piekarski also took issue with a mandatory fall town meeting, saying that the select board has the ability to call one if necessary. 

 “I do appreciate [that] the commission did listen to some of our concerns,” Select Board member Mark Kelleher said, “but I wonder if we need a fall town meeting, at least for the next couple of years, until we get a lot of zoning bylaw revisions. I’d like to have something that could be optional, so we don’t go through the expense of having a fall town meeting without enough data for the meeting.”

Select Board member Anita Doucette also said she is concerned about the mandatory fall town meeting because the board can call one any time they wish to.

On the whole, Select Board member Donald Howell said he does not necessarily agree with the fall town meeting. “But I’m supportive of the document and I appreciate all the work that was put into it. I plan to vote for it,” he said. 

 Board members also raised issues about creating an elected bylaw and charter review and compliance commission that would be responsible for compliance and assistance in interpretation of the town charter and bylaws. The commission would provide citizens with the ability to seek opinions and clarifications on issues concerning compliance with the charter and bylaws. The focus, according to the commission, would be education and advice.

 Piekarski said he disagrees with the need for the compliance commission. He took issue with elected commission members sitting in judgement of other elected officials, adding voters should be making judgments on the performance of elected officials. He called the formation of a commission a “feel good approach,” adding that it would have no teeth and thus he does not understand its purpose. 

 “I had a concern about the compliance commission, but I really thought you did a great job clearing up some of the hard language,” Kelleher said of the compliance commission proposal. He said he likes the emphasis on education and he sees the commission as a good place for people to ask questions.

 “You did a heck of a job,” Handler said of changes made to the compliance commission language. “It bordered on a rude and obnoxious path and you changed it to something I could support, maybe.”

 Piekarski took the time to go chapter by chapter through the draft and made it clear he does not support the draft charter document.

 “The majority of the changes the commission put forward are solid, definitely hitting the bull’s eye," said Handler. “Removal of ambiguous language which could create multiple levels of interpretation leading people to go in multiple directions was desperately needed, and you delivered 100 percent in cleaning that up. That’s the biggest contribution to this town’s charter."

In the commission’s public hearing, Elizabeth Harder was the only person to speak on the draft charter. She praised the commission for including the provision that the hiring of full and part-time employees would require a town meeting article, asserting that the legislative body should have control of the associated spending. 

 Harder also recommended that citizen petitions should be vetted by town counsel for their legality before being placed in the town meeting warrant, suggesting town meeting time is wasted when a petition is deemed not to be legal.

 Charter commission members agreed to meet Thursday to weigh the comments they have received as they shape the final version of the proposed town charter.