The most notable part of the meeting was the debate over initiating a public dialogue on structural issues within the town government. A member suggested a friendly amendment to emphasize the importance of public dialogue, with a focus on existing structural issues. This included engaging expert opinions and maintaining a structured dialogue that would encompass all previously identified issues. The suggestion was that the council should not introduce new topics but rather enhance public understanding of current operations. Concerns were raised about the lack of extensive public feedback, suggesting the need for a survey to gauge community sentiment on potential changes, such as reducing the council’s size. A participant proposed consulting with the Collins Center to better address these concerns with expert guidance.

The council discussed the timeline for these actions, with some suggesting an extension to 24 months to accommodate broader discussions. Community enthusiasm for sharing ideas about government changes was noted, and the council was urged to remain receptive to this feedback. The conversation also included a proposal to replace a bullet point list in the report with a comprehensive section on structural changes, aligning it with a previously approved charter document.

Another topic was the proposal to form a working group aimed at enhancing public engagement and transparency. This working group was envisioned to operate within an 18-month timeframe, focusing on five priority items related to public engagement. The group would address issues such as the town’s website and public comment experiences. While some members advocated for a broader scope, others emphasized the need for a focused approach to remain manageable within the current council’s term. The idea of integrating public engagement goals into the town manager’s objectives was also proposed as an alternative.

The council grappled with how to manage the town’s website improvements, debating whether to assign this task to existing staff or a new working group. Concerns about adding another committee were raised, with suggestions that effective management required dedicated personnel rather than an ad hoc group. Despite these challenges, there was agreement on the necessity of improving public engagement and communication avenues for constituents.

In the latter part of the meeting, discussions turned to finalizing a document related to the report’s recommendations. A member named Erica was authorized to draft a new section reflecting on the committee’s process, with a deadline set for January 2nd to allow for further review. The committee voted unanimously to approve this authorization and later decided to remove a preamble that was deemed redundant. Amendments to the final report, mostly editorial, were approved without extensive discussion.

The council prepared for upcoming presentations to the town council, discussing the logistics of presenting their report. Members debated the use of slides and how to ensure new council members are briefed on the report once they are sworn in. The importance of engaging the council on January 5th and 12th was emphasized, with plans to present highlights to encourage thorough reading and dialogue. Legal insights were sought regarding the recommendations’ implementation, acknowledging that final actions could involve council votes or special legislation.