The meeting commenced with a public comment period where a resident voiced strong opposition to the use of glyphosate, highlighting its potential health risks and environmental impact, particularly given the town’s reliance on groundwater. The resident suggested alternative methods like hand-pulling weeds or using animals such as goats for weed control. The sentiment was echoed by other residents who also emphasized the risks of glyphosate contaminating the air and groundwater. One participant stressed the importance of maintaining Shutesbury’s identity as a green community and urged the board to reconsider the use of such chemicals.

Following public comments, the board discussed the possibility of implementing electronic voting systems, or clickers, to enhance participation and efficiency during town meetings. A study group had explored the feasibility of electronic voting and found mixed sentiments within the community. However, there was a collective interest in further exploring this option. The idea of conducting a mock town meeting to allow residents to familiarize themselves with the clickers was proposed. Concerns were raised about the turnout for such an event, as well as the potential resistance to changing the traditional format of town meetings.

One participant, who had attended workshops where clickers were effectively used, emphasized the operational efficiency that clickers could provide, noting the speed and accuracy of obtaining vote counts. They proposed a mini training session before an upcoming special town meeting to introduce the clickers. Another board member, initially ambivalent, expressed growing support for the use of clickers, citing the prolonged nature of manual vote counting and the potential for quicker resolutions with electronic systems. However, concerns about the costs associated with acquiring clickers, estimated between $10,000 and $15,000, and the reliability of electronic devices were also discussed.

The board acknowledged the importance of balancing tradition with modernization, recognizing that many towns are grappling with similar issues regarding the integration of technology into local governance. The potential for remote voting and virtual town meetings was also considered, with legislative trends suggesting an inclination toward allowing virtual attendance in the future. The discussion concluded without definitive actions but underscored the need for further exploration and community engagement on this matter.

In personnel matters, the board moved to appoint Mato Pangal as the new land use clerk. Pangal had met with the chairs of various land use committees and received a recommendation for his extensive work history and readiness to learn about local wetlands and zoning laws. His prior involvement in local committees and eagerness to contribute to the community were highlighted as strong assets. The motion to approve Pangal as the new land use clerk received unanimous support from the board.

The appointment of Abby Hernandez as the new administrative secretary was also discussed. Despite her lack of experience in minute-taking, her writing skills and tech-savviness were noted positively. Hernandez, who was unavailable due to a medical emergency, had impressed a board member with her knowledge of marketing and customer service skills. The board unanimously approved her appointment.

The resignation of the Highway Superintendent, Steve Sullivan, was formally accepted by the board. Following this, the discussion shifted to knotweed mitigation and the use of Roundup. A board member expressed doubts about using Roundup and emphasized the importance of gathering input from the Board of Health and the Conservation Commission. The need for a unified approach was highlighted, with a desire to ensure that public concerns were adequately addressed.

The board agreed to invite the relevant committees to a future meeting to discuss their positions on knotweed spraying. A participant underscored the significance of including the voices of those who signed a petition against the use of glyphosate, which had reportedly gathered over 120 signatures. The community’s perspective was deemed critical in informing the select board’s decision-making process.

The meeting also covered the preservation of a historical artifact set to be returned in six to seven months. Concerns were raised about the lack of specific proposals for its preservation and the potential solutions available. The Massachusetts Historical Commission’s stance against creating replicas was noted, along with the need for further research and creative ideas regarding the artifact’s preservation.

Lastly, the board addressed the rescheduling of select board meetings that fall on Election Day, Christmas, and New Year’s, and established early voting hours for the upcoming November election. The Town Administrator provided updates on the delivery of face shields and improvements to the town building’s front door functionality.