The meeting was marked by a lack of consensus on various aspects of the committee’s structure and responsibilities. A significant portion of the discussion revolved around whether there should be one umbrella organization or two separate committees. Members deliberated on the select board’s guidance on this matter, with varying interpretations leading to a contentious atmosphere. The coordination of the two charges was a focal point, as concerns were raised about possible conflicts in voting for funding and the practicality of staggered terms. The distinct roles and functions of the Upper Charles Trail Committee in creating the Regional Trail versus the proposed Trails Coordination and Management Committee (TCMC) were also debated.

One of notable topics was the voting rights of liaisons from other organizations. Members expressed differing opinions on whether liaisons should have voting rights, with concerns that it could potentially limit representation from the general population. This led to a broader discussion about the number of voting members on the committee, with some members suggesting a reduction to seven voting members, while others favored a 13-member committee to ensure diverse input and decision-making capacity.

The issue of term limits also sparked debate, as members were uncertain about the implications of applying term limits to past or future members. Some members were hesitant to potentially penalize the committee with restrictive term limits. In addition, the workload for a seven-member committee to fulfill all liaison duties was questioned, with concerns regarding the committee’s ability to effectively manage its responsibilities given the proposed structure.

Another discussion point was the committee’s ability to seek funding from CPA monies. Members expressed differing interpretations of the committee’s charge and its eligibility to apply for these grants. The potential competition for funding between the two committees was also a concern, highlighting the need for clear delineation and coordination between the two entities.

Accessibility for all users of the path was a subject that members felt needed to be addressed carefully in the committee’s language. Furthermore, the process for incorporating public suggestions into the committee’s decision-making was emphasized as important, with some members advocating for a well-documented approach to ensure transparency and inclusion of community input.

The meeting concluded with a motion to produce a draft of the committee’s charge for submission to the Select Board. The motion, debated at length, was ultimately passed with a vote. However, the discussion did not end there, as members continued to express differing opinions on the scope of the charge and the need to adhere to specific items requested by the Select Board.