Legislative Council member and Charter Revision Charge Committee member Ryan Knapp seemed just a little bit uncomfortable seated before the Board of Finance February 8, explaining why he thought that elected panel should be formally disbanded and eliminated from the community’s constitutional document.

Knapp and fellow charge committee member Judit DeStefano, who appeared via video remote, attended the meeting during which the final points of suggested charter changes pertaining to the finance board were being refined before turning them over for council consideration.

“One thing we had discussed was really doing kind of a full merge of the Board of Finance and the Legislative Council, and having one body being the fiscal authority — taking care of all the decisions that are now redundancies you see [happening] with the CIP, the budget, and long-term planning,” DeStefano said of the charge committee.

While Knapp said he and other council colleagues at least backed the idea conceptually, it did not appear the current finance board members were particularly receptive.

DeStefano said during charge committee discussion, some members backed keeping something like the finance board but in an appointed, advisory capacity.

She pointed out that finance board member Ned Simpson had crafted and presented a number of ideas for possible charter consideration, including strategizing long-term planning while the council concentrates more on exclusively handling appropriations and addressing budget issues.

DeStefano said the alternate “finance advisory body” was viewed as a different approach, and under such a scenario she and others on the charge committee envisioned having both entities working in concert. She also said this was just one solution and that a final decision would be made in the coming weeks.

Weighing The Options

At least one council member suggested forming a committee to explore the idea of eliminating the finance board, and if it still seems practical, making it a single charge revision for a future charter commission.

Others felt it would be fruitless to entertain the raft of suggested changes Simpson had drafted regarding the finance board only to see that panel up for elimination in the next revision.

“Everybody has a concerned look on their face,” finance board Chair Keith Alexander observed.

Finance board member Matt Mihalcik said it might be easier to get individuals with greater financial expertise to agree to a post on an appointed advisory panel versus an elected one.

DeStefano replied, recognizing that some uniquely qualified residents “want to serve and don’t want to run” for elected office, and an appointed panel could be served by volunteers willing to commit to longer terms than the two-year election cycles for finance board members.

Knapp, who attended in person, was asked to relate his perspectives. As he approached the council, he mentioned that he was probably the first to suggest eliminating the finance board as it is today from the charter.

He said a charter revision should involve refining the right conceptual mix of elected leadership going forward.

Saying he has respect and appreciation for board of finance members and their willingness to serve, Knapp echoed DeStefano in recognizing that redundancies in processes involving the Boards of Selectmen and Education, moving issues to the finance board and then to the council for consideration were sometimes “frustrating” and “a challenge.”

“I’d like to see us get to a place where we all feel like we’re doing meaningful and effective work, and the sort of work we want to do while not duplicating,” he said. “We’re all volunteers and we should all feel we’re doing something productive with it.”

Knapp said he sees a future configuration appointing those who might gravitate to a finance board candidacy to handle work similarly to a Congressional Budget Office or the state’s Office of Fiscal Analysis — albeit on a smaller, localized scale.

He said a future appointed fiscal advisory committee could bring advice, perform “deep dive” investigations, and make suggestions without getting caught up in approving things like low level grants. Knapp believes such a panel would be composed of members on their on merit versus electability.

He said unaffiliated voters would be more open to participating without having to get party endorsement to get on the ballot.

Created By Ordinance

Knapp envisioned the cleanest way to do it would be to remove the finance board from the Charter and creating an advisory committee by ordinance.

With a panel created by ordinance, Knapp said, “We can be more dynamic as we discover roles and adjust the ordinance rather than through a charter revision, which is quite onerous.”

Simpson, who attended some of the discussions with the charter charge committee, reminded his colleagues that every point being articulated by Knapp was challenged by other council members.

Calling the council a “boat anchor,” Simpson pointed out that policies that had been worked on by the finance board were sent to the council only to “disappear.”

“We do lots of work on the budget and on the CIP, and [the council] starts all over again as if we hadn’t done anything,” Simpson said. “And for a power grab to take over — I don’t think the Legislative Council has the bandwidth to take on more. We ought to be looking at a clear delineation of roles to make sure the town is best served.”

Finance board member Christopher Gardner said the council reps were describing more concentrated and defined duties that had also been mulled by himself and his colleagues, including taking a longer view on financial management and researching what other communities were doing.

Gardner said as suggested, he would not back the merger or elimination of the finance board at this point.

Colleague John Madzulla agreed, saying the finance board strives to look at issues objectively, while providing a critical role in applying checks and balances to each of the matters that land on its agenda. He also concurred with Simpson, saying the finance board could do more and better with more defined structures outlined in Simpson’s charter proposals.

Simpson added that he did not believe an appointed panel would have any value.

“We’re ignored as it is,” he said.

Closing out the discussion, DeStefano said the question remains how to reformat charter elements to accomplish the greater goal of removing time-consuming process and redundancies. And she vowed that the charge committee would not rest until consensus was reached on how to proceed with this important consideration.