In their first discussion of the "statement of intent" they adopted last spring to constrain plans for the renovation of Town Hall and Hildreth House, a majority of the Board of Selectmen Tuesday acknowledged that the Municipal Building Committee was adhering to the criteria the document sets for the project. But this consensus did not arrive in time to stop one member of the board, Tim Clark, from storming out of the meeting room, after first accusing Chair Marie Sobalvarro of ignoring him and then declaring that the board should stop meddling in architecture and let the building committee members "do their job."

Selectmen Tuesday wrestled once more with disagreements that date back to the April Town Meeting when, according to its minutes, the board unanimously voted to adopt the statement of intent that set forth criteria that would have to be met by any schematic plans created for the renovation of Town Hall and Hildreth House. Then Selectmen Chair Peter Warren read the statement to Town Meeting just prior to a vote to authorize the Municipal Building Committee to spend $185,000 in the current fiscal year to create schematic designs for Town Hall and Hildreth House.

While the statement was not part of the vote, it was instrumental in persuading the capital and finance committees to back spending for schematic designs for the two buildings. Among its declarations is a statement that the schematic design deal "only with the existing building" and "take into account the need to expand upon the building's footprint solely for the purpose of dealing with code compliance issues."

But Selectman Tim Clark has disputed that he ever voted for the document, and last year filed complaints against the other four board members for violating open meeting laws. This week he again argued that the statement of intent should not have any bearing on the work of the Municipal Building Committee because Town Meeting had not voted for it.

The four other members of the board, however, accept the statement of intent as a framework they must use to judge the work of the building committee. Selectman Bill Johnson said Tuesday night that the board had used the document to sell the renovation projects to the town, and therefore had to abide by it.

The argument that led Clark to leave the meeting erupted as Peter Warren spoke of his concern that without a new task force to oversee the work of the Municipal Building Committee, the renovation project would fail.

"I just feel that people are going in different tangents," said Warren. "Some are not happy with what's going on and others want more. I'm worried and I do feel uncomfortable at the way this has been going. If we don't have a unified support going forward, we're not going to make anything in Town Meeting."

Clark responded: "So, let me make you a proposal. If I had 100 signatories that said, 'The statement of intent is not what I voted for. I voted for Article 17. Selectmen, shut up, sit down, let the committee do their work.' Would a hundred signatories be enough?"

"Sir, no," responded Warren, "because you voted for it [the statement of intent]."

"Would 500 be enough?" said Clark. "We have a very narrow focus here," he said referring to the constraints of the statement and the inadequacies, to him, of its approach to town buildings. "I'm asking you," he pressed.

"I'm not going to answer you," said Warren.

"Do you want the public involved? I'm speaking for the public. Do you want the public involved?" Clark asked.

At this point, Warren began to collect his papers, signaling he was about to walk out. Sobalvarro urged him to stay, gaveled the meeting to order and then leaned toward Clark to say, "Don't make me ask you to leave."

"You're ignoring me anyway," Clark said.

Later, as Sobalvarro attempted to find common ground by summarizing points on which all members of the board agreed, Clark interrupted: "Let the committee do its job. You've defined exactly what they have to do. Let the committee do its job. Step back."

Then he left.

Minus Clark, the meeting continued, with Selectman Ron Ricci pressing the board to declare that the Municipal Building Committee should adhere to the statement of intent.

"I don't understand why you're asking that, Ron," Johnson said. "We explicitly voted [the statement of intent] into the approval of the architect."

"I'd feel a lot more comfortable," Ricci said, "if [the building committee] said, 'Yes, we accept the statement of intent.' It's disturbing to see one of the chairs on the committee [Peter Jackson] say it's not important."

"Well then, talk to him about it," said Doug Coots, a committee members who had been summoned to provide background on the origin of the statement of intent. "Don't you see that the committee itself, as a group, is actually using the statement of intent? We're producing designs that meet it."

"So," asked Ricci, "do we need to enforce in any way that the statement of intent applies to the building committee, or do we all agree that it does?"

"It's a component," said Sobalvarro, one of three that includes Article 17 and the final report of the 2010 Municipal Building Committee.

Warren added, "I'm saying that a majority of the committee is demonstrating that it is involved with the statement of intent."

"All right," said Ricci. "I'm fine with that."