Town Meeting: May 8, 2025

Transcript captured from MHTV’s Vimeo auto-captioning. No speaker labels; proper names and dollar figures occasionally misheard. Click any timecode to jump to that moment in the source video.

0:10 Well, maybe it’s three years, maybe it’s August 10th

0:16 With a quorum present. I hereby reconvene the 2025 annual town meeting.

0:24 Thank you. Thank you all. We’re starting strong and finishing strong. Usually on a, on a third or fourth night, we have to beg people on TV to, uh, come and, and join us. So thank you very much for showing up. Um, and it’s, it’s hard to believe that they chose a pope since we started this meeting.

0:48 Mike, maybe we could get a chimney on the new roof of the school.

0:53 Okay. Let’s go over some details for the meeting. Uh, the presentation lecture down in front here, we Have lights. Can we turn up the lights a little bit up in front, please? Um, the, the presentation lecture and for presentations, uh, is right in front and it’s for, uh, presentations and replies from public officials. The microphones in each aisle are for deliberation after a presentation. All comments and questions during the meeting are to be directed through the moderator. Please state your name and address when you’re recognized. Uh, if you have an amendment to a main motion during the meeting, I may request it to be in writing. And if you, and if I do, uh, we have forms up here at the, at the lectern, um, I’ll do my best not

1:39 to have a clock on presentations and deliberations, but there may be motions, which I will adhere to a strict two minute limit on speakers after a presentation is made. If you plan to speak, please be prepared. As a great deal of information can be shared in the allotted time. I look to run an efficient meeting tonight. To that end, I want to talk through a few things. You’re gonna hear main motions for indefinite postponement, I think on seven, possibly seven main motions. And, and it came up last night, um, through discussion because I was going through them quickly. These are the original sponsors that have, that have asked for indefinite postponement. So it’s not an amendment to a main motion where somebody wants to, to change

2:26 or stop, uh, an a main motion. Oh, thank you. So, just so you know that, that when a main motion comes up for indefinite postponement in the past, we’ve moved through them pretty quickly. That doesn’t mean that if you have something to say, you shouldn’t stand up and say it. But please do it quick ‘cause I’m gonna try to keep moving along.

2:48 Um, I ask that each person speaking tonight speaks clearly and smartly into the microphones. I think we did a, a much better job yesterday of making things a little bit more clear around here. According to our bylaws, every voter speaking upon a subject shall confine their remarks to the question before the meeting. Avoid personalities and be seated. When they have finished, I will expect order. I may not always allow a motion to call the question, should I deem the motion would restrict informed consideration of the meeting or come before an appropriate discussion has taken place. This is a widely used town meeting practice amongst moderators. On the other end, we will likely get to the point where I need to remind everyone of the old Marvel Head Town meeting saying It appears

3:34 that everything has been said, but not everybody has had a chance to say it. I think that goes back to three moderators. Now. I’ll do my best to balance the conveyance of information with the budget. Budget of time. Article 52 is a significant change to our bylaws, and there’s a lot of words in it. Um, there on the back corner there is the, the article is, has been written out by the sponsor or, or printed out by the sponsor. So if you’d like to grab a copy of that and do some reading between now and the time we get to 52, you’ll be much better informed when we get there.

4:15 Thank you. Electronic voting. We’re getting good with electronic voting this year when I call for a vote, there’ll be 30 seconds to vote. If you hit the wrong button or change your mind, you must do so within that time. Please hold your clickers up within reason when voting, a final tally will be shown on the screen and that tally will be available in the minutes after the meeting. I will also read the vote aloud. We’re gonna do a test vote before we start the meeting on the articles,

4:52 we can do Pledge of Allegiance. Would you lead us in Pledge of Allegiance?

5:00 Allison, please. We’re gonna do Pledge of Allegiance.

5:11 Sure. Uh, I pledge. We pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you.

5:36 I have a lot of stuff on my list that I’ve learned this year in past practice. We’ve always opened the meeting on the first day with Pledge of Allegiance. We’ll make that a practice going forward to start the each night with it. Thank you. Thanks for reminding me.

5:52 So will it be sunny on Mother’s Day? I hope so, but let’s take a vote. If you were in favor of the question, use your green yes button if you oppose the red no button. 32nd. Voting starts now.

6:17 This better be unanimous.

6:44 Uh oh. So three 13 to 51. The vote passes. Uh, we are gonna get right into Article 36, stormwater Enterprise Fund. The article is moved. Do I have a second? Thank you. Amy Chu.

7:04 Amy Chu, 38 Gingerbread Hill, DPW Director. This article is just to start an enterprise fund. It does not allocate money to the, uh, reallocate money to the fund. It does not change the stormwater bylaw. It does not put anything in place other than a fund.

7:29 We just voted Article 10, stormwater Construction to four for $400,000. The majority of this funding goes to the town’s. MS four permit requirements, catch basin cleaning, street sweeping education, investigations of water quality, stormwater management plan, and the illicit discharge and detection program.

7:53 The remaining money in each year’s construction article is saved until there is enough to fund a capital improvement project. Completed since 2020. Included the outfall head wall repair at 2 97 Ocean Ave, the drainage system extension at Pleasant Street from Besson Street to Village Street, and the redirection of drainage from Elm Street to the new drainage system that was installed on Spring Street in 2019. However, the list of capital improvement plan is long and the total of these project estimates to date is over $4 million.

8:32 Also included in the capital improvement plan are the many outfalls that require repair. The stormwater system is like other utilities, an old system and is in need of upgrades with a value that far exceed the construction article.

8:49 Historically, Marblehead votes an override for drainage pro projects roughly every 10 years. And we are on track for another override request for capital improvements. The support for the drainage upgrades is always appreciated, but this model puts the town at risk

9:09 drainage projects preventing flooding and the undermining of streets due to the stormwater pipes that have failed.

9:17 Oh, that’s the risk, sorry. Overrides. Leave a great uncertainty and if not approve, push critical projects further out into the future. One answer to this issue is to investigate a stormwater enterprise fund. Tonight is the first step in developing the stormwater enterprise. The investigation development, public engagement and approval of this stormwater enterprise would take at least a year. This article is the first step in that process.

9:49 This article, slow solely establishes the fund and a vote does not allocate any revenue to initiate it, nor does it change any of the current storm water division procedures. It simply sets up the ability to start receiving revenue. Should the town approve a storm water enterprise fund in the future by approving this law, the town, um, once again by approving this article, the town once again would show support for stormwater utility systems. Show the desire for the DPW to further investigate the workings and benefits of a stormwater enterprise. An enterprise fund would negate the need for overrides every 10 years

10:34 and allow the capital investments to be planned and funded on a steady timeline.

10:41 What happens next? A yes vote only creates a fund. It does not allocate revenue to it. The Public Works Department would initiate and complete a stormwater stormwater enterprise study. A cost analysis of the needs of the stormwater system would be completed. A utility plan would be developed a review of the many variations on the potential fees structures for this funding of stormwater division. A rate study review would give recommendations on how to establish suggested fees and ensure fairness for marble head residents. Public engagement meetings would be held to review and comment on the program and the fee structure along the way. Later steps would be presentations of stormwater programs and rate studies would be presented to the select board

11:26 and the finance committee. If approved the select board and the finance committee, there would be a final presentation, which would be a fu a future town meeting where it must be approved by you, the residents.

11:40 Thank you Amy.

11:45 Seeing no speakers. Uh, we’ll go to the vote on Article 36 oh Oh Jack. Oh,

11:54 Mr. Dearborn. Name and address please. James Dearborn. 17 Summer Street. I was curious, you, you said there’s $400,000 allocated this year and there have been in the past years. It’s actually, it dates all the way back to early 2000 when I was on finance committee. But I was wondering you, the money that was allocated that we don’t spend every year, the 400,000, we never probably spend all the way up to 400,000. Whether that, that rather than having that lapse could be dedicated to this new fund as, as, as the beginning of the fund. And I, I mean, I support the fund. I just think there’s a way you can start to fund it right away.

12:35 Right. And that would be reviewed in that first year. How to start to collect revenue in the fund. ‘cause there will be a transition time. However, we do have a long capital improvement, um, request and we do have a lot of flooding that we need to issue. So we still are collecting that extra money that’s left after we meet our permitting requirements and we’re gathering it together and then doing a project.

13:01 Thank you Mr. Jordan. Um, I’m opposed of this. Albert Jordan 64 Roosevelt Avenue. I, I don’t want to set up any more enterprise funding because what happens here, you know, we have the electric light, the water and sewer, the rates are going up. We have no control over that. They have hearings on ‘em. You’re gonna have to start going to all those meetings. They’re gonna just spend money, add a lot more people. I, this is why I come to town meeting. If you say things need to be done, I voted to have a roof on the Mary alley, a roof on the high school heating systems air condition. I want to know where my money’s going. I want to leave it the way it’s been. I don’t want to create any more jobs. ‘cause what’s gonna happen here, enterprise funding, we’re gonna add more employees 12 months a year,

13:48 and you’re gonna find out they’re gonna need more. This is, you’re just opening the door to another enterprise funding. Salem and Swamps skit don’t have enterprise funding on their water and sewer. Water and sewer has a huge amount of help because it’s enterprise funding and you don’t have a say in it. So you, you’re paying for it. So you’re gonna open the door and your taxes are gonna stay the same and you’re gonna be paying another fee when they create this. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Jordan. Yes sir. Name and address? Allen. Allen Waller, 1 59 Atlantic Avenue. I hear the term fee used. Now, is this fee gonna be superimposed on the water and sewer commission? It’s on water and sewer bills or how, what is the proposal? How is the, what, what sort of fee

14:34 and how is it gonna be apportioned? So right now the storm water division has been moved to the DPW. So it’s under the select board. Uh, we would review where the enterprise fund, who would be the best board to watch that. It can remain where it is. Um, you will have more say in what happens in the stormwater because there’ll be a, a yearly rate study, just like there is at water and sewer, which I would suggest everyone attend. They’re generally on June. The last week in June. Stormwater would be the same. It wouldn’t be done at a meeting. It would be a rate study every year that you would come to. And it would just be to discuss what your capital improvement plans are for your drainage, what kind of funding you need for the drainage,

15:20 and, um, how the fee structure would change if it does change at all. Well, with respect, that sounds like a non-answer. Okay. Ask the question again. I’m sorry. What, what, what fee, how are the fees gonna be apportioned? Where, how are you gonna do this? Is it Gonna, so that’s what the year study is about. This is just To see if people are, is be an is Mr. Waller? Yes. So your, your questions will go through me please. And if she’s speaking, I’d like you to let her speak. Please. Alright, Amy. So currently there are, there are three fee structures that people look at, uh, throughout Massachusetts. There’s one that is just a flat fee. That’s the easiest. There’s one that is called a unit fee.

