How we govern and who serves to help us govern should always face periodic review and public consideration. So it is the case with a number of warrant articles on this year’s warrant for Town Meeting. Articles 37, 47, 48 and 52 all seek to reshape the “how” and “who” of managing our town’s affairs.
Article 37
Article 37 seeks to allow the hiring of police officers who are over the age of 32 on the date of their municipal police department entrance exam. It does this by rescinding the town’s adoption of M.G.L. c. 31, §58A at the 2016 Town Meeting, which permits towns to use the age restriction when hiring police and firefighters. Then, as now, the age limit effort at Town Meeting was sponsored by the Marblehead chief of police. Now, as then, we should listen to our chief of police when it comes to understanding the staffing needs and challenges to maintain our public safety.
Removing a somewhat arbitrary and outdated age-based hiring practice will increase the number of qualified candidates as well as the breadth of experience those candidates bring to the police force. And considering that our public safety chiefs have warned that they’re operating at dangerously lean staffing levels, expanding the candidate pool can only help the chief of police restore the department to its optimal strength with the best available talent. Town Meeting should vote in favor of Article 37.
Article 48
In contrast to expanding Marblehead’s reach for talented, skilled and experienced civil servants, Article 48 would limit town hiring by requiring department heads to be Marblehead residents.
While we appreciate the sentiment that town employees should have a personal stake in and first-hand understanding of Marblehead’s affairs (and a salary that stays in the community), a hiring policy with an artificially restrictive geographic boundary does not guarantee that outcome and would be a self-inflicted wound. If passed, Article 48 would severely limit candidate pools and may very well prevent the hiring of the most qualified individuals.
Just as important to keep in mind is that Article 48 as written likely requires removing existing nonresident department heads from their positions — casting aside existing contracts, deep institutional knowledge and notions of fair play. And Article 48 would also likely require well-above-market compensation to attract qualified residents given the cost of living in Marblehead, which includes a median home price exceeding $1.2 million. Town Meeting should reject Article 48.
Article 47
Article 47 would eliminate the town’s sustainability coordinator position. Lead sponsors of Article 47 look to reduce the town’s administrative costs. As the Current reported, the sustainability coordinator position was created at the 2023 Town Meeting with a salary of $73,111.70. The sustainability coordinator’s role is to seek outside funding and help develop programs to advance the town’s environmental objectives (including coastal resiliency) and improve energy usage and performance.
Eliminating this position is the wrong way to approach fiscal responsibility and is a big step back from the town’s sustainability goal of helping to future-proof Marblehead. With more than 13 miles of coastline and infrastructure facing constant climate threats along with increasing energy consumption and costs, Marblehead’s sustainability goals and methods are justified. Hence the need for a dedicated professional to focus the town’s efforts on those issues with purpose and measurable outcomes.
The sustainability coordinator position has met that need and, as a result, maintains strong support among town officials. We can see why. According to Sustainable Marblehead’s Clean Energy and Public Policy Working Group, the sustainability coordinator has already helped secure approximately $458,000 in grants and provides energy and environmental expertise across town departments to help make our facilities more energy efficient and climate adaptable. Because the sustainability coordinator position is already a net positive and helping town officials meet our environmental and energy goals, Town Meeting should reject Article 47.
Article 52
Article 52 attempts to add to town bylaws a recall provision for most elected town officials. At first glance, a procedure that allows an electoral do-over has appeal. Recall elections can have many salutary effects. They hold officials more accountable for their decisions and actions, make officials more responsive to town needs and concerns and provide a safety valve to address and remedy serious misconduct or malfeasance. These objectives are central to a healthy political system and should enjoy widespread support in our community.
However, Article 52 as written may do more harm than good. For example:
- It requires only a scant 25 registered voters to trigger the recall process after which only a mere 15% of registered voters must sign a petition to recall the official. These thresholds make the process ripe for partisan abuse.
- It provides no guardrails or standards for what constitutes valid recall grounds, let alone for cause. Voters can petition for a recall based on unlawful conduct or for simply being left-handed, leaving the system vulnerable to partisan manipulation and personal vendettas.
- There is no cool-off period or prohibition on successive recall attempts after failed efforts. This makes real the potential for frequent — or worse, never-ending — recall attempts that disrupt town governance.
- It is silent on who bears costs for special elections following successful recall petitions.
- It lacks clarity on the timing between a recall certification and a subsequent election.
While holding referendums on officials’ actions and decisions is a worthy pursuit, any recall provision should be carefully crafted to balance accountability with governmental stability. This is not Article 52. We urge Town Meeting to reject Article 52.
The Current Editorial Board
The members of the Current’seditorial board are Bob Peck, chairman of the Current; Virginia Buckingham, president of the Current's board of directors; board member Brian Birke, Current editorial staff member Kris Olson, and Joseph P. Kahn, a retired Boston Globe journalist.
