The Harwich Charter Commission set a hard deadline for its fundamental restructuring of town government this week, scheduling a definitive public hearing for June 18 in the Griffin Room as they race toward a September filing date with the state. Chair Linda Cebula emphasized the urgency of the timeline, noting that the commission must submit a preliminary report to the Attorney General and the Executive Office of Housing by mid-September 2026. At the end of September, there’s got to be a report, Cebula said. That preliminary report really is the final. We actually have to have the open issues resolved within the next couple of months if we’re going to have a public information session and see real good feedback.

Central to that feedback will be a controversial proposal to create a five-member Charter Compliance Commission, a body designed to act as a charter lawyer for the town to ensure officials adhere to the local constitution. The debate over the commission’s teeth revealed deep divisions regarding how to handle non-compliance. While some members argued for an educational approach, others pushed for public accountability for boards that ignore charter mandates, such as the required annual evaluation of the Town Manager. Sandy Hall argued that the mere existence of the body would serve as a deterrent: People realize there could be a consequence for just deciding to ignore the charter. But they won’t do that if they know it’s there.

The commission grappled with the threshold required to trigger an investigation. A proposal to require 10 registered voters to sign a written complaint before a hearing is granted met stiff resistance from John Ketchum, who insisted that a single resident should be enough to flag a violation. I think one person is sufficient, Ketchum said, adding, I would fight against it tooth and nail. Other members favored the 10-voter minimum to prevent nuisance complaints over minor disagreements. Richard Waystack argued that the higher bar ensures the community agrees an egregious breach has occurred. The idea of compliance is not to be punitive but more to become aware of the charter and the reason we need to be following it, Waystack noted.

Consultant Anthony Wilson advised the board to align any disciplinary measures for staff with existing town HR policies to avoid legal risks, while noting that elected officials are largely protected by the state constitution. Whomever determines the violation occurred would follow the progressive discipline in the town’s HR policy, Wilson suggested, recommending that for volunteers on committees, the town could move toward removal for cause. This sparked a discussion on whether the Select Board should have the explicit authority to remove an appointed member mid-term with a four-fifths supermajority vote. Cebula suggested this would take the weasels out and provide a mechanism to address members who interfere with day-to-day operations.

Not all members were convinced the new commission is necessary. Brendan [Last Name Unknown] voiced concerns that the move could alienate voters and create unnecessary bureaucracy. I see this as only policing the Select Board. Everyone else is covered, he said, suggesting that employees already answer to the Town Manager and HR. If the Select Board is running rogue, do they have to get their own lawyer or use the town's lawyer? It goes down a rabbit hole. Lou Lowny also expressed caution, suggesting the power of public record might be enough of a hammer. Once the compliance committee highlights a problem, it becomes public record. It’s pretty apparent what happens in this town once it becomes known. It gets put in the Chronicle. There’s outside government pressure, Lowny said.

Herb Belle characterized the proposed body as a necessary resource for confused residents. It would be a sounding board, Belle said. If you’re watching a meeting and don’t understand how things are playing out, where do you go to find out? To clarify the process, the commission agreed to refine language allowing the body to consult and retain independent legal counsel if a violation continues after an initial educational hearing, ensuring the town’s primary counsel does not face a conflict of interest.

On the financial front, the commission abandoned the idea of conducting a town-wide survey after learning from Wilson that it would cost between $15,000 and $20,000 and take up to eight weeks to complete. Waystack dismissed the idea, noting the commission is already past the functional deadline for such data. This pivot follows the commission's broader trend of professionalizing town management, including the recent adoption of the Strong Chief model for public safety and granting the Town Manager full hiring authority. The board expects to hold a joint meeting with the Select Board soon to discuss these shifts before the June 18 hearing in the Griffin Room.