16:06 That would be, and these are all things that have to be investigated. That would be a residential unit where, uh, I don’t know how they exactly set that one up. And the last would be an impervious service, uh, surface fee. So that one’s a lot more intricate, and I don’t know if that one is the best for Marblehead, since if you have a lot of land in Marblehead, you most likely have the ability to pay more for a fee than someone who’s on a smaller, tighter lot in downtown. So those would all be things that would have to be addressed. And, you know, I, I look forward to putting these, having a lot of meetings and having a lot of discussions about whether to do this or not. But we do, we have, and Marblehead has always supported the drain system, um, with the overrides. But you know, the $4 million overrides every 10 years is,

16:54 it does become nerve wracking and you really can’t plan, it’s very difficult to put a five year capital plan in place when you’re waiting for an override. Thank you. Albert Jordan, 64 Roosevelt Avenue. I just, I I know they do this in other towns and everyone’s, you get a water and sewer bill. Now, most towns and cities that have, are doing this, they come and measure your property and you’re getting sent another bill separately from your tax bill. And the bigger your piece of property is in the runoff and everything, you’re gonna be paying another bill. You’re people are gonna have to collect that. People are gonna have, you know, you’re gonna hire more people. A lot of it’s gonna be administration and everything.

17:42 I I wanna leave it on the tax rate. You get to deduct some of your taxes sometime. I wanna leave it the way it is. Um, they can study it all the way they want. I do not want to create, I want to get rid of enterprise funding in Marblehead. We, we, we should look at some of these other towns around and they don’t look, look at Salem Water and sewer and, and look at Lynn. Lynn has enterprise funding. Look at the number of personnel that they have. Uh, I I’m just saying to you, opening a whole other door, if you want to get another bill, vote for this. Your taxes are gonna say the same. The money will probably go to the schools and you’ll have another bill to pay and they’ll say your taxes didn’t go up. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Jordan. Yes, sir. Good name And address. 29 Birch

18:27 Street in Marble. Uh, Tyler Haynes. Um, so to clarify, the difference here is, um, with the override that we, that we approved this year, even, uh, for $400,000, that’s essentially spread equally throughout the town, uh, the taxes. Whereas the enterprise fund allows us to, uh, look at it and share it in a proportional way to people’s property or whatever else, uh, whatever other mechanism we decide. Is that correct? Right. So the theory behind it is that you look for a more equitable way to share the cost. Thank you. Okay. Seeing how we have no more speakers, uh, we’re gonna go to the vote on Article 36, stormwater Enterprise Fund.

19:15 If you favor the article, use your green yes button. If you oppose, use the red no button. 32nd voting starts now.

19:57 Article 36 passes 266 to one 18. Article 37, rescind prior acceptance of General Law Chapter 31, section 58, A age limits of police. The articles moved. Do I have a second? Thank you. Chief Dennis King. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Dennis King, chief of Police. I’m asking the town, um, to vote to approve this article, which would eliminate the age restriction for hiring police officers only not firefighters. Right now, the upper age limit is 31 years old or younger as of the last date to apply for an examination, Marblehead is only one of 17 communities with this age restriction.

20:44 So a little bit why, uh, I’m asking for this, uh, consideration. Recruiting and retaining police officers is very challenging right now. People interested in becoming police officers, um, is at its lowest in decades. On average, Marblehead has between 20 and, uh, 12 and 20 residents that take the exam each year. And I want to be able to pick from all of these residents. Currently, there’s only seven residents that are on the list for civil service residency in Marblehead. I should be able to ba base my recommendations to the select board for hiring police officers based on all positive attributes, skills, abilities, while also giving them credit for life experience and professional development they’ve had before.

21:30 Becoming an officer, a social worker, a teacher, an IT specialist, or someone coming from another department all come with skills applicable to policing that we could draw from the last two hiring cycles. I had excellent candidates that were just over the age restriction. And I’m not saying that either one of them, one of them would’ve been hired, but I think having several qualified candidates to choose from is the way to move forward. This generation of workers are much more adept and agreeable to changing careers. 32 year careers are just not the norm anymore in policing. I’ve lost two young officers in the last couple years, uh, to resignation, which years ago would’ve never happened.

22:17 We invest a lot in these officers and if I can get someone that gives the town 20 plus years of quality service, even if they are a little older to start, that’s a real, that’s realistic and a win. Having an age restriction on hiring a police officer to me doesn’t have any of the value. Um, and it reduces my hiring pool. That’s why I’m asking you to eliminate that age restriction.

22:43 Thank you, chief King. Uh, without,

22:53 without seeing any speakers, we’re gonna go to the vote on Article 37. If you favor the article, use your green yes button. If you oppose, use the red no button. 32nd. Voting starts now.

23:38 Article 37 is a vote that passes 375 to 14. Article 38 building permit fees. The article is moved. Do I have a second? Thank you. Patrick Keer, town Administrator. Thank you Mr. Moderator. Good evening again. Um, I’m actually gonna touch on the next four, uh, warrant articles in my brief description. Uh, articles 38 and 39 do the same thing. 38 changes. Uh, who adjusts the fees, uh, setting of fees for building permits? 39 is for electrical permits. The goal of these of 38 39 is to, uh,

24:24 get through town meeting much more quickly. And the way we’re gonna do that is if 38 and 39 are accepted, that rather than town meeting having to deliberate on the setting of those fees, that the select board would be the body that sets the fees for building permits and electrical permits after a public hearing. That’s, that’s an important component. So what that means is when the select board would meet to, to make decisions on the fees, not only would they post the meetings as they normally do, they would have to advertise for a public hearing in advance so that it’s well, well publicized

25:10 that they’re looking at making fee adjustments. Part of the reasons we want to do this is we have a whole number of fees that take a lot of, uh, analysis and assessment for, for adjusting. We, we wanna do it in a more systematic way rather than once a year, just throwing it out at town meeting. So that’s 38 would allow the select board to do the building permit fees. 39. The electrical fees. If 38 39 are to pass the 40 and 41, we’re asking you to change the fees. If 38 and 39 passed, we will ask for the next two to be indefinitely postponed and therefore all all forwar articles be done in a flash.

25:56 Thank you.

26:00 Thank you, Mr. Keer. Mr. Buuba name and address please. Jack. Jack Buuba five Palmer Road. I’d like to say that I’m not in favor of making the fees less visible. And since we’re gonna be talking about setting the fees in a and he brought all four articles together, I would like to ask administrative Keer how he arrived at the fees that are proposed. Should his articles not prevail, reminding him that state law says that fees cannot generate revenue. They can only be used to cover the cost of providing the service from the fee. So since we already have a building inspector and then we come in

26:45 and say, I need you to inspect my building. What is the extra cost involved of having the building inspector inspect the building since that’s his job? So if you could explain to us how you came about that, and please do not tell me that we called the other cities and towns and got a number and we’re less than them. So we’re, okay. You need to tell us that you came up with this fee by some rationale that says there is an extra cost involved to provide the service from the fee and that you calculated that and that fee goes only to that part of the service, not to covering what should be covered in our taxes. Thank you,

27:28 Mr. Just ano another note. Folks, for some reason it hasn’t happened much until t today all the conversation goes through the Moderator. Sorry, Mr. Moderator, please ask. No Administrator Keer, thank You. Just, it, it, it’s just not that back and forth is all I’m saying. No, thank you. You’re entirely right. I apologize for Thank you. Just a note, Mr. Keer. Sure. Happy to answer that. So, um, municipalities primarily, uh, cover the cost of doing the business of, of running the municipality through, uh, raise through property taxes collected in order to pay for the functions that it’s performing. And in certain instances, it’s allowed to collect fees, uh,

28:13 to cover the costs of doing those functions fees, doing the fees amounts, any amounts no that are collected. Please let Him finish. All right, I will just come back to me. Thanks. Any, any amounts collected in fees reduces the burden on the taxpayer side. And those functions that are covered by fees are those that are voluntarily, the residents are voluntarily engaging in the function that needs to be done. So the example of building permits, building permit fees only apply to those people who choose to take on a project of improvements to their property, which in involves the building department to do its inspections, compliance follow up and such.

29:00 So, so that’s why those functions are allowed by fees. So one of the things we want to do in, in those functions that have fees is to try to determine how much of the cost of performing the entirety of the function. Think of it as a, as a business unit. So we wanna set the fees that cover the entire cost of performing those functions. And like a business, it’s not just the salaries, it’s the other expenses. There’s overhead, um, all all those things that we can account for as to what should be covered by the, by the fees in reference to, um, looking at other municipalities, we want to do that also. So the first step in the process is looking at what’s the

29:47 total cost to provide those functions of inspecting, um, projects and such that, that folks are voluntarily engaging in Determine what a fee, appropriate fee that would cover the entirety of that function. And then we look at what the other municipalities are charging because we wanna make sure that we’re in the, the same realm of the other municipalities. So if we determine that the entirety of the cost of those functions caused us to triple the fees to actually cover the cost, we would take a step back and say that’s, that’s gone too far. We’re gonna maintain the fees in the norm of

30:35 what municipalities are charging, knowing that it’s not gonna cost the entirety of the function and the taxpayers will have to pick up the balance. So the goal is to the extent possible, have fees cover the cost of performing those certain functions in order to take the burden off of the taxpayers who are paying for it, whether they’re doing projects or not. That’s the key. Okay? And we want the fees to be adjusted to be both as much of the cost coverage, but also be reasonable compared to what other municipalities are doing. So that’s how we intend to, to, uh, determine and set the Fees as a, as a follow up, Mr. Moderator, within my two minutes, I would let ask

31:22 administrator Keer the fact that he left out the word extra in all of his cost. He said, we take the total cost of the person providing the service and then we figure out what it costs for that. That is not only wrong, it’s illegal if you already have a person here to provide the service, you can only charge for what’s above and beyond that service. So for instance, if we had a building inspector under your, and nobody applied for a permit all year, we wouldn’t collect enough money to pay his salary. Certainly that’s not true. So we already pay his salary and the fee is for the extra and you can’t justify the extra, which is illegal. I’m pretty sure this will pass, but keep in mind that I’ll be coming

32:09 after these fees through freedom of information and lawsuits as we move forward. So please explain the extra cost. E-X-T-R-A. Thank you. Thank you. So as I said at the beginning, it’s not just the salary cost of the personnel. There are expenses for the department. Uh, there are vehicles, there are, there’s test equipment, there are other things that are part of the cost of running that function. And to run it like a business, you have the facility cost your overhead cost like any business. So, uh, the fees would have to be justified to be associated with the function.

