Recently (May-July 2024) the Board has been reviewing the Select Board Guidebook that was first adopted in May 2021. After 3 years, it seems worthwhile to evaluate its effectiveness and potential shortcomings and determine how it can be improved.
There are several reasons I think we should look at this guidebook:
· In this past year, the guidebook was cited by community members in discussions related to the two most controversial issues we faced – the residential tax exemption and Gaza ceasefire resolution – in ways that implied we weren’t following our own ‘rules’.
· Our community has spoken to us many times about the importance of communication and transparency. Therefore a document that communicates to the public about how we work needs to be clear, accurate and accessible. It's the foundation upon which we build our communication strategy.
· The words that we use telegraph to our constituents how we treat each other, what we think about our community members, and how they can interact and be engaged with own Town Government are important.
I’ll note a few examples of where I think we should improve our guidebook.
OPEN MEETING LAW
At a recent meeting, it was suggested that we think about which parts of the guidebook reflect state or local statutes and which sections or comments are more reflective of opinions or advice. There are very few laws actually quoted, but there are interpretations of statutes. For example:
“Agenda items requested but not placed on the agenda, by members of the Board or the Town Manager, may be raised at a Board meeting during “new business.””
The Attorney General’s Office advises that “Although a public body may consider a topic that was not listed in the meeting notice if it was not anticipated [emphasis added], the Attorney General strongly encourages public bodies to postpone discussion and action on topics that are controversial or may be of particular interest to the public if the topic was not listed in the meeting notice.”
If an agenda item was requested then we can’t argue that it wasn’t anticipated and we’d be in violation of Open Meeting Law.
In addition, suggesting that Board Members can bring up topics at the Board meeting contradicts a previous statement in the guidebook: “The Chair holds ultimate authority over what items are to be placed on an agenda.” If Board members can bring up new topics in a meeting, particularly if the item had been requested and rejected by the Chair, the Chair has, in fact, very little authority over the agenda.
FREE SPEECH
We should also review the requirements for maintaining orderly conduct. Recent, (after this guidebook was originally published), Massachusetts Supreme Court Judicial Court decisions about free speech in committee meetings limit the ability of the Chair to prevent ‘inappropriate’ commentary. The following statements from the guidebook should be reviewed and revised.
(the Chair will) “Preside at all meetings to ensure that Board business is conducted properly, respectfully and efficiently. The Chair may cut off any inappropriate commentary, for example personal criticism directed at individual Board members.”
And,
“All speakers should adhere to our commonly agreed upon standard of civility, specifically: treating others with respect, refraining from personal attacks, and avoiding disparaging remarks about any person or group, including Town employees. The Chair is responsible for maintaining orderly conduct and may curtail or limit disruptive commentary.”
In March 17, 2023, NY Times reported that, “In a decision that jangled the nerves of some elected officials, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court last week reaffirmed a basic liberty established by the founding fathers: the right to be rude at public meetings… It struck down as unconstitutional Southborough’s “civility code” for public comment at meetings, which required “respectful and courteous” discourse “free of rude, personal or slanderous remarks.”
We can certainly encourage each other and members of our community to be respectful but we can’t require them to be so, and we shouldn't burden the Chair with determining what is appropriate commentary and ensuring compliance.
BIAS
“Select Board members should work to advance the interests of the community as a whole. Each member should consider all issues with a broad view, avoiding personal bias or undue influence by strident community members.”
There are two issues here. First, “strident” is a term that is used twice as often to describe women than men, according to some sources. (Check out the Google Books Ngram Viewer, below, showing the relative frequency of the terms "strident woman/women" and "strident man/men" found in a corpus of books.)
From my observations, women likely outnumber men when advocating for change in our meeting room. When we look at the historical context in which this document was written, certainly, many more women were dominating the public comment period of Select Board meetings, sometimes in very uncomfortable ways.
Second, there are many ways Board members can be ‘biased’ in their decision making – lack of interest in the topic, lack of knowledge or expertise or experience of a topic, limiting the variety of people and backgrounds that they consult, the perceived challenge of implementing the proposed solution. And perhaps, significantly, the appeal of the status quo and the strength of the voices of those with privilege in our community.
If we are going to talk about ‘bias’ in our guidebook we should, perhaps, explore this topic within all of its complexities and not just single out one way that we might succumb to bias, particularly if that can be perceived as insulting or dismissive to those community members who come before us with their concerns.
CAMPAIGN PROMISES AND INTEGRITY
“We note that some Select Board candidates run for office by focusing on a particular issue. However once elected, that candidate must adopt a holistic approach which may or may not include action on policies they advocated during their campaign.”
It seems inappropriate that we would be advising Board members that policies they promised to work on during their campaign may be abandoned. There are no state or local statutes that dictate how Board members decide where they should focus their attention. We’ve elected Board members based on their campaign promises and on our understanding of how they will approach Town issues. A guidebook should not be undermining the ability of elected Board members to use their own judgement and determine their own approach to Town issues.
The problem with this paragraph is twofold - its dictating to board members how they should act and its setting up a potential lack of trust in an election process.
POLICY
At the end of the guidebook there are some documents that refer to Town Manager reporting, Performance Review, Resolution Requests, and Non-Profits applying for funding. These should be reviewed and updated. Particularly the public-facing documents related to Resolutions and Non-Profit funding. They appear to be out of date and inaccurate. And therefore misleading to our constituents.
SUMMARY
In the end, it is clear that the guidebook does not accurately represent how we work in practice, it’s debatable how it represents statutes, and it certainly does not represent the views of all board members. If we are to continue to use this document, we need a mechanism for Board Members to publicly indicate their agreement (or not) with the document.
I get that it’s not as urgent as solving affordable housing issue, or making sure our infrastructure is maintained, or preserving and protecting our environment, or ensuring that we have the resources to support our schools.
But revising this document is something that we can do in parallel with those all those critical items. Not in place of them.
We have repeatedly acknowledged that communication, transparency, and inclusion are priorities. Revising the guidebook is a practical, achievable step toward those goals.
Comments