PITTSFIELD — In the continuation of civil war within the local planning board concerning a vote on a controversial subdivision, Tina Bernier — the newest board member — asked the Town Council on Tuesday night to clarify the procedure for censuring or removing board members.

Bernier questioned board Chairman Stacey Fitts’ recent request for two planning board members to either sign the subdivision plan, which they had voted against, or face being kicked off the board.

Fitts defended himself, saying that despite voting against the subdivision, the two board members — Peg Gray and Debra Fletcher — must accept the majority vote and sign the plan so the developer can legally register his subdivision.

Both women have said they will not sign the plan because they believe the subdivision would create an illegal lot. At the planning board meeting where the subdivision was approved, only five of the seven board members were present and the project was approved by a 3-2 vote. Without four board signatures, however, developer Jim Moorhead cannot file the plan at the registry of deeds.

Bernier appeared before the council Tuesday, not to question Gray’s and Fletcher’s actions but to question why Fitts did not bring the issue before the full planning board before notifying the members by mail that he “had issued an ultimatum.”

“I am new to this process,” said Bernier, who was appointed to the planning board only a month ago. “We have no bylaws, but my understanding is that we operate by Robert’s Rules of Order.” Bernier told the councilors that Fitts did not follow the rules by taking it upon himself to review and interpret several legal opinions and then write Gray and Fletcher a letter.

She said the board was completely left out of the process.

Town Clerk Marie Pennock, when asked by Mayor David Quint to clarify the process, said only the Town Council has the authority to remove a planner after a recommendation is made by the board chairman. “Usually that comes after nonattendance,” said Pennock, who added there is nothing in the town charter or the administrative code that deals with this situation.

Jasper Wyman, chairman of the board of appeals, said, “This should be a time of `Come, let’s reason together.’ ” He said removal should only come after “an utter disregard for the law.”

Since both women have maintained they will not sign the plan because the approval of the subdivision created an illegal lot, Wyman said “this case is a total regard for the law.” He said the controversy was not good for Pittsfield.

Fitts said he wrote the letter in an attempt to “get action. This will stir debate. Removing [Fletcher and Gray] from the board is the last thing I want to do. Some may not like my methods, but I had to make a decision.”

Fitts said the issue will be discussed by the planning board at its Nov. 9 meeting. He has submitted a new policy to avoid such confrontations in the future. It reads, “Any action taken by a quorum which is affirmatively passed by a majority of those members present and legally able to vote is equivalent to and has the same meaning as `passed by a majority of the board’ ” as defined in town ordinances.

He also told the councilors that he has requested the town attorney to attend the meeting to clarify the board’s position.