A primary topic of discussion was the classification and listing of volunteer and paid positions within the town. The board debated whether certain paid positions should be included in a volunteer response form. It was noted that the form needed to clearly differentiate between elected, appointed, and volunteer roles. A suggestion was made to list available volunteer positions without including paid roles like the land use coordinator, which was missing from the current form. The concern was raised that individuals looking for employment might mistakenly refer to this volunteer listing, and it was proposed to direct them to the town’s employment website for job opportunities.

The board agreed on the necessity to update the form to reflect only volunteer positions while maintaining clarity about what constitutes an elected position. It was pointed out that while some positions on the Select Board are elected, they serve in a volunteer capacity. In contrast, others, such as the town clerk, are elected but also receive compensation, necessitating a separate note indicating this distinction. The board discussed the importance of providing a clear explanation about the nature of appointments, emphasizing that appointed positions are typically temporary and must be re-evaluated at the next election.

Further discussion centered on specific committees and boards, such as the Recreation Commission and the Board of Library Trustees, which were confirmed to be elected positions. The appointed nature of the Council on Aging was also confirmed. The board acknowledged the contribution of Rebecca Morse, a previous employee funded through ARPA, who assisted residents in accessing grant money, although funding for this position is now unavailable.

The board also examined the roles of election officials. Recent regulations classify election workers as W2 employees, complicating their inclusion on the volunteer form. It was suggested to obtain a comprehensive list from payroll to verify who is compensated and ensure no paid positions are mistakenly classified as volunteer roles. The board expressed a desire to update the volunteer form thoroughly, noting it had not been reviewed for some time and could benefit from a comprehensive overhaul.

Open meeting law compliance was another focus of the meeting. The board discussed the need for clearer guidelines and training, emphasizing the importance of stating names and the source of motions clearly during meetings to ensure accountability and proper documentation. The inadequacy of current training materials for new board members was highlighted, with a participant suggesting that the distribution of training resources is inconsistent. The lack of an onboarding packet that includes essential policies and procedural training was noted, although a well-prepared onboarding packet created by a human resources person was praised for its comprehensiveness.

The board discussed the challenges presented by open meeting law complaints, acknowledging that such complaints, while part of the process, often stem from “nitpicking” and could discourage volunteers from participating in local governance. The participants also covered the need for specificity in meeting agendas and the process of adding items to the agenda, especially in emergencies. They recognized the complexities of the legal text surrounding open meeting laws and expressed a desire to ensure all members are adequately trained and informed about meeting protocols and public engagement processes.