One notable matter brought to the board’s attention involved allegations of privacy violations by the Cemetery Commission. A resident accused an elected official of the Commission of accessing private military records, particularly the DD214 form, without proper authorization. The resident expressed frustration over the lack of response from town officials, including the town clerk and interim town manager, despite previous communications outlining these concerns. They argued that the Commission had no legitimate reason to access these records and emphasized that only individuals directly involved in cemetery operations should have such access. This issue has garnered notable community interest, as evidenced by a Facebook post about the Commission meeting, which received 2,400 views. The resident called for the Select Board to clarify its stance on investigating these allegations, highlighting the legal obligations under Massachusetts General Laws to report suspected fraud to the Department of Vital Records.

In a shift to administrative updates, the board discussed the transition to a new Town Manager. A member of the board expressed satisfaction after meeting with the prospective new Town Manager, “Jen,” clarifying that previous concerns had been resolved. Confidence in Jen’s capabilities was emphasized, with the board member stating, “I have no question about her competence… I think Jen will thrive in that role.” The board member encouraged public support and unity around the new leadership.

The board also delved into the details of a proposed employee climate survey, which aims to gather feedback on job satisfaction, workplace environment, and communication with management. The draft policy was recognized as thorough, but members acknowledged that they had not had sufficient time to review it. Technical difficulties during the Zoom meeting disrupted the discussion, but the purpose of the survey was clarified: to establish a consistent method for gathering employee feedback. A member suggested renaming the survey to avoid confusion with environmental issues, recommending titles like “workplace climate survey” or “staff engagement survey.”

Key aspects of the survey policy were discussed, including its scope, which applies to all town employees except school department personnel. There was debate about whether to explicitly mention this exclusion in the policy. The survey is intended to be conducted annually, with proposed timelines for distribution and data collection to align with fiscal responsibilities and provide actionable results before the town manager’s evaluation in April.

The board debated whether to conduct the survey internally or hire an external consultant, with concerns raised about potential bias in an internal survey. The cost of hiring an external consultant was mentioned, with a budget of $1,500 being discussed. Some members suggested using platforms like Survey Monkey to avoid these costs. The importance of maintaining confidentiality and ensuring ADA compliance during the survey process was emphasized.

Additionally, the board discussed the Community Preservation Act (CPA) and its potential financial implications on local tax bills. The average tax bill was reported to be approximately $6,800, with discussions on how different surcharge percentages would impact residents, particularly those on fixed incomes. The board considered exemptions for lower-income households and the role of the community preservation committee in managing funds if the CPA were adopted.

Other topics included updates on the Municipal Solid Waste and recycling contract, recruitment of personnel, and budget preparations, with a focus on rising retirement costs. The town manager provided positive updates on various DPW projects and ongoing evaluations of administrative support functions within the DPW and finance teams.