Zoning Board Chair Reappointment
Did a Select Board member choose not to reappoint the current Chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals for political retribution?
At the 4/14/26 Select Board meeting, the Clerk suggested that the Chair not be reappointed, citing misconduct claims—yet those claims were not addressed or discussed during the meeting.
This raises an important question. In the past, I brought forward misconduct concerns to that same Select Board member regarding other individuals. I was told the person “had the votes,” and the response was essentially, “I’m going to vote yes.” Both individuals in question were ultimately approved unanimously.
Now consider the 2/26/2026 Zoning Board meeting, where petitioners for the Specialized Code presented to the board. Notably, those petitioners served as campaign managers for three current Select Board members. Following the presentation, the Chair opposed adoption of what many refer to as the “extreme stretch energy code” and asked that Article 33 be withdrawn from Town Meeting consideration.
The same Select Board member now raising concerns about the Chair has been a strong advocate for stretch energy codes.
To be clear, I’m not taking a position on the Chair’s overall performance. But the sequence of events raises a fair question: is this about misconduct, or about political disagreement?
The Select Board should adopt a consistent, transparent policy for evaluating reappointments—one that fairly considers all concerns raised by residents and committee members, not just selected ones. This year alone, there have been multiple reappointments where concerns were raised and ultimately dismissed without discussion.
So the question becomes: who’s next? Will it be the Building Commissioner? Other board or committee members who express dissenting views?
What happened to the commitment to inclusion and respectful workplace culture that some candidates over the past years and election cycle emphasized?
We may get more answers at the 4/28/2026 Select Board meeting.