Debate continued at the Select Board’s July 12 meeting following the board’s newest member Bret Murray’s motion to postpone volunteer-board appointments on June 28. While the board previously voted 4-1 in favor of the volunteer-board reappointment pause, it was evident there was still much discussion to be had. Thus the meeting’s three-hour duration mostly consisted of more appointment policy discussion.
The board tackled seven additional items on the agenda before it began its policy discussion. It unanimously voted on the following items: Permission to utilize the town’s streets for the annual Wicked half-marathon in October, approval of minutes from the meetings on June 14 and 21, the appointment of Noemi Castillo to police constable, updated sick-time policies for firefighters brought upon by grievance, disposal of surplus paper-towel dispensers, and a request from Marblehead Boosters to hold its Fun the Field 5K road race on Saturday, Oct. 21. The last item was originally supposed to be voted on after the policy discussion, however board Chair Erin Noonan decided to vote on it alongside the rest of the items.
Board member Moses Grader began the discussion by stating that he is leaning toward filing a motion for him and his fellow members to reconsider the postponing of the volunteer positions until Nov. 1. Based on her personal research, Noonan explained that if the town were to change its election and reappointment cycle, it would be an anomaly compared with the rest of Massachusetts. Member Jim Nye, who was the sole member to vote not in favor of Murray’s motion on June 28, countered one of Murray’s reasons for wanting to hold reappointment in the first place.
“I remember when I was running a long time ago, I went to many board meetings,” Nye said. “Not just the Select Board, but others just to see what they were doing. So you should have some knowledge of what’s going on. It’s just part of the homework of running for these positions.”
Member Alexa Singer proposed a concept centered around the Select Board doing all the reappointing before the annual election. That way, any given group of board members can have nearly a year to decide on whether certain people and positions should be reappointed. It was later countered with the idea that the process in place now relies on a previous board just as much as Singer’s concept.
When Grader asked exactly what the problem was the board was trying to solve, Noonan clarified.
“The problem and why we’re having this conversation is we actually do want to develop and express policies,” Noonan said. “Maybe it’s not a problem the way it’s done, we just have to say the way it’s done and go from there.”
The discussion then segued to the length of terms volunteer-board members serve. An idea of a term being evaluated after six years was discussed, with all current long-standing volunteers being re-evaluated equally alongside potential newcomers. The board agreed that it plans on soliciting feedback from volunteers on what length of term they would want. Murray lent his opinion on why he would support this approach in that it invites newcomers more so than the current process.
“We don’t ask for new applicants really, if somebody wants to reapply we just appoint them,” Murray said. “And that could be for 15 or 20 years… We got to get away from that lifetime appointment.”
Murray compared these “lifetime” volunteer appointments to the Supreme Court, and said that this six-year concept would include re-interviewing all current volunteer members in the same fashion as any new applicant.
Nye reiterated his stance from the last meeting about how he believes the true purpose of this motion is to make changes to the Harbors and Waters Board.
“We’re beating around the bush, this is Harbors and Waters,” Nye said. “This is all great stuff. It’s great to have policies and procedures, but we’re putting these people’s lives on hold.”
The discussion concluded with Grader officially filing his motion to have all the volunteer-board members reappointed immediately. Singer motioned for an amendment to change the date to Sept. 13. The amendment won out on a 3-2 tally, with Grader and Nye voting against it. Therefore, Grader’s motion determined whether the reappointment would take place on Sept. 13 or Nov. 1. That vote was unanimously in favor of Sept. 13 and compromise was reached.