Reappointments to Resume as Board Considers Policy Changes
June 25, 2026
• The Select Board discussed transparency and efforts to respect nominees for committee vacancies at length during its Tuesday meeting.
After violating the Open Meeting Law related to an appointment, the board is reevaluating how it appoints people to town boards and committees. The Select Board voted to move forward with reappointments starting at their next meeting, but new appointments are still on hold pending potential changes.
The main issue is balancing “a desire to shield nominees from public discussion of the candidacy and the requirements of the Open Meeting Law,” said Town Counsel Chris Heep. The board posed legal questions at its prior meeting, which Heep answered on Tuesday.
Heep suggested that nominees should be placed on the board’s consent agenda, as they have been, in order “to keep the discussion out of an open session.”
“But short of being able to approve a candidate on the consent agenda, there really is not much mechanism for the board to consider an application or a nominee without discussing it in open session,” Heep said.
The Select Board vice chair handles the board’s appointments, interviewing candidates and putting names forward for the board to approve. The vice chair will sometimes consult with a member from the committee with the vacancy, which was the crux of the Open Meeting Law complaint.
During the board’s May 26 meeting, members publicly rejected a committee nomination after it was pulled off their consent agenda (a separate portion of the agenda that members collectively approve). At its subsequent meeting on June 9, several residents spoke during public comment in favor of a transparent appointment process.
Several other boards are also facing vacancies, including the Human Rights Committee, the Needham Council for Arts and Culture and the Park and Recreation Commission. The Select Board is expected to make 13 appointments for current or upcoming openings, according to town staff. The board appoints 219 seats on 38 committees. New appointments have been on hold since June 9.
Josh Levy, the current vice chair, stressed the need for courtesy toward the candidates to encourage civic engagement. That, to him, looks like informing rejected applicants of why they weren’t selected.
“I think applicants who want to serve the town, who have the best interest of the town in mind, deserve to know that there is a serious concern about them personally,” Levy said, “and they should have an opportunity to address that.”
“I have heard from applicants who were not chosen for positions, and sometimes repeatedly,” he added, “and that makes them discouraged, when they don’t know the reason why they weren’t chosen, so I think it goes both ways.”
The majority of the board disagreed with Levy, making comparisons to the private sector’s interview process, wherein candidates typically don’t receive feedback on why they weren’t chosen. Member Cathy Dowd — who previously served as vice chair — said holding public discussion on rejected candidates could be “pretty awkward.” Expressing concerns about candidates outside of public view “is to protect the person,” member Bill Dermody said.
Appointments, however, are “a public process,” Levy said, meaning they should be publicly discussed. Levy also expressed concern that any one board member can effectively “veto” a nomination, he said.
Member Kevin Keane offered another view: as vice chair, Levy wielded “almost an absolute veto power over who you chose.”
“You saw all the candidates, you only bought the ones you thought were worthwhile. In a weird way, that was a veto,” Keane said. “You made a decision at the vice chair level to choose certain candidates, and that was your prerogative, and I think we’re O.K. with that. It’s just, this is a bit of a mixed message. We want a public process, but quite frankly, the initial choosing of these candidates wasn’t public, but it has to be the vice chair’s decision, and there was a decision made to do that.”
Traditionally, the board unanimously approves candidates.
Heep said the vice chair can informally coordinate with chairs of committees with vacancies to understand the role and who may be a good fit. That would not trigger the Open Meeting Law, Heep said.
Appointment interviews can unfold one of three ways, which Heep outlined:
- Conducted privately by the vice chair, without input from the committee with the vacancy, either alone or with staff.
- Conducted in open session by the vice chair and the other committee member, as required by the Open Meeting Law. Any discussion between the two people regarding preferred candidates would also have to happen in open session.
- Conducted in executive session by the vice chair and the other committee member as a preliminary screening interview. Doing so would require the names of a list of finalists to be posted on the Select Board’s agenda, and nominations could not appear on the consent agenda.
The board will resume the reappointments process at its next meeting in July, but with policy changes still up for discussion, no new appointments will be made.