32:55 Um, this is what all the municipalities do. Again, they don’t know we wanna be able through this. There are already fees performing to do this. So what these two warrant articles are doing are just asking the select board to determine the fees after a public hearing in order to set fees to allow us present and set fees. So what you’re concerned about, in a sense, the operations already exist. We’re not creating something new, we’re just determine who’s gonna review and make that decision. In regard to your concerns about us overreaching,

33:38 we share that concern. As I said, we do an analysis to determine what fees would cover the entirety of the cost, legitimate cost of the function. You’re using the word extra. I’m not what the Loss says. No. That that cover the function and then compare it to what other municipalities are doing so that we’re not over what the norm is for, for these type of functions. One last point, Mr. Moderator for my last 30 seconds. What you just heard was the very elaborate filibuster. The the law clearly says a fee is for the extra cost. He had the chance to define that twice. And through Mr.

34:24 Moderator, I would say that I felt unsatisfied in his answer because he keeps going back to the total cost is divided by blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. The real solution is he doesn’t have an answer because they don’t calculate the cost that way. And we’re gonna put an end to that. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Uba. Mr. Jordan, Albert Jordan, 64 Roosevelt Avenue. Um, I have a question, but first I’m gonna make a comment. I’m in favor of this. Um, I would like to know the last time these fees went up because what’s, what he’s trying to do since I’ve been going to the selectman meetings is a lot of these fees, I believe haven’t gone up for five or 10 years. And you know what? A dozen eggs have gone up in the last year.

35:10 We bought a $70,000 truck last night for the, uh, building inspector’s office. We bought them another new car last year. This is to recoup The people That are using these services on a regular basis. I had a new heating system put in, I had to get a plumbing inspector down there. Um, the fire department inspects smoke alarms. This is to bring the fees on a regular basis to the cost of providing the service and it’s gonna save the taxpayers money. So I, I’m in favor of this altogether. We should have done it a long time ago. The last two town administrators should have been doing this. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Jordan. Uh, one more speaker over in the middle, please. Yes, sir. Name and address. Richard Whitehill eight Amherst Road.

35:56 I want to apologize to the people in the front of the room who’ve been trying to answer questions because I think town meeting is supposed to have a certain amount of respect. And what I heard from the gentleman to my right when he’s spelling a word as if you’re a second grader, I thought was very disrespectful. And I’m sorry that we had to sing it.

36:28 Yes, sir. Good evening, Jack and fellow marble headers. Uh, this, I’m Mike Ney from West Orchard Street. Hasn’t there been an automatic increase since the cost of the projects? The labor and materials has already gone up?

36:45 I can answer. No. So the fees are, are, well, there are two kinds of fees. One is based on a, uh, dollar amount per thousand of the value of the project. So for example, it’s $15 per thousand for a comprehensive permit. So that’s, uh, your larger projects. And then there are set dollar fees for individual, um, things that are being done. If you’re just putting in a new water heater, there’s a specific fee to do that, which we did adjust last year. We did a $20 increase for all those individual fees, which was the first fee increase I i in years and years and years. Um, so those, that, that’s how it goes.

37:33 So as the increase in the cost of construction goes up, the $15 per thousand will, will generate more revenue. But we also wanna look at the rate per thousand that we’re charging for, for projects. ‘cause for one thing, building codes are changing continuously. So there’s, they’re just becoming more complex and more involved, uh, as time goes on. So we wanna do the analysis to, to, to stay current and how those fees are applied. Thank you. So, so you want it at both ends? You want the rate to go up and the amount to go up? We we’re, we’re ultimately paying it as homeowners and this is a well kept tower, so

38:20 I don’t think I’d be before this. Thank you. Thanks. Next speaker. Name and address, please. Dan Rosen, 31 Lee Street. So I just wanna go back to Jack’s question. So in total, how much do you project in raising for the, uh, building fees for next year? For example, just so we have a sense of like how much cost we’re covering. So let me just, I’ll, I’ll let Alicia give the answer. To be clear, 38 39 is not changing the fees. It’s just moving the authority to set the fees to the board. The next two would change the fees to your question. So I, I understand. But You can, you could share that, you could talk

39:05 to those articles if you’d like. Uh, building permit fees are variable. They change year to year, but we’re projecting for next year $1 million for building Permits. And can I ask one more question? How many people work in the building department? What’s The total number and how many trucks do they have? A million dollars Seems like a lot to cover. There’s only a couple build isn’t there only one building inspector in one Truck on The county. Seven employees in the, in the building commissioner’s office. Okay, Thank you.

39:39 Okay. Seeing no other questions, uh, we’re gonna go article 38. We’re gonna go to a vote. Uh, if you favor the article, use your green yes button. If you oppose, use the red, no button. 32nd voting starts now.

40:27 38 is a vote and it passes. 294 to 1 27. Article 39. Mr. Kezer, do you think you conveyed your message from Article 38 to 39? Yeah, I’ll see. I’m sorry. Hold on one second. The article is moved. Do I have a second? Thank you, Mr. Keer. So Article 39, same as 38. 38 was the building. And, uh, permit fees 39 are the electrical permits. They’re, they’re different parts of the bylaws, so that’s why they’re two separate warrant articles. Thank you seeing no speakers. We’re gonna go to a vote. Article 39, electrical installation fees. Um, if you favor the article, use your green yes button.

41:13 If you oppose, use the red no button. 32nd voting starts now.

41:50 Article 39 passes of yes. 3 0 1, no, 111. Um, I know a lot of people have come in since my opening remarks and we’re gonna have a couple of, um, because we just took those two votes, now the sponsor has moved indefinite postponement on the next two. Um, I want to reread something because it’s great that we’ve had more people come in and thank you very much. Um, you will hear main motions for indefinite postponement tonight. That decision of indefinite postponement comes from the sponsor of the original article in the warrant, and it is their wish to indefinitely postpone. So the pers the, the person or the entity that brought the business to the meeting is now calling for indefinite po postponement. I was moving through some of them quickly last night

42:38 and it cut some people off guard, seeing how more people have come in. I wanted to reiterate that point. I’ll look for speakers, but I’m gonna keep, keep the meeting moving. Um, also article 52 is amend bylaws for a recall provision. It’s a significant bylaw change, and there’s a lot of words in it. In the back corner of the, of the room. At that table, the entire, uh, proposed bylaw is, is, uh, printed out. So if you want to grab a copy of that and read about it before we get to article 52, you’ll be better informed. Article 40. Um, now we have an, uh, uh, main motion for indefinite postponement for building permit fees. Uh, seeing nobody getting up, uh, as many

43:27 as favor, indefinite postponement for Article 40. Use your green yes button if you oppose, use the red no button. 32nd voting starts now.

44:11 The motion passes 360 7 to 34

44:20 Article 41.

44:29 We just need to type the new amendment in or the new motion in. And while it’s happening, um, can we have a round of applause for our IT department? And Gretchen, who’s been typing everything in on the fly, it’s her first year doing it, and she’s been amazing to work with. Article 41, uh, electrical installation. In electrical installation. We have a main motion for indefinite postponement. If you favor the article, use your green yes button. If you oppose, use the red no button. 32nd voting starts now.

45:09 Thank you.

45:38 Article 41 passes of a vote of 379 to 32. Article 42 cemetery perpetual care trust fund transfer. The article is moved. Do I have a second? Thank you. Um, Alicia, good evening, Benjamin, finance Director. Good evening. I met with two cemetery commissioners, Jerry Tucker and Dave Rogers on capital items that they wanted to fund. Um, they’re, I’m proposing 80,000 from their Perpetual Care Trust fund for these capital items, uh, whether they use them or not, it will stay there for the cemetery. If they decide they don’t want to use them, we can always rescind them, but they will always belong. Well, money will always belong to the cemetery.

46:24 Thank you. Yes, rose, welcome. Uh, Rose McCarthy, uh, het Street. Uh, I wanted to speak on, uh, this article 42 because perpetual care is money that’s been given by people, uh, citizens of the town for their loved ones. Lots to be taken care of, and it’s really like a private account. And it follows on the second page of Article 43 asking for more money, but the personal care of people’s lots at waterside. This, this article is a personal

47:11 and it shouldn’t be in here asking for money for capital. The same things are being asked for capital needs and maintenance. And, uh, if you see 43, it has the same list of things. I hope all the citizens will really think about voting for this and a vote no on it because it is something personal of families who given the money to the cemetery to take care of their loved one’s Grave lots. Thank you. Thank you, rose.

47:49 Okay, article 42, we’re gonna go to a Vote Cemetery Perpetual Care Trust Fund transfer. If you favor the article, use your green yes button. If you oppose, use the red no button. 32nd voting starts now.

48:37 Article 42 passes of a vote of 317 to 89. Article 43, cemetery sale of lots, trust Fund transfer. The article is moved. Do I have a second? Thank you. Alicia. Benjamin? Yes, Again, I met with the cemetery commissioners on this, and the proposal is a hundred thousand from the sale of Lots Trust Fund as a transfer again for their capital and operational needs. Uh, they’ve identified quite a few and had extensive meetings with me on the needs. And again, this money stays with the cemetery.

49:11 Thank you. Seeing how no speakers we’re gonna go straight to the book Article. Excuse, excuse Me. Oh, I’m sorry. Oh, Mr. Jordan, Sorry to bother you. Um, Albert Jordan, 64 Roosevelt Avenue. I’m in favor of this. My mother’s up that cemetery. It’s deplorable. No money’s been put into the roads, the drains, the walls are falling apart. Th this money is already in the cemetery’s hands. Um, you know, we have full-time people up there, they can’t do the work. You got a couple new commissioners that are taking on a task of getting the place, uh, looking more presentable. So I appreciate this if you support this article. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Jordan. Seeing no more speakers, article 43, we’re gonna go to a vote. If you favor the article, use your green yes button.

49:58 If you oppose, use the red no button. 32nd voting starts now.

50:35 Article 43 passes of a vote of 391 to 24. Article 44 parking tickets increased fee for snow emergency. The article is moved. Do I have a second? Thank you. Do you have somebody that’s gonna give a brief update on that?

50:57 Aaron Newan chair of the select board. Sorry, everybody, um, uh, Aaron Newan select board. The, this is kind of a redo article, um, right, that might it’s a redo from the home. Yeah, it was, um, originally voted on some time ago, um, but never went through the full home rule, um, process for some reason years ago. So, um, it’s just kind of a, a redo and it increases the fees during, um, snow removal. Thank you Mr. Buuba. Hi, quick. Oh, are you good, Aaron? Quick question. Mr. Moderator for Aaron before she leaves through the moderator. Thank you. Jack Buuba five Palmer Road. Uh, I’m wondering if you could explain, since we already voted for this, a little more about

51:44 how it fell through the crack and whose job it’s gonna be this time to actually make sure it gets to the legislature and gets through. Thank you. The, um, so to Mr. Bupa’s point, um, the legislate Sure. The, at the state level never got to passing it, is my understanding. Was it, excuse me, Mr. Moderator, the question would be is was it submitted? Yes. Yes. Then Mr. Moderator, when it got submitted, whose job was it to watch and see that it got finished? It goes through a process that winds its way through, ultimately a signature from the governor’s desk. I, I understand that’s what home rule Petition is. It goes to the representatives of the, um, it goes

52:31 to our state senator and state representative that for them to then submit to the, uh, chambers that they submit it to, um, at the state level. It goes through legal counsel at the state level and different changes comes back for changes to the town. Um, and then, uh, ultimately it requires the vote of the full legislator. Legislator. Okay. Last question. How’s this not gonna happen again?

