Split Board Backs Retaining Early Public Comment Format

CHATHAM – When is the best time to allow members of the public to comment during a public meeting?

 Policies vary, but currently the select board reserves time at the beginning of each session for comments on the business portion of the agenda. Members of the public must comment on those items prior to the board’s discussion, and they aren’t allowed to speak while the board is deliberating, unless the board decides to make an exception.

Not every board, committee or commission follows that format, and select board member Cory Metters doesn’t think the select board should, either.

“This is about process,” Metters said at the board’s Oct. 15 meeting. He pointed out that it doesn’t make sense to expect members of the public to provide informed comments prior to a board discussion, when the position of board members or even the details of a particular item are not known. The fact that the policy is sometimes set aside, at the chair’s discretion, to allow the public to speak during deliberation is confusing and unfair. 

“Having a clear and consistent policy would benefit the end result,” he said, proposing that the board return to an earlier policy of allowing public comment when agenda items are discussed. “That’s more results driven,” he said.

Board member Dean Nicastro said he supported the switch to having public comment at the beginning of meetings when it was implemented several years ago, but now agrees with Metters.

“In most cases involving controversial topics, we’ve allowed public comment, and I don’t think public comment has been a problem or impacted negatively on the select board’s business,” he said. The board should be consistent in the manner in which agenda items are addressed, he added.

Board member Shareen Davis supported the current policy which allows the board to make exceptions to allow public comment during certain agenda items.

“We’re not disallowing public comment by anybody who wants to speak on an agenda item,” she said. The current format is more efficient than accepting comments during each discussion, she added.

“I really like the way we run our meetings now,” agreed board member Jeffrey Dykens. By having the discretion to open up discussions to public comments on significant issues, “we let folks speak their minds,” he said.

Metters has brought the issue up annually since public comments were relegated to the beginning of meetings several years ago. He said residents have told him they don’t know how to prepare comment before they hear the board’s discussion; they also may not have all the information they need to make informed statements prior to a meeting. At the Oct. 15 session, resident Elaine Gibbs noted that the packet containing background information on the board’s agenda isn’t available until a few days before the meeting, and it can be voluminous; the Oct. 15 packet was 178 pages, she said.

She said she believes the current policy “is intentionally discouraging public participation.”

While input from the public is important, deliberations and decisions are the responsibility of the board, said chair Michael Schell. 

“It involves too much inefficiency and elongation of the meeting if every single item has to pause or include commentary from the public,” he said.

“You talk about wanting input from the public, but you are not showing that,” Gibbs told board members.

With support from Nicastro and himself and opposition from Schell, Dykens and Davis, Metters’ motion to allow public comment on all agenda items failed.

Metters also expressed concern about members of the select board serving as chairs of other committees, focusing specifically on the affordable housing trust board, which select board chair Schell also helms. 

“There’s a potential conflict in the positions at times, depending on the topic,” Metters said. 

Nicastro said while he did not think the situation violated the state conflict of interest law, it clouds the perception of the independence of both groups.

“I don’t think it adds anything other than bad optics,” he said.

Schell defended the arrangement, saying he saw no conflict. “You’re just working in different territory with respect to different issues…but your job is always to get the best results for the citizens of this town.”

Dykens said he suspected the concern grew out of recent conflicts between the select board and trust over which should oversee affordable housing projects the town is engaged in. He said he’s happy with the current arrangement.

“As stupid as this sounds, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” Dykens said.

“I personally think we should be paying attention to the big issues” and not “hobbling ourselves to no salutary purpose,” Schell said.

“I can read a room,” Metters said, agreeing that there are bigger issues for both groups to focus attention on.