Above: CPC members explain their Town Meeting Petition Article. (after hitting play, you can click on the ⛶ button in bottom right corner to of each to expand to full screen, or click here to go directly to YouTube.)
In June, I wrote about the Select Board’s controversial decision to not reappoint two members to committees whose terms were expiring. One of those was the Recreation Commission’s selected representative for the Community Preservation Committee.
That did not sit well with the CPC. In reaction, they have organized a Citizen’s Petition Article for the upcoming Special Town Meeting.
If Article 10 passes, the Select Board will lose its authority over which CPC members represent the five committee with designated members.
The CPC isn’t waiting until a week from Monday to make its case. Vice Chair Lisa Braccio reached out to ask me to share with readers the video and a handout that she and Chair Ben Smith made to promote the Article through Southborough Access Media.
In it, Braccio highlights that they could have waited for Annual Town Meeting this spring. In that case, they would only have needed ten signatures to get the Article into the Warrant. But they decided the issue was too important to wait. So, they pursued getting the 100 voter signatures needed to bring it to the September 30th meeting.
For those not familiar, the CPC is responsible for vetting projects to bring to Town Meeting that ask voters to use the Town’s Community Preservation Act funds to pay for:
for the acquisition, creation, and preservation of open space; for the acquisition, rehabilitation, restoration, and preservation of historic resources; for the acquisition, creation, and preservation of land for recreational use; for the creation, preservation support of community housing; and for the rehabilitation or restoration of such open space, land for recreational use and community housing that is acquired or created as provided in this section.
CPC membership is comprised of two residents at large and one member from each of the following committees:
- the Southborough Housing Authority
- the Conservation Commission
- the Planning Board
- the Recreation Commission
- the Open Space Preservation Commission
- the Historical Commission
- and the Southborough Housing Opportunity Partnership Committee (SHOPC)
Traditionally, the committees each voted to recommend a member for the Select Board to appoint. I’m not aware of a previous in which the board chose to not follow the recommendation, until this June.
Under Article 10, each of the committees would now take over the responsibility for approving their member. The Select Board would still retain the appointment authority for the at large members.
According to one of the CPC’s handout (an updated version of the presentation used in the video), over 89% of CPC communities have similar language to the Article – using the language in the state law. Most of those that don’t were towns that were other early adopters” of the bylaw, like Southborough.
The presentation argues:
Making these corrections brings our bylaw up to current best practice statewide, aligns with language in the state enabling legislation, and allows the CPC to continue its important work with a committee unhampered by blocked appointments and representing diverse viewpoints among Board, Committee, and Commission representatives and Select Board appointed citizens-at-large.
The presentation also shares that five of the seven committees with representatives on the CPC have voted to support the Article.
Looking into it, the other two apparently haven’t taken a vote.
The Historical Commission hasn’t met since CPC voted to pursue the Article
SHOPC hasn’t included the item on its recent agendas. That committee may have decided their opinion is irrelevant, since the impact of the outcome on them may be moot. If voters approve Article 12, SHOPC will soon cease to exist. (Stay tuned for coverage on Articles 11 & 12 to consolidate affordable housing efforts under the Affordable Housing Trust Fund Committee.).
Currently, the CPC is without a Recreation representative. If the bylaw passes, once approved by the Attorney General’s office, the Recreation Commission could revote to appoint the member that the Select Board had refused to approve — Kristen LaVault.
If LaVault does return, the position on that commission may be a short one. The Select Board still would have the authority to decide whether or not to reappoint her to the Recr Commission when her term expires at the end of June.
But, there are also two Select Board seats that expire in May. Depending on the outcome of that election this spring, the situation could change. The board had voted unanimously 5-0 on not appointing LaVault. But if two new members with different perspectives join the board, they could sway another member to join them.
Or, if the other Citizen’s Petition Article on the Warrant passes, that could lead to an even bigger change in membership. Stay tuned for coverage on the recall bylaw proposed under Article 18.
Updated (9/20/24 5:19 pm): I replaced the ppt handout link with one to a pdf version. While I was at it, I also added some more detail from the handout.
Updated (9/20/24 5:54 pm): I initially missed the flyer handout.
Updated (9/24/24 10:30 am): An “Opposition Presentation” to the Article was posted to the Town Meeting page on the Town website. It is a video of Lisa Braccio passionately commenting to the Select Board at their June 4th meeting, starting with her saying she “didn’t realize” the board members “are the gods of who sits on committees and Boards in this town. and if we choose not to serve on your agenda then you have no need for us to volunteer”.
According to Town Clerk Jim Hegerty, the clip was submitted by Michael Weishan who has apparently informed Moderator Paul Cimino that he plans to speak in opposition to Article 10.
Weishan, the former Chair of the Historical Commission and Braccio, a former Select Board Chair, have a heated history. Braccio was one of the Select Board members who chose not to reappoint Weishan in 2018, to appoint him in 2020, then to open an ethics inquiry into him in 2022. Weishan claimed that the 2018 & 2022 actions were political retaliation against him. You can read more in my story and their battling public comments under that story here.