53:00 I, I, we, I, I mean, I don’t, it’s not something that we have control over the process of how it winds through the state, uh, Senate and the House, or ultimately the Governor’s desk. It’s not something that, it’s just a process by which home rule petitions go. Thank you. Article 44 parking tickets. We’re gonna go to a vote. Uh, as many as favor the article. Use your green yes button if you oppose. Use the red no button. 32nd voting starts now.

54:02 Article 44 passes of to, uh, 3 83. Yes. 47, no. Article 45, uh, zoning bylaw by adding provisions for the storage of fishing gear and lobster traps. I have a motion for indefinite postponement and I’ve been informed that the lobstermen of Marblehead will be back with a revised motion next year. Again, article is moved for indefinite postponement. Uh, do I have a second? Thank you. Yes, Mr. Sullivan. Hi. Sean Sullivan Village Street. Uh, also a lobsterman, lobster fisherman here in town. And, uh, just want to reiterate what Jack said, that, uh, we’re unanimously in supportive of indefinite postponement. For this, we’d like to continue, uh, what we’ve been doing in this town for 400 years

54:48 and what our Town Seal has a fisherman on. So, uh, we’d like you to support indefinite postponement of this article. Thank you.

54:59 Thank you Sean. Uh, article 40 45 for indefinite postponement. We’re gonna go to a vote. If you favor the article, use your green yes button. If you oppose, use the red no button. 32nd voting starts now.

55:44 Article 45, passes of a vote of 418 to 13. Article 46, appropriate funds for an independent audit. This article has been, uh, main motion for this is indefinite postponement by the sponsor. Moved. Do I have a second? Thank you. Seeing no speakers, we’re gonna go to a vote on the indefinite postponement of Article 46. If you favor the article, use your green yes button. If you oppose, use the red no button. 32nd voting starts now.

56:50 Article 46 passes 405 to 21. Article 47, sustainability Coordinator. I have a main motion from the sponsor for indefinite postponement. The article is moved. Do I have a second? Thank you. Seeing no speakers, we’re gonna go to the vote on Article 47. If you favor the article, use your green yes button. If you oppose, use the red no button. 32nd voting starts now.

57:49 Article 47, passes of a vote of 3 75 to 42. Article 48 residency requirement. This article, uh, has been moved for indefinite postponement by the sponsor. Do I have a second? Thank you. Seeing no speaker, speakers will go straight to the vote on Article 48. If you favor the article, use your green yes button. If you oppose, use the red no button. 32nd voting starts now.

58:51 Article 48 passes three 90 to 29. Article 49, town Meeting Parliamentarian. I have a motion from the sponsor. A main motion for indefinite postponement. The article is moved. Do I have a second? Thank you. Seeing no speakers will go to the vote on Article 49. If you are in favor of the article, use your green yes button. If you oppose, use the red no button. 32nd voting starts now.

59:56 Article 49, passes of a vote of three 80 to 32. Article 51. Town Meeting Consideration on procedure, oh, I’m sorry, on my first mess up. I think Article 50 placed on the proposition two and a half on, on ballot. Uh, the article is moved. Do I have a second? Thank you Mr. Ville. How you guys doing? You hear me? Sorry. I apologize for my attire. I literally came directly from soccer practice to be here, so, uh, sure. Thank you. A little taller than other people. Um, so what does Article 50 do? Um, I actually had five questions from the current,

1:00:41 and I’m just gonna basically read the questions the current asked me from Lee Blander and kind of give you a perspective on why I actually put this article forward. So what would your citizen petition do? The petition advises but does not mandate that the select board place all tax overrides whether debt exclusions or general overrides on the ballot exactly as they were presented on town meeting. This allows voters to approve and reject each override individually rather than being able to be forced to accept bundled items. The goal is to encourage the select board to present overrides in a menu format that reflects the approval of town meeting. Uh, what prompted me to file this petition? The petition gives voters more control to ensure they can improve override expenditures. They support without having to accept others. They oppose what would be the benefit to the town.

1:01:28 This approach increases transparency and gives voters clear choices when deciding on tax overrides. Uh, who do you think would be opposed to this and why? Honestly, I expect, I expect little opposition, but we’ll find out tonight. The petition simply asks the select board to present the tax overrides as they were originally discussed on town meeting and prevents unrelated items from being bundled together. This promotes transparency and voter choice. Anything else you want the voters to know? Transparency is crucial. Each override should stand on its own so that advocates can present their projects without being overshadowed by unrelated items. The simplest way to think about this is if next year there was an override for $2.5 million for fire trucks and public safety on night one. And then god forbid we don’t have another four night

1:02:16 extravaganza, but like three nights later, there’s a a half a million dollars for a gazebo. I’m simply asking the select board to present the articles as they were presented in town meeting and allow the voters to vote on them yes or no on each related article. That doesn’t mean they can’t come. This isn’t a menu override where each individual item, it’s just simply if an article has a bunch of items together, that’s one article. If 16, 16 articles later, there’s a bunch of other items that have totally no relation to it. That’s a separate article. I yield my time. Thank you. Thank you, John. Um, just so everybody’s aware, this is an advisory motion as town meeting doesn’t have the authority to direct this, the select board in this instance. So it’s advisory to the select board,

1:03:02 but again, it’s the citizen’s, right? For the motion to be Heard. And he has been speakers, Mr. Jordan, Albert Jordan, 64 Roosevelt Avenue, a hundred percent in favor of this, it’ll benefit the taxpayers and it’ll also let the taxpayers make a choice if they want to approve everything for certain things. So I hope you support this. I support it a hundred percent. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Jordan. Mr. Michoud, Jay Misho. Uh, I live at 25 Ocean Avenue, the house that has the big white lawn on ‘em in front of it. Uh, don’t stop me. I’m going off of the subject by the way. I’m in favor of this. Uh, I just want to say in front

1:03:49 of the town meeting that without a doubt, our moderator has earned his a hundred dollars this year. That’s absolutely remarkable. You’re out of order. Mr. Micho.

1:04:05 Thank you. Thank you. Um, article 50, placement of Proposition two and a half in the ballot. Oh, we have another speaker? Yes sir. Name and address please. Steven Levy, 26 Sagamore Road. Marblehead. Uh, I like this bill. I don’t like this bill because it’s Thursday. I been, I was here Monday. The town meeting is long enough. If it’s too long, nobody’s gonna come. So I don’t wanna make the town meeting any more complicated. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Dip Pano. Thank you Mr. Moderator. John Dip Panos six Dragger Road. Um, other than, uh, uh, the three A I think this is an excellent idea.

1:04:52 Uh, the, um, I would, I would however, like to be hear from the select board. Uh, maybe the chair could speak as to why, um, with respect to the transparency and the line items and having the, the, the greater, um, in, uh, the greater, um, in involvement of the community at Lodge. Why wouldn’t they not want to do this?

1:05:18 Aaron Nunan Select board chair. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Uh, so the select board hasn’t had this, um, come up as a discussion item. We’re not opposing it. It’s, um, I don’t know what else to say on it. We haven’t discussed it.

1:05:35 Thank you. Okay. That’s part the problem. Um, yes. Mrs. Keeny? Yes. Uh, uh, Renee Ramirez, Keeny Beverly Avenue. And just, uh, one of my concerns that I would be thinking through about this, uh, maybe a potential problem. It, it sounds a little bit like creating a, a financial cafeteria menu in, in, in a sense for taxpayers if we’re talking about picking and choosing. And only around 30% of households have children in school and we have an aging population with seniors on fixed income. So understanding the needs of schools, uh, may be harder for them. They don’t see that the school trash cans catching rain.

1:06:25 And I’m wondering, are there enough seniors to vote for school needs? Then we have, if you’re looking at public safety, you know, we sometimes have voters who see cruisers parked at the station and think, that looks to me like, uh, there’s plenty of coverage hanging around and I haven’t used fire in police service for years. So I think we’re okay there. Are there enough informed voters to understand public safety needs? I’m just saying you could go through a list of, uh, items, uh, that we as individuals decide to fund. It’s kind of like deciding if you do it this way, I’m, I’m just a little concerned that, you know, it’s kind of like deciding what charity you’re gonna donate

1:07:10 to this month with limited funds. It could be problematic for us if we want a functioning town government. I don’t know. I’m just asking the questions. We have more, uh, transparency around financial matters than we’ve had in the past and it’s getting even better. There are plenty of opportunities to be in person or zoom into meetings that we can take advantage of year round to check on boards, try to understand the realities of what department heads and workers are dealing with. We can make our voices heard. You can even volunteer to serve. So I just would like to, I wanna make sure my preference is for voting as one community. So, uh, that’s just my, what I’m thinking about on this.

1:07:56 Thank you. I I appreciate that. I just wanna clarify, this is not a menu override. We’re not taking an article and cutting it apart. So if there was like a firetruck and like a a bunch of, if, if police and firefighter wanted to get together and present one article, that’s totally fine. We’re just saying that if an article is presented in town meeting and then an article is presented in town meeting later, that has nothing to do with it. That you we’re advising the select board to give the voters the same choice you gave the town. That’s all. And again, this is advisory from town meeting to the select board. So, so debating how, how proposition two and a half overrides get put on a ballot

1:08:41 is sort of not in context with what’s being said, uh, or what’s in the motion in the middle please. Hi, Samantha Rosado three Martin Terrace. Um, maybe the question was just answered, but I just wanted to be sure. Uh, I believe it was 2023. There was an override presented a town meeting and this, uh, schools and town went in together. So when that went on the ballot, it would just go on together as one giant override. It wouldn’t be broken up. ‘cause that’s how it was presented as town meeting. Is that one article. Okay. I just wanted to be clear. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, sir. David Patton, 25 Lee Street. So I’m just trying to understand this again, excuse me,

1:09:35 is essentially this article to put each prop two and a half override that we vote on here on the ballot for the town each year so that it can be then affirmed as something the town at large want to do and therefore affect our tax rate. Is that what This is The, if you read the motion, the motion, the motion is for the town to advise the select board to present proposition two and a half tax override articles to the voters in a ballot in, in single items corresponding to the articles as presented at town meeting. It’s advising the select board to take an action

1:10:23 and it’s up to the select board as to how they want to take that action. Which is, you know, how they, how they, uh, put the articles, uh, onto the ballot, whether, you know, whether they’re together, whether they’re, whether they’re combined, uh, or separated. So, so again, it’s town meeting is giving advice to the select board and making themselves heard that they would like to see this happen. OOO. Okay. So, but the advice that this article would give is that each individual item that had a prop two and a half override element to it would be presented on the ballot as an individual. No, John, you’ll just through me. Alright, thank you. That’s the question I have where I’m trying to understand.

