Marblehead Town Meeting 2025 proved to be one for the ages — and not for the faint of heart.
First of all, the town’s voters deserve a standing ovation for turning out in such unprecedented numbers that the scheduled Monday, May 5 opening night of the meeting had to be postponed and the venue moved to the Marblehead High School field house. In an era in which many decry a decline in civic participation, Marbleheaders happily bucked that trend — at least long enough to debate a pair of Proposition 2 1/2 overrides and the town’s MBTA Communities Act compliance plan. More on that in a second.
In addition to the voters who turned out — and if you made it to all four nights, give yourself a gold star — we tip our cap, too, to the “unsung heroes” highlighted in the letter from Town Administrator Thatcher Kezer and Superintendent John Robidoux who sprung into action to prepare the field house.
We also give a nod of appreciation to Moderator Jack Attridge, the ringmaster of what could have become a circus. Instead, even the hottest issues were debated passionately but civilly, generally speaking.
Sure, the delay of the “main event” on Tuesday night was a bit annoying, as Attridge and his team worked through the unsurprising technological issues created by more than 1,700 people trying to use clickers at once. But as maddening as that might have been, it was worth the wait, as a manual count of raised hands might have planted seeds of doubt about the reliability of the results.
As Attridge went line by line through the budget on Wednesday night, someone jokingly yelled “hold” when he came to the moderator’s stipend, the princely sum of $100 — what this year worked out to $25 per day. Jack, you deserve a raise.
Though well-intentioned, we’re not sure we’d like to see a repeat of Seamus Hourihan’s motion to take the articles on the warrant out of order to frontload the hot topics. The result was that a far smaller number of voters decided less “sexy” but still vitally important town issues, including the $119.5 million budget. Going forward, the town might be better served by reverting to its typical practice of spreading out the issues voters care about so that all matters receive the attention they deserve.
What those who checked out after the first night missed were some impressive, illuminating presentations, like from Town Planner Alex Eitler on the updates to the town’s accessory dwelling unit and floodplain bylaws, or Kezer on the reorganization of town departments. There are few better crash courses in how the town is run than experiencing Town Meeting from start to finish. It can go a long way to demystifying how certain decisions are made and foster more faith in — and less suspicion of — town government.
Given that, we should figure out how we might make it easier for people to enjoy the full Town Meeting experience. Due to the high interest in Town Meeting, the pleas seemed louder than ever this year to reimagine how the meeting is conducted — by moving it to Saturday or allowing a remote attendance option, if that is deemed technologically feasible. An impromptu plan to provide childcare was set into motion for the first night of Town Meeting. We’d love to see that become a permanent part of the Town Meeting landscape. Beyond that, we may not know all the right answers, but we are here for the discussion.
But wait, there’s more
Finally, a few words about the effort, led by attorney John DiPiano, to use a Marblehead-specific law that provides for binding citizen referendums on certain Town Meeting decisions, including votes “adopting a new By-Law, or amending an existing By-Law,” which we presume includes the amendment to the town’s zoning bylaw represented by Article 23 on this year’s warrant.
The town’s lawyers may tell us differently, but from all appearances, this law — little known and unused as it might be — is valid. Thus, it is fair game for a group of residents to band together — 300 registered voters’ signatures are required on the petition — and put it to use.
But as the saying goes, “Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.” DiPiano has characterized the forthcoming referendum as bringing more “democracy” to the process. But as outlined above, we saw a pretty stunning display of democracy last week, and there is a strong case that the town’s voters have already made their will known.
Last year, when the town’s MBTA compliance plan was narrowly defeated, 787 registered voters participated in the Town Meeting vote, and what may have helped the “no” vote carry the day was the murkiness surrounding the town of Milton’s legal challenge to the MBTA Communities Act’s constitutionality, which has since been resolved.
This year, 1,710 voters helped decide the compliance plan’s fate — a 117% increase over last year — and the verdict was more decisive, a 56-44% margin.
If we have to validate that result at a special election that the town clerk estimates will cost $12,000 — and the law seems to say we do — fine. But no one should be surprised if the result does not change.
That may be all the more true because, before we vote, additional game-changing information could become available. A handful of towns, including Hanson, Middleton, Marshfield and Wrentham, have sued the state over the finding of the office of State Auditor Diana DiZoglio that the MBTA Communities Act is an “unfunded mandate.” Their cases have consolidated in Norfolk Superior Court.
Back on April 2, Judge Mark Gildea heard oral arguments on the towns’ motion for a preliminary injunction that would block the state from enforcing the MBTA Communities Act against them and the state’s motion to dismiss the towns’ complaints. His decision could come any day.
The state’s primary argument is that the towns have failed to plead that the MBTA Communities Act imposes any “direct service or cost obligation.” Instead, they focus on “infrastructure impacts” to things like water systems, roads, schools and public safety. Such costs are “at most, an indirect consequence of §3A, which by its terms mandates only zoning — not construction,” the state argues in its brief, adding that such costs are also “inherently speculative.” That argument comports with what DiZoglio herself told two members of our Select Board back in March.
If Judge Gildea agrees with the state’s argument and dismisses the towns’ cases, it would alter any cost-benefit analysis of undoing Town Meeting’s decision to adopt an MBTA Communities Act compliance plan. It would essentially render the state auditor’s “unfunded mandate” opinions dead letters, drying up any fruit that could be harvested by joining the other towns’ unfunded mandate litigation.
We will, of course, keep you posted.
