Opinion: On the Mattapoisett Select Board stalling citizen petition for Board expansion

If you are looking for evidence to support the expansion of our Mattapoisett select board from 3 members to 5, look no further than the May 27 select board meeting and the conversation there about that subject.

The current select board members ranged from outright negativity to a disinclination to reveal whether the majority vote of town meeting should be validated with the next step in the citizen petition process, which is to send a home rule petition reflecting the vote to the Massachusetts legislature. This despite a record of one member previously saying “I will certainly support the will of the citizens at the town meeting.” (Sippican Week 02/28/25.) Isn’t that how town
authorities ordinarily respond to the directives of town meeting?

It was not clear to me why the votes of town meeting had not yet been certified. I heard that it was typical for certification to happen within a day or two of town meeting. Then I heard that a 2-week delay from the May 12 meeting was nothing unusual. In any case, until the certification is confirmed, the select board members insisted the subject was closed.

Select board members voiced some specific objections to the majority vote of town meeting. They were offended by some voters leaving the meeting after the vote on this warrant article. They also insinuated that the vote may not have been a majority after all (or sufficient enough??). They also raised the idea of now having a town ballot measure.

I have seen an exodus from town meetings several times before this – remember the controversial “nips” vote a few years ago or the right-to-farm bylaw vote before that. I do not recall anyone questioning the validity of those votes because voters left those meetings.

I have enough math education to know that a majority is defined as ‘the greater number.’ Sufficiency is irrelevant after 50% plus 1. Overwhelming is not required.

And of course, we town residents know that town meetings are the established form of local government in Mattapoisett whereby all eligible residents can directly participate in an assembly which determines the town governance. Residents may choose or not to attend (or to stay for the entire meeting), but they know that votes will happen with or without them. Being so sympathetic to non-attendees seems to disrespect those who have the interest and make the effort to be there at the official and well-publicized town governance event. No one should be able to insist on a ballot do-over.

Proponents of this warrant article followed the instructions provided by the town administrator and town counsel, obtaining sufficient signatures to put the article on the warrant and making the case in person at town meeting.

My personal views are based on decades of experience as a member of committees, boards, and councils, sometimes as chairperson, and also as a senior executive who staffed corporate boards. The more talent, experience, expertise, and education in a robust board setting, the better. I question the good judgement of those who think it would be counter-productive to have more, and possibly more valuable, input into important town decisions.

It was emphasized by the town administrator that the select board is the “only power that can petition the legislature to pass a home rule petition”, but only if it so chooses, regardless of town meeting vote. I question the fair judgment of a group who believes itself entitled to disregard “the will of the people” expressed by town meeting.

I hope that the select board does what town meeting approved by majority vote.