1:11:09 Thank you Mr. Mr. Duwell. Sorry, I wanna clarify. This is, these are all independent articles that are presented at town meeting. So when there’s a debt exclusion override, we voted for two separate debt exclusion overrides during this meeting earlier yesterday. Uh, the first night, those independent debt exclusion overrides will be presented. We’re advising the town, the select board to present those as independent articles when we vote on them. So every time there is a prop two and a half override, whether it’s a general override or or whether it’s a, um, debt exclusion override that has to go to the ballot. What we’re simply advising the select board to do is if articles are presented at town meeting, then that’s the way they’re gonna be presented to the voters as opposed to bundling them together if they’re unrelated. And if you wanna bundle ‘em, you bundle ‘em

1:11:55 as an article in front of everybody and get everybody to prove ‘em. You don’t bundle ‘em separately. I understand. And therefore I support this. Thank you. Thank you. In the middle please. Hi. Um, Margaret Clark, 29 Mulford Street. If I’m not mistaken, the way this is worded, it would imply that if the town meeting turned down a proposition two and a half override that it would still go on the ballot. No, sorry. The way it is written, it does not clearly, uh, exclude those items. I don’t wanna, um, take the power away from the town meeting. That is it deserves. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Buuba. We’re, and we’re gonna wrap this up pretty quick, Mr. Buuba and then Mrs. Flynn. Sure. Jack Buuba five Palmer Road. I just want to add to Mr. Principal’s most excellent presentation that I don’t know

1:12:41 that it’s clear to everyone that the selectmen get to pick and choose how they place the articles on the ballot. So if we vote for five separate things and one passed overwhelmingly, and the other two were really tight, they can bundle those three together and add politics to the mix. And what this tries to do is say no, if we’re gonna vote on ‘em separately at town meeting, we should vote on ‘em separately on the ballot and take the politics out of the selection. Thanks. Thank you Mr. Uba. Mrs. Flynn, um, Pam Flynn, Turner Road and everything. He said Thank you one because Pam was so short. Christine Nuccio. Can I just have a quick question? Christine Nuccio dam’s way. So when we vote the budget, it’s, we vote

1:13:29 by section police fire school. Right? And then we get to the end. So if it was a general override for the town, is it by section or would it be one general override? If it was prop two and a half, not the debt exclusions, would it be one for the entire town or would it be the sections? ‘cause last night we voted for each budget separately.

1:13:55 Um, I’m sorry, I missed the question.

1:14:00 If we presented it as two separate, so if we had one article for school override one article for a town override, it would be separate. If it was co put together, we’re going together, it would be one article.

1:14:12 So what if we’re, what if we voted a budget that was above what we could fund? So in the regular budget, not a separate article, it wouldn’t, it wouldn’t affect that. So that’s not an override. That that a, a proposition two and a half override would be an article that would be presented in town, meaning it would have to get approved by town, meaning, and then potentially there could be a separate article that is a different override, which would also have to be approved by town. Meaning in this meeting this time, there were two separate override articles that came before this body. The first was the roof for the, in the air conditioners for the school. The second was the Mary Allen building, though we are advising the select board and they still have the option to do what they wanna do to present those as two separate articles, uh,

1:14:58 as two separate questions to the voters. ‘cause they were two separate articles. That’s all we’re doing. Okay, I understand that. But those are dead exclusions. I wanna know on a prop two and a half general override how that works. Alright, so if there was a prop two and a half general override, I guess there, ‘cause the money is all going to the, the main event, there would have to be two separate articles. So what, so someone would have to come from the school with a prop two and a half general override. Can you clarify? Yeah. You, you, you just separate them. They always have to be separate debt exclusions always have to be separate from a prop two and a half. But if the police needed more money and the fire department needed more money and the schools needed more money, they could either be three separate prop two and a half overrides or one bundled, depending

1:15:45 Upon only if the articles were presented separately. So if the police, the fire, and the schools got together and presented there’s a town, an override and we all voted on it, then that would be one question. If the school asked for a, an override and then later there was a separate article for Fire and Police, that would be two separate questions. And this is what they do anyway. This is the best practices that the, that the select board has done. We’re just simply advising them to continue to do these best practices and not bundle unrelated items together so that voters have choice. Well, I, it’s the same choice we had in this meeting will be provided to everybody who wasn’t attending this meeting. That’s all. Okay. Many years ago, I remember it being up to the Board of Selectmen deciding whether

1:16:31 or not they wanted to bundle the schools and the town together or separate, but it was left up to the Board of Selectmen to decide how they wanted to handle that. So now you’re saying it will be determined by how the articles are presented in the, in the at town meeting. Is that correct? Do you follow what I’m saying? Yes.

1:16:52 Sorry, what was the question Again? They, but they’ve had a dec the selectmen have had a decision. This is like they’ve always done so. Correct. This is always, this will remain this in in the select board’s purview. Right. This is just giving them advice. Right.

1:17:10 Got it. Because town meeting doesn’t have the authority to tell the elected board what to do operationally in this regard.

1:17:19 I I think there may be some unnecessary confusion here. ‘cause we’re kind of pushing an open door and you’re preaching to the choir a little bit here. I think there’s only been one time in our entire history where an article in town meeting was voted on that was packaged together in a referendum. And I think that’s what this is all about. And you know, only one time has that happened. Mm-hmm. So I, I I think that we’ve been following that, that best practice and there’s no intention at all for the select board to manipulate a combination of a votes or anything else. Mm-hmm. So if you see an article at town meeting that’s voted on, it goes to referendum at the ballot in the same way. And that, that’s what we’ve always done. So. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate, thank you.

1:18:05 Uh, article 50, we are gonna move to the vote placement of proposition two and a half on the ballot advisory. Um, as many as favor the article, use your green yes button if you oppose, use the red no button. 32nd voting starts now.

1:18:49 So I should be,

1:18:59 The article passes 335 to 1 0 2.

1:19:07 Give me one second here, folks.

1:19:21 Thank you. Article 51, town Meeting reconsideration procedure. I have a motion for indefinite postponement from the sponsor. The article is moved. Do I have a second? Thank you. Seeing no speakers, uh, we’re gonna go to a vote. If you favor the article, use your green yes, yes button. If you favor the motion, use your green yes button. If you oppose, use the red no button. 32nd voting starts now.

1:20:25 Article 51 passes 398 to 26. Article 52 Woo.

1:20:37 Article 52 is amend bylaws and a Home Rule Petition for a Recall Provision. The article is moved. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you. Um, I do have, uh, an a, we have an amendment on Argo article 52 as well. We will hear the main motion and deliberate the amendment. Uh, I’m sorry. And deliberate the article, when it’s time to vote, we’ll address the amendment first. If that passes, it will amend the main motion. If not, the main motion will be voted on. Unchanged. Uh, did I get a second on that? Yes. Thank you. Um, Louisa Luisa Boarini.

1:21:24 Hi. Thank you. Um, so I’m gonna read the main motion. Can we help you with the microphone a little bit down. There we go. Wonderful. So, um, just to read the main motion, first Pro. Um, So, uh, um, so the main, the main motion is, is in the handouts. Has everybody had an opportunity to, to see the, the article and the motion, or should we have, um, Ms. Ms. Bini read the article? No, no, we’ve, we’ve got the paper. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay, So this is for, um, an amended bylaw. It’s called a Recall provision. Um, this slide, why don’t we go to the next slide if we can. Okay. So just to understand what this is about.

1:22:12 The definition that recall provision allows voters to remove elected officials from office before the end of their term under specific circumstances. The perfect, the purpose of this is purely to serve as a tool for accountability and to uphold the public trust. It is intended really only for situations in that involve misconduct or breach of duties.

1:22:38 We go to the next one. Okay. Here you can see, um,

1:22:45 a sampling of the towns that have adopted a recall petition. Uh, 150 communities and all have adopted a recall provision Swamp Scott adopted theirs in 2016.

1:23:03 Go to the next one. And the benefits of a recall provision is accountability, providing a mechanism for voters to hold officials accountable between elections. Uh, between elections, uh, the, um, you cannot employ employ a recall provision. Uh, for, for an elected official that has been there less than six months, the elected official has to be there for more than six months, and the term has to be for more than one year. Um, in terms of deterrence, it acts as, as a deterrent against potential misconduct. And it really is, um, a way to empower citizens. Our community to, um, had to have a direct voice in the process, um, of a long,

1:23:48 a longer term official that’s elected. And to raise more awareness

1:23:55 Can go to five. Just to break down the process, a recall provision can be initiated with the signatures of a minimum of 2% of registered voters. The petition must contain the signatures of at least 20% of the registered voters in town. That’s 3,400 signatures. Uh, within 30 days after the petition is issued, signatures are verified by the town clerk and the board of registrars. If verified, a recall election is scheduled within a defined timeframe, and if the majority votes for the recall, the official is removed and the successor is elected. And I’m gonna pass, uh, pass the mic to Mike Fu, who’s gonna continue just a quick presentation.

1:24:41 Thank you. Michael Lou.

1:24:46 Michael Fu Name and address please. Michael Fu 43 Smith Street. Thank you so much. This is Article 52, the last one. I’ll make this, uh, fairly quick. Uh, let’s see. So threshold setting, reasonable signature requirements to prevent frivolous recalls. This is very important. Um, you know, this is a safety mechanism, but we wanna make sure it’s not abused. So getting 3,400 signatures in 30 days is a significant undertaking. Can you recall this room? Just two days, two nights ago, the number of bodies in that room was 1,700 people. Approximately. You would have to go to double that and go face-to-face to get the signatures of each individual person and persuade them to sign a petition.

1:25:34 Again, the bodies in this room, you have to double that number of bodies and get all those individual people to sign an, um, the petition. With that said, I stood outside. I don’t know if you recall the first night handing out, just, you know, little pom cards for this. I barely got one out of 10 people to even take a POM card. So it is on the burden of the petitioner to persuade any voting individual for their signature.

1:26:02 Safety mechanism brings a form of checks and balances to our democracy. By the time you realize you need insurance, it is too late. A car should have seat belts, airbags, child seats. Our bylaws should be no different. Transparency, engagement beyond town meeting. This is a wonderful place town meeting. This is my first, first go at this and it’s amazing. I’ve learned so much participating in this democracy in this town. It, I am so blessed right now to stand here before you. Um, it’s an amazing feeling that I’m trying to make a difference here. And there’s not 1000, even two days ago, this is 1,700 people here, but there was 17,000 other voters in

1:26:49 town that were not here.

