The decision to use Google Forms was driven by its widespread recognition and simplicity, which council members believed would encourage participation among busy staff and officials. Some members had initially advocated for Air Table, citing its capacity to offer tailored questions to different audiences. However, concerns over accessibility and the familiarity of users with the platform led to a preference for Google Forms. To ensure inclusivity, the council also decided to make a downloadable PDF version of the survey available for those without reliable internet access.

In parallel, the council dedicated substantial time to organizing public listening sessions. A proposal emerged to hold five sessions, consisting of three in-person meetings and two virtual ones. The primary debate revolved around whether these sessions should follow thematic structures or remain open-ended. Some members supported themes to direct focus and garner specific feedback, while others feared this approach might deter participation from individuals whose concerns did not align with predetermined topics.

There was a suggestion to adopt a hybrid approach, where the initial session would be open-ended to attract a wide range of input, followed by more structured thematic sessions. This strategy aimed to balance broad public involvement with the need for focused discussions. The urgency of setting dates for these sessions was highlighted, given the necessity for adequate publicity lead time.

Moreover, logistical considerations for the listening sessions were addressed, including the need for clear work plans and facilitation by both the larger committee and subcommittee members. The council underscored the importance of securing venues promptly and ensuring readiness for these sessions.

The council also engaged in discussions about the survey’s content, with members expressing concerns about the clarity and specificity of certain questions. Suggestions were made to present broad categories relating to the town charter, allowing respondents to explore various aspects without feeling constrained by specific themes. This approach aimed to strike a balance between guiding responses and allowing for open-ended feedback, recognizing the potential influence of question wording on collected data.

In terms of the broader charter review process, the council articulated a commitment to fostering public engagement throughout, rather than concentrating input at the outset. This iterative approach was designed to be responsive to community feedback and allow for adjustments and refinements as the review progressed. Members noted the importance of documenting all feedback, even comments not directly related to the charter, to ensure comprehensive consideration of public concerns.

Additionally, the meeting touched on the internal dynamics of the council and the need for members to share their backgrounds and interests to enhance collaboration. There was a recognition of the necessity for a systematic review of the charter’s articles to identify areas requiring further discussion and potential change.

Finally, the council discussed the development of a separate website to promote listening sessions and improve public outreach. This proposed website would complement the town’s existing online resources.