Sharp debate over process and public input precedes 6–5 vote preserving current P&Z structure
By Peter Barhydt
The tone inside the Charter Revision Commission’s (CRC) March 25 meeting was less about policy than about process — how decisions should be made, and when.
That question surfaced early, as members discussed whether to delay a vote on the future of the Planning & Zoning Commission until after additional public input.
“I really think it’s sort of a violation of public trust for us to vote,” said Commissioner William Parrett, urging the panel to wait until after an April public hearing.
Others rejected that view, arguing the CRC must first take positions before the public can react meaningfully.
“We’re doing our work… and certainly we will hear from the public on April 14th,” Secretary Angela Jameson said.
Chair Kathleen Corbet framed the issue as part of the CRC’s traditional sequence: deliberate, draft, then solicit feedback.
“The public cannot respond until they hear from us as to where we’re thinking,” she said.
A motion to delay votes failed 7–4, setting the stage for the CRC’s first major decision of the night.
P&Z Structure at the Center
The central question — whether the Planning & Zoning Commission should remain appointed or become elected — has emerged as one of the most contentious issues in the charter review so far.
Commissioner Judy Neville proposed sending the question directly to voters, arguing it required broader input than the CRC alone could provide.
“I just think it’s bigger than 11 people,” Neville said.
But legal counsel Ira Bloom cautioned that such a move was not permissible under state law.
“You do have to make a choice… you do not have the option of waiting for some vote by the public,” he said.
Neville ultimately withdrew her motion.
The CRC then proceeded to a direct vote on whether to retain the current appointed structure. That motion passed 6–5, a narrow margin that reflected the underlying divisions.
Several members who voted “no” indicated support for alternative structures, including elected members or hybrid systems.
“I’m voting no on this proposal to leave everything the same,” Commissioner Steven Case said.
A Debate About Trust — and Data
Underlying the procedural fight was disagreement over how to interpret public feedback.
Some commissioners emphasized survey responses suggesting interest in change. Others questioned the representativeness of those results.
Commissioner Karen Willett noted that survey responses were mixed, with many participants offering no opinion at all.
“About 50%, they didn’t comment on that at all,” she said.
The exchange highlighted a broader tension: whether testimony from community members, survey data, or elected officials’ views should carry the most weight.
Moving Beyond P&Z
After resolving the P&Z question, the CRC shifted to more technical matters — and found more consensus.
Members voted unanimously to standardize terms for appointed boards and commissions at three years, replacing several existing two-year terms.
“I think two is too short,” Jameson said, citing the learning curve required for many roles.
The CRC also voted to keep alternate members at two-year terms, reflecting their more flexible, apprenticeship-like role.
“It was really more in the interest of learning, but not committing,” Neville said of the original rationale.
Term Limits Still Unresolved
One issue left unsettled was whether to impose term limits on appointed officials.
Views varied widely.
Some members argued limits would encourage fresh perspectives.
“We need people with new perspectives,” Commissioner Joseph Palo said.
Others warned that strict limits could deprive boards of valuable experience.
“It can take a number of years before you have enough expertise,” Jameson said.
The CRC agreed to gather more data before revisiting the issue.
What Comes Next
With several major topics still pending — including the status of other boards, minority representation rules, and appointment procedures — the CRC plans to continue its work in a pair of meetings next week.
If the March 25 session is any indication, the path forward will not be simple.
The debate is not just about governance structures, but about how a town balances expertise, accountability and public voice — and who gets to decide.