1:26:53 And this, you know, the town moderator and the town clerk. This is a huge undertaking. I thank them that they run this, but it only runs once a year. So with that said, I’m talking to you now face to face, not through Zoom, not through Facebook, not through social media. I’m talking to you face to face, which makes a huge difference. The petitioners will be out if there is a concern face to face with the public.

1:27:23 And remember, Marblehead is quite unique. It is only 4.4 square miles. Petitioners might be your neighbors, people you see at Crosby’s or the community center. If there’s truly a serious concern worthy of 3,400 signatures, the public will be engaged by the petitioners. And whether they agree or not, they will begin asking questions they did not know To ask empowerment voters decide. Lastly, to reiterate, and I’m gonna end this soon. The 3,400 signatures itself is not a conviction. If obtained, it leads to an election, which the official under the recall can run it. They have a chance to speak their side and public discourse. The voters get to hear what’s going on.

1:28:09 This ultimately puts the choice and power back into the hands of the voters. I urge you to vote yes to enhance transparency. Vote yes to bring accountability to our democratic process, and most importantly, vote yes to empower you and the collective 17,000 registered voters of Marblehead. Thank you.

1:28:37 Thank you, Michael. Um, let’s go to the microphone over here please. Hi, I am Rebecca Kenley seven Arnold Terrace. Um, this seems like a good idea. I just had a question. If someone could speak to what happens with the, uh, candidates that would take the place of the person recalled, how does that process work? It seemed like 30 days might be quick to get somebody as a, as a candidate to fill in for the other person. And, and what’s the process of becoming a candidate to fill in for the recalled person? Does that make sense? Yes. So, uh, let me look it up real quick. Um, sorry, I gotta get the actual, that That part was under number 11 on the, on the handout.

1:29:23 Yeah. So obviously there would be other candidates that would run. I’m, I’m assuming that when, um, a recall petition is filed, likely there will be people, you know, that they would want to run. Um, the, the position would be a vacancy and the town probably has provisions for handling vacancies, whether it’s through appoint temporary appointment. Um, but obviously in this case it would be likely, uh, vacant if that was the case and the election would just come up and allow the, the elected winner to take that place. And there is, there could be just a vacancy left that could happen as well. Right. I’m sorry, can you repeat that again? There, There could also just be a vacancy if there is no one

1:30:09 to fill the recalled position. Potentially a temporary vacancy. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Jordan. Yeah, I see what’s going on with the Boston name address, please. City council. I see what’s going on with the Name and address, please. Sorry. Alvin. Jordan, 64 Roosevelt Avenue. I see what’s going on with the city council in Boston. I see what’s going on with the mayor over in Everett. Um, we should have done this a long time ago. These elected officials work for us, and if they’re crooks, we should vote them out. And we don’t worry about having leaving the crook there to spend more and steal more of our money. So I’m a hundred percent in favor of this. Leave the place vacant and then we’ll have a special election and put in someone we can trust, hopefully. Thank You. Thank you, Mr. Jordan.

1:30:54 Mr. Chu, Bill McCue, 38 Gingerbread Hill. This respectfully is an alleged solution looking for a problem. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chu. Mr. Micho, Jay Micha, 25 Ocean Avenue. Told you all that before. When you see the boat in my yard, you know, it’s me. Uh, are we voting on indefinite postponement or are we voting on the motion? Um, So we haven’t gotten to the vote yet. Um, I’ve, I’ve presented the, the main motion. We’re going to deliberate the ame, the, the article. Um, when it comes time to a vote, we’re gonna take the subsidiary motion,

1:31:40 the subsidiary motion to amend first, and then we’ll address the main motion after that. Okay. Thank you for querying that. Clarifying it for me. Hey, have you ever heard of such poppycock? Every year we have a, we, we, we have the opportunity. If we don’t like somebody to vote against them, it’s every single year we have recalls. What the heck are we talking about? We already got it. With that, I’ll go sit next to my wife. Thank you Mr. Miso. Mr. Deano address please? Yeah, thank you Mr. Moderator. John Dano, six Dragon Road question for the, uh, sponsor. Um, I am, I I’m a little unclear on how long a period

1:32:25 of time, uh, you have to get the 2% on the, um, on the, on the, uh, initial, uh, petition.

1:32:35 So, so the article turns into a motion before a town meeting, as you know. And, and that motion can change right up to town meeting as long as it’s within scope. The the change has, the change was made and it’s within scope. It was determined to be within scope of the, of the, um, main art of the main of the article when I approved it. And that’s what was presented tonight. No, no, I’m not, no, I’m, I’m with respect to the issuance of petition For us. Oh, I’m sorry. I’m sorry. I was asking the, the sponsor of the article. I was getting a little defensive. Sorry about that. Oh, I can, well, you do that a lot actually, but, uh, but, but, but, but you, but we recover, sorry. Um, I’m just curious. It doesn’t seem to be clear that how long you had the sponsor of the bill, the, uh, the, uh,

1:33:21 amendment, uh, has to collect that 2%. And then I have a, a comment if 10 days.

1:33:32 So if, if you look at number, it’s upon verification by the Board of registrars that the affidavit contains the signatures of at least 2% of registered voters as of the date of the last town election. No, that’s not my question. How long do you have to collect the 2%? Is it no deadline. Okay, so getting 2% is what? 300 and something Now, uh, that isn’t, that’s not difficult. I’m close to that now. And Sorry, the 2% is just to initiate the recall. So just starting it means that you have to find 300 somewhat people like, you know, three, uh, 2% of the 1700 voters. Sorry, 17,000 voters. No, I understand that. But it’s over an indefinite period of time. Under the, under the way this is written,

1:34:17 This, Is that correct? No, the 20, the 20% is under 30 days. That’s not my Question. To initiate it, To initiate 2% over 30 days, is that, am I, am I reading this right? No, No, no. 2% is, that’s just you, they’re just following affidavit. They would state who they’re recalling and the reason why they want to recall them, and then have that signed by 2%, that that’s under no time have That signed by 2% within which period of time. There is no time limit. There’s no time limit. That’s, that’s one of the issues that I have. So this, so the, moving on to my concern. First of all, let me just say this. I actually agree with a recall provision. I don’t, I don’t think people should just serve without

1:35:04 potential consequence. But I have two problems with the way this is written. First of all, the idea of getting the, not, not even getting to the affidavit creates a lot of political pressure for a candidate. So this can be used to target particular elected officials without ever getting to the actual second level of the 3,100 that you need. That that pressure alone over a period of time can be a form of a coercive force. So I, first of all, I don’t think that in a definite period of time to get that at 2% is fair. We had an election and, and it should, this should not be used as a sword against an elected official, but a shield against misconduct.

1:35:52 Right now, it’s a, in its iteration, I believe it’s a sword against elected officials. And believe me, I agree with you. I don’t always agree with what offic officials do, and I would like to see them not serve. But, but I, that’s, we had an election. That’s my first issue with the, is as written. The second issue I have with it as written is the initial presenter indicated that used the words in, in the, in the, um, I think in the motion to amend potential misconduct. I don’t think we should be removing people for what is, could be a subjective definition. Okay? Misconduct should not be subjective on a, um, on an amendment of this consequence, we’re undoing an election. And so the misconduct for which

1:36:37 the elected official may be recalled, I believe should be specifically defined commission, you know, a conviction of a crime, a breach of fiduciary duty against the town. Not because we didn’t like the way a negotiation came out or the way somebody behaved during a particular issue, right? So those are my comments with respect to this. I agree with the concept. I think we need more work before we get to this point. Thank you. Uh, middle please. Mike Horgan, six Angica terrorists with the, um, conservate with the Charter Commission making a presentation of their night. Is this something they’re already looking into?

1:37:20 Uh, I’m, I’m sorry. Town Charter Commission. Is this something that they’re already looking into to, To put into the charter? Is the town charter committee already looking into this?

1:37:32 I would. I see I believe chair of the Town Charter Committee strolling towards the microphone and Oh, so sorry. Slowly through the moderator. Yes. Um, If, um, uh, we have Amy Drinker in the audience who presented last night. She’s right here. She’s right next, um, Yeah, right here she is, um, one of the co-chairs of the charter committee. So, um, I’d ask that she be allowed to speak to me. Thank you. I’ll let her speak. Amy Drinker. Good evening. Amy Drinker Gregory Street. I’m the chair of the charter committee. The charter committee discussed this article 32, sorry, article 52 at, it’s one of its meetings in April, and there was a consensus that we would not be taking a position on Article 52

1:38:21 because it is the will of town meeting to discuss articles that are brought before it. But I can tell you that the charter committee does have draft language regarding recall in Article 7.5. We were scheduled to discuss that this evening, but our meeting was canceled because we’re still in town meeting. So as I reported last night, the charter committee meetings are always an open session and our next meeting will be posted and our discussion of the language in our draft, a charter will be included in that meeting’s agenda. It’s possible that we’ll be meeting next week, but I haven’t been able to confirm that as of this time.

1:39:09 So the charter committee will be discussing its language, which is different from the language in Article 52, but the content is all relative to recall. Thank you very much.

1:39:28 This microphone over here, please. Uh, Matt Friedman 21 Lorraine Terrace. My quick question is, who is responsible for the cost of this? So if you’re actually gonna start doing recalls and there’s gonna be a financial fee or cost to actually do all of this, who is the burden? Is it gonna be the town’s burden or is it gonna be the burden of the person bringing the recall? If it’s not completed, It would ultimately be the town.

1:39:55 Thank you. Yes, Mr. Moderator, can I respond actually to a previous question? I’m new to this. I didn’t know I could respond. Yes. Uh, before, um, Mr. Dip Pano had asked about, um, basically the indefinite amount of time that it takes to collect those 2%, uh, I’ve looked at many, many provisions. Swamp Scott’s provision actually just needs 25 signatures and that’s it. They can just get 25 signatures and an affidavit, have a notarized, and then start a recall petition right there. We’re requiring 2%, which is 300 to close to 400 signatures. Um, a lot of the recall provisions out, you can go find them. This is very, uh, how do I say it? Best practice governance language. It kind of mirrors what’s mostly out there. Again, there are 300 municipalities minimum

1:40:42 that have recall provisions out of the, I think, uh, sorry I, let me speak correctly, 150, um, municipalities with recall provisions out of like the 350 municipalities. And the other thing is, that was a number from 2002. Um, that was, you know, I don’t have a more updated number because it’s a lot of work to look through that, but just understand that this recall provision actually mirrors Swamp Scotts. And like if you look at Winchesters, if you look at all the ones there, you’ll see that they’re quite similar. Um, the other thing about the recall, the cost of a, an election. I don’t ever want to be in a position to have to do a recall. None of you want to be in a position

1:41:29 to have to ever use this. Again, this is like insurance. You don’t ever want to need to use your insurance like a fire insurance for your house. But if you need it, the cost of a, of an election might be more than well worth it. Um, there’s a lot of things that I want to answer, but at the moment that’s what I have. Thank you. Uh, over here, please. Yes, sir. Name and address? Yes. Uh, good evening, Mr. Moderator, William Wig, 55 Rockaway Avenue. Um, I have just a couple questions and observations. Um, I agree with what Mr. Deano said a moment ago. Um, I was an attorney for 35 years representing municipalities, and some of them had these recall positions.

