The election of officers was the central focus of the meeting, with attention devoted to the selection of the chair and secretary. Multiple nominations were made for the chair position. One member nominated Amy Lehan, which was seconded by another participant who also nominated Matt Baro. Kathy Salvador was also nominated, praised for her communication skills and level-headedness.

Matt Baro sought clarification on the responsibilities associated with the chair role before accepting the nomination. The role’s complexities were outlined, including the importance of scheduling and posting meetings through the town’s system, adhering to open meeting laws, and ensuring orderly conduct during the meetings. The chair would also need to manage public comment periods and maintain decorum, especially in virtual settings where technical issues could arise.

After understanding the demands of the role, Matt Baro accepted the nomination, and a motion was made to formally nominate him. This motion received a second, followed by a roll call vote. Participants stated their names and votes, resulting in seven votes in favor of Matt Baro, with one member abstaining. The newly elected chair was congratulated on his election.

Attention then turned to the position of secretary. One member expressed a willingness to serve, rapidly seconded by others. A vote was conducted similarly, confirming the appointment with unanimous support.

Organizational matters, including the frequency and schedule for future meetings, were then discussed. One member suggested evening meetings, citing their effectiveness for the group. The timing of town meetings, scheduled for the last Saturday in April, was noted, meaning proposals needed to be finalized by mid-February. Initially, the committee considered meeting every two weeks to gauge progress, agreeing that this approach would allow them to assess how much could be accomplished in that timeframe.

A tentative date of October 10th was proposed for the next meeting, with members indicating their availability. Concerns about scheduling conflicts with other commitments, such as a concurrent erosion task force meeting, were raised. The group agreed that meetings should not exceed one hour, as longer meetings could lead to reduced effectiveness and focus. A consensus was reached that meetings should be concise, with one member sharing their professional experience of limiting meetings to thirty minutes to ensure efficiency.

The chair was tasked with managing public comments effectively and maintaining order during meetings, with a suggestion for a structured agenda to facilitate meaningful discussions.

The establishment of a dedicated email address for the committee was also a significant topic. One member suggested contacting “web at shots.org” to request a “voting Safety Committee email,” emphasizing its importance. It was noted that even if public comments were limited, the committee should still provide a means for constituents to submit their thoughts in advance, allowing members to consider the input without being overwhelmed during meetings.

The conversation then transitioned to contact information, with one member confirming they had sent an email containing everyone’s contact details. A proposal was made to create a specific email address for the committee, and it was agreed that all members would send their contact preferences, including phone numbers, to Tom by the end of the week. This initiative aimed to ensure effective communication among members.

Attention also shifted to the implications of the Open Meeting Law (OML). One member reminded the group that committee business discussions should not occur outside formal meetings, even in informal settings. They cautioned that if six members gathered and discussed committee issues, it could be interpreted as a violation of the OML. The member urged caution in email exchanges, noting that only scheduling information should be shared among members. Any opinions or discussions regarding committee matters should be reserved for official meetings to comply with legal standards.

Members were also reminded about completing the ethics test, which each member needed to do within the first 30 days of receiving their materials. A brief check-in revealed that several members still needed to complete the ethics requirement, with a suggestion that everyone should have this completed by the next meeting to ensure a level playing field.

The meeting concluded with discussions on reviewing the committee’s charge. Members acknowledged the limited time left to delve into this topic. One member proposed breaking the charge into manageable sections for future meetings, allowing for thorough discussion on existing bylaws and potential modifications. It was suggested that an email be circulated to ensure all members had copies of the charge and the bylaws for review before the next meeting. The importance of these documents was underscored, particularly because the bylaws had not been reviewed in over a decade.