A substantial portion of the meeting was dedicated to the state of the town’s cemeteries, particularly Seaside and Union Cemeteries, which have faced persistent maintenance challenges. Despite a budget increase of $65,000 from the previous year, staffing issues have resulted in subpar conditions, with contracted services often unable to maintain the grounds adequately. The board expressed concerns about the appearance of the cemeteries, noting that the maintenance often left them looking uneven and unkempt. This sentiment was echoed by board members who likened the neglect to maintaining one’s home poorly, emphasizing the need for a more respectful approach to the resting places of community members.

The Cemetery Commission, represented by David Whitcomb and Bill Byrom, highlighted the ongoing struggles due to frequent leadership changes within the Department of Public Works, which had led to communication breakdowns and hindered maintenance efforts. Byrom recounted personal efforts to clean up the cemeteries, pointing out that the commission had previously recommended the town assume maintenance responsibilities and purchase necessary equipment. Despite these recommendations being budgeted for, the execution faced obstacles.

The board acknowledged the necessity of hiring additional full-time staff dedicated to cemetery maintenance to address these issues comprehensively. They also debated the financial management of cemetery funds, particularly the use of Perpetual Care funds to address immediate maintenance needs. The discussion revealed underlying frustrations regarding the allocation of resources and the need for specialized equipment to tackle unique maintenance challenges, such as overgrown areas requiring a stump grinder.

As the meeting progressed, attention shifted towards the policy of public participation in meetings. The board deliberated on the balance between allowing public comments during agenda items and maintaining an orderly meeting structure. Some members favored a return to a format permitting public input throughout meetings, while others advocated for structured public commentary at the beginning to prevent inefficiency. Public input on this topic was pronounced, with residents like John H. Sou and Elain Gibbs advocating for more opportunities to engage during meetings, especially on contentious topics. They emphasized the importance of transparency and the ability for residents to influence decisions that affect them.

The board grappled with the challenge of fostering community engagement while ensuring efficient meeting management, highlighting differing views on the best approach to public participation.

Another topic of discussion was the proposed amendments to the town’s budget financial management policies, particularly regarding borrowing practices under Proposition Two and a Half. The board considered the implications of potentially categorizing financial situations as exigencies and whether such a policy could become a routine mechanism for addressing unique circumstances. The conversation emphasized the importance of a consistent framework for decision-making in governance processes.

Additionally, the meeting touched on the responsibilities of Select Board members in relation to other town committees and trusts, such as the Affordable Housing Trust. Concerns were raised about potential conflicts of interest when board members held dual leadership roles, prompting discussions about the need for clear separation of responsibilities to avoid conflicts and maintain transparency.