Opinion: Regarding Mattapoisett Select Board expansion

To the Editor:

On May 12, Mattapoisett voters approved Article 34, authorizing the town to petition Beacon Hill to expand the Select Board from three to five members. That vote—taken in the open, advertised, and well‑attended Annual Town Meeting—is the definition of small‑town democracy in action.

Now, less than ten weeks later, the Mattapoisett Republican Town Committee is calling a meeting on July 17 to organize a petition drive for a special Town Meeting whose sole purpose is to repeal what the voters just endorsed. In plain English: a faction that didn’t like the outcome wants a do‑over.

Let’s be clear about what that means. Under Massachusetts law, just 200 signatures—or 20 percent of voters, whichever is smaller—can force the town to spend time and money on another meeting. A handful of people could drag 6,500 residents back into an auditorium so the same question can be asked again, hoping fatigue will flip the result. That isn’t “community engagement”; it’s an end‑run around the will of the majority.

Why does the five‑member board matter?

• More voices, better oversight. Most Massachusetts towns our size already have five‑member boards for precisely that reason.
• Compliance with the Open Meeting Law. With three members, two can’t even brainstorm outside a posted meeting without violating the law. A five-member board enables pairs to collaborate legally, accelerating problem-solving without compromising transparency.
• Diluted power, broader representation. A larger board reduces the likelihood that one personality can dominate and makes it easier for busy residents to consider running, as the workload is more evenly shared.

These advantages don’t disappear because a political committee is unhappy.

What you can do

1. Decline to sign the petition. Don’t lend your name to an effort aimed at canceling your vote.
2. Stay alert. If the special meeting is called anyway, show up and vote “NO” on any motion to rescind Article 34.
3. Could you keep the conversation focused on implementation? The question has been answered; now the town should concentrate on developing a transition plan—complete with a timeline, seat allocation, and budget—so the expanded board is ready for the 2026 election cycle.

Democracy is messy, but it isn’t a revolving door. We gathered, debated, and made a decision on May 12. Respect that outcome. Let’s move forward—five seats, stronger governance, and no more reruns.

Jeanne Hopkins

Mattapoisett