The Harwich Charter Commission refined several critical components of the town’s foundational governing document on April 16, moving to insulate the wastewater department from administrative instability while grappling with public skepticism regarding a proposed shift to a Town Manager leadership model. The session was highlighted by a detailed request for departmental autonomy and financial transparency from the Water and Wastewater Commission, following what officials described as a hellish fiscal year plagued by accounting errors.

Noren Donahghue, representing the Water and Wastewater Commission, urged the Charter Commission to implement a supermajority requirement for the termination of the superintendent. Donahghue explained that while the commission only seeks a simple majority for disciplinary actions, the gravity of a firing should require a higher threshold. In November, you folks asked us if we were going to terminate the superintendent, would it be a regular majority or a supermajority? We would like a supermajority, Donahghue said, specifically proposing a four-out-of-five person vote. The Chair agreed to clarify the language in the redline draft, noting, Termination will require a four-fifths majority.

The discussion also delved into the deep-seated fiscal frustrations within the wastewater department, which recently navigated a deficit in retained earnings that officials believe was preventable. Donahghue voiced a strong desire for the department to be notified of any year-end journal entries affecting enterprise funds before they are finalized. This past year has been absolute hell in terms of finances for the wastewater department, Donahghue told the Commission. Had we been copied on year-end entries, we would have spotted the error in seconds. Instead, it caused 200 hours of work for the town. We want to see the closing journal entries or balance sheet changes affecting the enterprise funds. The Chair, who is also an accountant, supported the request for transparency, stating that seeing closing entries before finalization is not an unreasonable request. One member added that such a change will fix the breakdown in communication that led to the recent deficit.

Public pushback regarding the title of the town’s chief executive also took center stage. Despite previous consensus to adopt the title Town Manager to reflect professionalized authority, Donahghue reported that residents are assuming the change signals a shift toward a more powerful or mayor-like role. Sandy Hall noted the divergence in public perception, observing that there seems to be more authority given to a manager in other charters than to an administrator. However, Brendon argued that the distinction is largely semantic, suggesting If you look up the definitions, they really both mean the same thing. It's really just a preference.

Resident Bob Nickerson echoed the concern during public comment, arguing that a Manager sounds like a stronger position, which he personally favored given the town’s history. I myself felt manager is a more powerful word and a more powerful position, Nickerson said, while also questioning the implications of the strong chief model being adopted for the police department. A commission member clarified that the strong chief designation follows Massachusetts General Law Chapter 41, Section 97A, which grants a chief the authority to hire staff without the Select Board's ratification—a move intended to streamline operations and reduce political interference.

The Commission also debated the merits of imposing term limits on the chairs of appointed town agencies. Paul Doane expressed significant reservations about a draft provision that would limit chairs to two consecutive terms. Reforming on an annual basis provides the check against abuse, Doane said. If the committee feels the chair is doing a good job, they should be able to re-elect them. This sentiment was shared by Brendon, who noted that in committees like the Historic District Commission, chair stability has provided a lot of stability for eight-plus years. Another member, who has chaired the Board of Assessors for over two decades, pointed out that in some cases, other members are simply unwilling to take the lead. The only way to resign the chair is to resign from the committee, the member noted.

Looking ahead, the Charter Commission is preparing for a joint session with the Select Board to find consensus on several high-priority friction points. The Chair identified five primary topics for that meeting: the frequency of Town Meetings, the Town Manager vs. Administrator title, the Capital Outlay Plan’s two-thirds vote requirement, charter compliance, and the removal of members from regulatory committees. One member emphasized the need for clear procedures regarding the removal of appointed officials, noting that the Select Board recently had to remove members who did not comply with conflict of interest or swearing-in requirements. Another member suggested that the town could improve fiscal clarity by making new hires a separate article instead of buried in the operating budget.

The meeting concluded with a commitment to improve the visibility of the charter’s current redline draft on the town website. One member questioned how the public would locate the current proposals within the municipal portal, prompting the Chair to pledge coordination with town staff to ensure the April 9th packet is clearly posted. The Commission intends to begin drafting its formal report to the state in July, following a public hearing scheduled for mid-June.