1:42:15 And I can tell you that they did get abused from time to time, and often it would degenerate into nothing but a cycle of political score settling year after year after year. And they’re expensive and they are divisive. I like what we have here, but I echo what Mr. Deano said. I think that the specific reasons for recall should be expressly stated. For example, conviction of a felony. For example, breach of fiduciary duty to the town, for example, other forms of misconduct, specifically stated as they are. Here it is, uh, it, it doesn’t state that at all. It simply says that you stay the rea you state the reasons for the recall. I’m not comfortable with that.

1:43:02 I like the idea of having this as an insurance policy, but I don’t want to see it get abused here as I’ve seen it abused in other municipalities. Thank you. Thank you. May I respond?

1:43:17 Yes, briefly. Um, just to reiterate, the number of signatures you need is 3,400. To actually list every single possible reason why someone should be recalled would I, I think would be impossible to list every reason. And again, people have to be face to face with this. If somebody is frivol, fri frivolously, um, you know, coming up with reasons that are false, again, it’s going to make the public understand what’s actually going on. That transparency is really important if you have a serious issue, having it brought up to the attention of the public sometimes is better than sweeping it under the rug. And to me, that transparency is sort of a checks and balance with, um, the potential for people

1:44:02 to be bad actors in a play. But at the same time, you can’t sweep things under the rug. If you have a relationship and something is brewing, you have to open up communications and talk about it. Thank you. So we’ve, we’ve heard the motion and, and it’s getting a little bit repetitive on this end. And, and no, no fault of yours. Um, just so that you know, it’s not a debate back and forth, we’re gonna, we’re gonna hear from people. Um, you’ll certainly have, uh, an opportunity to address questions. Um, but let’s go to the middle, please. Name and address. Hi, I’m Margaret Clark, 29 Mulford Street. I, I, I do think it’s important that there, that the, the language is not actually in here. That there has to be alleged misconduct at all, um, in the way it’s written. So that does open the door for it to be abused.

1:44:47 But I’m also, you know, in theory, someone could use this if it’s only 20% of the registered voters can get this person removed, even if 80% of the voters brought them in, like in within six months, you could have someone removed even if you were the minority on the vote. So it, the way it’s written, it just doesn’t seem to safeguard our election process and the chance for the elected official to do their job. Thank you. Yes, Mrs. Keeny? Yes. Name and address. Renee Ramirez, Keeny Beverly Avenue. Um, I do appreciate, uh, the intent of this article trying to give us, uh, some recourse as voters. I know there’ve been times when I’ve experienced voter remorse. So the, um, the process, uh, seems to be very thought,

1:45:35 you know, thoughtful, uh, thoughtfully laid out. I think. Uh, okay, sorry. Um, but I also have questions about, um, the criteria and how this would work and whether there might be unintended consequences for us as a community. I think this is a, it’s a major change, uh, to our bylaws. We have barely a quorum tonight. Um, we have a charter commission that I really would be interested in hearing, uh, you know, what their research is and what their deliberations have been, what they’ve found in other communities, and having more time for us as a, as a community

1:46:22 to consider, uh, what some of the ramifications would be. Um, whether it would be divisive to us. You know, I could see, you know, see people lining up on social media, uh, for their position, their, their, um, either for or against the person being re recalled. And, uh, I, I think, uh, that would probably, you know, not be, uh, something that we’d really wanna see going on in the community. So, I’m not a hard no on this, but for now, I would, uh, I I will, would be voting no and offering, uh, that we could, asking that we consider this, uh, over the coming year. Thank

1:47:10 You. Thank you. So, I, I really don’t want to put a clock on this. We’re getting a, starting to get a little bit repetitive, but I want some speak more speakers to be heard. ‘cause this is a significant change to the bylaws. But please keep your, your remarks succinct. Um, Cindy, in the middle name and address, please. Cynthia Tower, Lowen 12 Trinity Road. So I have a couple questions. Um, in terms of the, uh, this would pertain to one year or more. So my assumption is we’re specifically talking about the, um, select board and school committee. Is that a correct assumption?

1:47:52 Yes, we, um, uh, from my understanding, someone had mentioned before the fact that terms were one year, one year, one year in which a recall provision wouldn’t be needed because, you know, you only have a one year term. Uh, once we switched to a three year term, there was nothing to sort of balance that out. So the recall provision sort of balances it out for the three year term. So anybody that is only serving one year, they’re not, they can’t have this used against them. Yes, I just, so for the, those who are serving three year terms Correct, which are currently the school board and, um, the select board, board of health, so water and sewer, those would be affected under the way it’s written?

1:48:38 Yes, correct. Anybody with three year? Any, anybody with more than one year terms? So, um, one other question is, there was a time when the select board had to, um, step in and put, um, another person in for the school committee due to vacancy. Um, does this provision allow that to happen? Or not The provision, because it doesn’t specify that then the town bylaws have some, I’m sure have language for, uh, vacancy. Okay, thank you. Thank you Mr. Ville. Uh, John Ville, 20 Stanley Road. Um, my biggest concern here is that we had an election six months later, the opposition who lost the seat can essentially create a recall and,

1:49:26 and try to get a more favorable thing as opposed to waiting for the next open seat. Uh, so my fear is this is gonna be pretty extensively politically abused. I feel like this is dist targeting politicians that you disagree with politically as opposed to politicians that have done something gross and negligent. So if there is language in terms of something that was more appropriate to negligent behavior or a crime, I’m 100% in favor of recall. But the vagueness of this language essentially allows any person who loses an election to call an election six months later. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. In the, in the middle, please name and address Kathy and Swindlehurst Casino Road. I’m in favor of this. Um, elections have consequences.

1:50:13 People we hope are out loud about why they want to get elected recall petitions. Hopefully we have ways to handle gross negligence, or we have the legal system to handle legal issues with elected officials. This is a political solution to a problem. I, I think the 20% bar kind of guarantees that it’s not gonna be lightly done. It’s not 20% of the people that voted in the last election. It’s 20% of the entire electorate. And if you look at it, we don’t have a hundred percent of the electorate voting, of the electorate voting. So I think the bar is sufficiently high. And if people are concerned about, wow,

1:51:01 it might be very divisive, it might show up on social media, that stuff already goes on. This is an actual solution to those problems where we endlessly go back and forth between large factions of the town fighting against each other, over political, what can be called political issues. What this does is it moves an election up and solves the question so that we can move on. So whether it’s this one or another one, I’m in support of it. I hope we never use it. I think the bar should be high, but I definitely think it should be a tool that we have in the toolbox for the town. Thank you. Casie name and address please.

1:51:47 Hello, I’m Casie Kindle 1 6 3 jersey, and although in principle I’m in support of a legal mechanism to record an elected official who is pro Tim or her herself, unable or unwilling to carry out their duties, I am not in favor of this article. The reason is that I fear that there actually is too low, both in the numbers required to trigger the recall and the reasons for doing so. Local elections are essentially popularity contests. People will vote for their friends, they’ll vote for someone with the best social media presence, someone with the best swag, they’ll vote for people that they know and like. But after that election, the official needs to be prepared and comfortable to make unpopular decisions.

1:52:35 They need to be prepared to disappoint their friends, to anger their loved ones, to stand up and risk their social lives in a town where everyone knows that who you know is important. My fear is with this article that our elected officials may be pressured into making decisions that are more about keeping their seats than serving their communities. And I’m Thank you.

1:53:02 I’m also worried that the reasons why it might initiate a recall are poorly defined, so that a few disgruntled yet vocal citizens could mount a negative PR campaign and create a situation where a good person is driven from public service. There’s a phrase that says, regardless of the outcome, the process is the punishment. And we’ve seen that happen before here. If we are to have a recall option, and I think we should, I would like to see the numbers required to be a simple majority, the same as was required to vote that person in, in the first place. I would also like to see the reasons for the recall be well established

1:53:48 and not up to an unpopular decision or someone’s emotions. So Jack through you to the authors of this article, I’d like to say that if you can tweak this, meet my requirements, and come back next year, you will have my full support. But at this point, I’m voting no. Thank you. So we’re gonna finish the, the, the two lines that are the three people in each line that are here. And again, I, I don’t want to do a two minute clock, so please don’t make me, I’d really appreciate that. Sarah Fox, Sarah Fox 46 Speed Street. What it sounds like I’m hearing in the overarching theme here is that there’s a lot of interest in people learning more about this and hearing more about this and potentially supporting it,

1:54:33 but it’s not well defined right now. Um, it, we have a charter commission who’s put a lot of work into doing the, what they’re doing and bringing back a charter, a suggested charter to us next year. This is something they were going to be doing tonight if we hadn’t usurped their meeting. Um, and I would like to see those people who have been charged with developing a charter work thoughtfully to bring back, um, something that we can look at next year that’s responsive to what we’ve heard here. It sounds like people want it well-defined, not just very ambiguous. Someone was unhappy, they wanna see clear objectives of something was done illegally, you weren’t a,

1:55:19 you know, so on and so forth. Other people have said it better. Um, and as far as the idea of what would happen if no one else was running, that is very clear. Def defined the select board with its five members and the remaining seated members of the board. So for the example of a school committee, it would be the remaining four members of the school committee and the five members of a select board would then vote to seat someone. So without clear definition in a fully baked article, which I would argue we’re not fully baked yet, you could take the vote away from the town, away from the voters, and potentially, if you have no one else raising their hand to say, let me jump into this. Right? It seems like fun.

1:56:05 Um, you could wind up with nine people deciding instead of an entire electorate. And that’s, that I don’t think was the intent here, but by it not being fully baked, that’s where we are. That being said, um, I I think you’re Wrapping up Our last article. We are to where Gary would say everything has been said, but maybe not everyone has said it. So I will make a priority motion of moving the vote, which is a priority seven in town meeting time. So if something else doesn’t trump that, I believe we do need to take a vote on that. No. Yes, it is. And and I have the, as I said in the beginning of the meeting, um, until I feel that everything’s been said, I’m not gonna allow that motion. And I’m going to let the three,

1:56:51 the three speakers on each side speak. Um, and we’re gonna finish the three over here and the two over here. So over here, sir? Yes. Steven Levy, 26 Sagamore Road, Marblehead. We have a criminal justice system. We don’t need a second one. So if you don’t like the what’s going on, just work with us. Make make sure the criminal justice system is doing what you want. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, sir. David Weedle Coolidge Road. Uh, I welcome anyone in the room to correct me if I’m wrong. My understanding is that currently any elected member to a board in Marble Head convicted of a crime, has no obligation to give up their seat on their elected board. If that’s wrong, please someone shout

1:57:37 with Jack’s permission to correct me. I, I do not believe it is possible for this body or anybody to conceive of all the potential infractions someone might take that would cause us as a group to say, as a town of voters, to say that person has violated our trust. I think though this may have some flaws and may need to be amended in the future, I think this is a step in the right direction. I think it is an extraordinarily difficult bar to get 3,400 registered voters to sign a petition for anything that clearly states on it, what the infraction is that someone took issue with. If you don’t agree, you don’t sign it. If it’s not signed, this goes nowhere. We had someone in recent history in this town run for office, get elected after the election.

1:58:25 It came out, the person had an action against the town, against the, the, the section of town on which they were now serving on a board. I think that was dishonest. I think that warranted transparency in advance. I don’t think it’s okay that that person did it. And I think we should have, I don’t think that person would have made that choice to run for a board in town against which they had opal open legal action if they knew they could be recalled. And if it took six months, I’m willing to wait rather than three years. Thank you, Mr. Whipple.

1:59:02 John e Whipple, 1 0 6 Atlantic Avenue. To the question of, uh, defining the grounds for a recall, uh, I believe that it should be, uh, left somewhat open. We have in the Constitution of the United States, a provision for impeachment of, uh, various officials, which, uh, says for high crimes and misdemeanors. And if, uh, and of the House of Representatives votes, articles of impeachment, it is then for the Senate to decide does this actually rise to the level

1:59:48 of high crimes and misdemeanors? And I think, uh, leaving it to, uh, the general electorate to decide whether the conduct rises to the level of requiring the recall, uh, is a reasonable way to have it. That said, Mr. Moderator, I think the fact that there is so much concern about this and the fact that the Charter Commission is going to be looking carefully at this whole thing that they have it on their radar, uh, is sufficient grounds for this town meeting

2:00:35 to vote no on this. And I shall vote no and leave it to the Charter Commission to look at this and any other suggestions there may be. Thank you, Mr. Whipple, Robin Misho, Robin Misho, 44 Lee Street. I seeing a lot of these things, I don’t understand that recall at all. But I also think if you’re in a position that you have to enforce the laws, someone could have an axe to grind against you and then come, come after you to boot you out. It doesn’t seem like there’s a huge, you don’t have to have a specific, you can say you have a reason, but it doesn’t seem to be that it has to be.

2:01:18 It could be anything. And I think you should vote this down. Thank you. This is the last speaker name and address, please. Hi. Yeah, I’m Jenny O’Brien. I live on Garden Road and I am actually very much for a recall. And it’s an emotional reason because I sat here the other night and I listened to five high schoolers talk about the roof falling in on them and people getting sick and getting wet while they’re at school. And I said to myself, who is responsible for this? Who, who, who made this happen over the last couple of years? So somebody wasn’t doing something that they needed to be doing to have this, get to the point that it’s at. On the other hand, I also hear what people are concerned about in terms of getting political and finding the right reasons. But I’m concerned that if we let this go

2:02:05 and we don’t pass some kind of a recall tonight, then we have to wait another whole year. And I don’t want to have anything. I don’t wanna hear another story like we heard the other night from the five kids. Thank you. Okay, so, excuse Me, Jack, Jack. No, no. I, Can I ask a question? No, I, it’s not, you Can ask a que thank you. What’s Your question? My question is on No, we’re we’re done debating this. I’m Not debating it. I wanna clarification on something. Please. On, uh, number 11 on the amendment, can someone explain the procedure where it says the ballot shall contain two propositions? So the first one is we vote for or, or against the person that we wanna recall, but then on the same ballot there would be

2:02:52 other people nominated on it. I just procedurally wanna know how that works. Please,

2:03:02 Can I Answer that? Yes, please. And you can pull that microphone up, Mike. So for the, for the recall, um, obviously you are selecting to remove the official, and if you’re against the recall, then that would be likely a vote for that, um, that specific, uh, candidate at that point. ‘cause they are ru they can run. Um, and if the ballot has other candidates, they’re running there. So basically it’s an election at this point, that ballot, if they’re not recalled, um, they then would win if they have more votes. So people who wanted to run would pull papers

2:03:47 and get nominated and get all certified not knowing whether or not they would actually be running because they don’t know the outcome of the recall, which is on the same ballot. Well, you would kind of treat it as if the person is, the person being recalled is running. So if they’re, if the they would be selected as against or for either way, which is either a vote for them or not. So if you vote, if I, if I’m voting for somebody, I’ll vote. If I want to vote for let’s say candidate B, then I select candidate B and I would also be voting, um, to, for the recall. Okay. That, that’s we’re done deliberation. Done. Thank you. Um, before we go to a vote, um, I have a subsid,

2:04:35 a subsidiary motion to amend and that subsidiary motion reads as follows, to amend article 52 to strike 20% and insert 50% for the number of registered voters to toggle the recall as described in the section entitled Return of Petitions Section six C. Do I have a second? No, thank you Mr. Letterman.

2:05:06 So before you go, Mr. Letterman, so basically what happens is that we’re hearing the amendment first, so if that amendment passes, it will amend the main motion. If not, the main motion will be voted on. Unchanged. Mr. Letterman,

2:05:25 Uh, thank you everyone. I know you all want to get outta here. Um, I wanna say one thing which, uh, I don’t think we’ve really considered. There are 15,735 registered voters in Marvel Head. I just saw for the first time this modified warrant article. So if you look at the book that you have from the finance committee, that article talked about having 15% of registered voters that could just remove an elected official. You didn’t even have to have an election. You could just come in, get 15% of registered voters. That’s a pretty low threshold. Um, you know, one person could do that easily. Um, so all of us here, just 400 or so people in the room, this is the first time we’re seeing this. We’re having this fairly complicated question. There are questions about process. I think that this needs to wait,

2:06:11 this can’t be voted on right now. But that being said, if you don’t want to wait, I want you to think about a couple of things. And I’m speaking to my friends in the Marblehead Education Association. Um, I consider many of you to be very good friends. You know, I have seven children, five of them graduated from this high school. And, um, you know, you, you knew my, many of you knew my kids and you knew me. And, um, you know, this, this, you have a lot of reasons to be upset. This year, Glover School, four staff members were fired for protecting students and other staff. That was totally wrong. And when you talked to the school committee, you heard me say that those four staff members should have gotten a medal. They shouldn’t have been thrown out. We should have had administrators removed. That was wrong. We also had a lot of problems with contract negotiations.

2:06:57 Those are legitimate grievances, and there were policy issues that dragged out that should have taken too, that took too long and shouldn’t have happened. But this article is not the answer. And this article really is about removing a school committee member. I don’t think that’s right. I was on the school committee for 12 years, and during that time, many of you confided in me and many other school committee members about some pretty terrible things. You have kids when you have kids and people, things happen. We had a popular student facing employee who turned out to be an unconvicted child. Blesser. When I was on the school committee. The school committee was told not to say anything and let the legal process play out when this was going on. We’re supposed to keep our mouth shut when kids were being victimized. And amidst many calls from parents of victims, none

2:07:43 of the other four school committee,

2:07:47 Excuse me, This is about my amendment to, um, thank you. Um, Ms. Yeah, Mr. Letterman, can you keep your, I will, I will keep your comments to the, to your amendment. Only when I was on the school committee as a member, if I hadn’t gone on TV to say this person had to be removed, this person would’ve still been victimizing parents. And ultimately that person let was removed and those kids were protected. It turned out there were a lot of silent victims. This was a very unpopular move to take at the time. Mr. Letterman, y you, your amendment is to, is the change in the number. So what I’m saying is, if you’re gonna take something and, and that’s, excuse me, okay. My amendment is to increase the threshold, that 50%, this is a democracy and a democracy, 50%.

2:08:36 In order to trigger an election, there should be 50% of registered voters. It’s a very high bar. Um, I want everyone to keep in mind, there may be a time when there’s an injustice that affects you and you want an elected official to do the right thing for you, and you elect people to represent you. And there are elections and elections of consequences. And you can remove people every year there are elections. This this isn’t right. It hasn’t been thought out. And, you know, lastly, just getting back to the original, the reason I’m amending this again, not only did I just see this for the first time tonight, but the 20% threshold is 3,147 voters. A single person with an ax to grind could collect a hundred signatures a day and put an elected official in town on a recall

2:09:22 for no clear reason. Because there’s no requirement that they have committed specific crimes that as was talked about by many of the people. This is something that needs to come back. It needs to be thought out. And the other 15,400 people who aren’t in this room, who’ve never seen this new proposal that was presented today, should have a chance to see this and come to town meeting and know what happened. This shouldn’t happen. This, this should not be debated with only 400 people who’ve never seen this before tonight. So, um, I would urge you to vote yes on my amendment and then if it passes, vote no on the main motion. Thank you very much. Thank you. And I’ll, I’m just gonna add mechanically, we have a warrant and the warrant has articles and that is the, the agenda for the meeting.

2:10:08 So everybody was aware that this article was going to come up. Articles turn into motions. Motions are presented at town meeting. They can be pre, they can be, uh, approved by me right up until the last minute of the meeting, which is how the process always works. Um, so we’re gonna vote on the subsidiary motion to amend article 52, uh, that you just heard. We make the comments, sir. Oh, I’m sorry. Yes sir. Thank you. My name is Rome Posay. I live on Jefferson Street Marblehead, And we’re speaking on the, the amendment, which is amendment the 20 to the 50. Thank you on The amendment. I, I’m concerned about the entire article, but this amendment has a problem. In the last election, we only had 20%

2:10:55 of the voting population vote. So this is kind of ludicrous. 20% would be everybody who voted in the last election, if we kept it at 20%. I, IIII feel that this is kind of superfluous and I think it should be the amendment should be, uh, turned down. Thank you. Okay, we’re gonna go to the vote on the subsidiary motion to amend Article 52. If you favor the motion, use your green yes button. If you oppose, use the red no button. 32nd voting starts now.

2:12:05 The vote on the amendment fails. So, so the new language will not be sub, uh, as part of the main motion. So now we’re gonna go to the vote on the main motion. Article 52 to amend bylaws and recall provision with a home rule petition. Uh, as many as favor the article, use your green yes button. If you oppose, use the red no button. 32nd. Voting starts now.

2:12:43 Sorry, now, right now.

2:12:55 You did a great job, Gretchen.

2:13:34 The motion, uh, the article does not pass. 231 to one 15. One more motion. I need, um, motion to dissolve the 2025 annual time meeting. Can I have a second show of hands? All in favor. Thank you.

2:13:55 Please don’t forget to return.