To the Editor,

On May 12, Mattapoisett voters approved Article 34 to expand the Select Board from three to five members. That open-floor decision is the purest form of local democracy. Yet at their July 17 meeting the Mattapoisett Republican Town Committee circulated a handout urging residents to reverse the will of Town Meeting. Every talking-point on their flyer has an answer.

“Efficiency and agility / Lower cost to taxpayers”

Adding two stipends runs about $15,000 a year—less than 0.05 % of the town’s $35 million budget. That’s roughly the cost of one police-cruiser tire change, hardly a drag on efficiency.

“Stronger accountability / Stronger community ties”

Five seats give more neighborhoods a voice and voters more choices. With only three seats, one uncontested election can lock the board for six years. A larger board keeps everyone on their toes and broadens accountability.

“Maintains proven structure / No evidence of dysfunction”

Mattapoisett’s population has nearly doubled since the three-seat structure was adopted. Of the 292 Massachusetts towns with Select Boards, the majority already use five members. Five is now the norm, not an experiment.

“Active engagement / Easier candidate recruitment”

A larger board lowers the barrier to entry. Prospective candidates don’t have to wait for a rare vacancy or challenge an entrenched incumbent head-on. Fresh talent is invited in rather than crowded out.

“Avoids over-complication / Prevents fractionalism”

Five members diffuse, rather than magnify, factional power. A 2-to-1 stalemate is far harder to break than a 3-to-2 majority. Broader quorums encourage collaboration over trench warfare.

“Committees share workload”

Town committees have repeatedly asked for more Select Board liaisons because three people can’t cover every assignment. Two extra members mean lighter workloads and timelier follow-through.

“Simpler Open Meeting compliance”

A three-member board is actually the least flexible: any two members are a quorum and can’t confer outside a posted meeting. With five members, two can research an issue together without violating the law—making compliance easier, not harder.

“Peer-town comparison”

Among Massachusetts communities of similar size (10,000–20,000 residents), the overwhelming majority operate with five-member boards. Mattapoisett is swimming against the current, not setting an example.

The committee’s flyer frames “three” as cheaper, simpler, and more accountable. The facts show the opposite: the cost is negligible, transparency improves with more voices, and five seats reflect 2025 Mattapoisett far better than a model designed for a much smaller town.

Town Meeting spoke. Let’s respect that vote and let our petition to Beacon Hill proceed without delay. Our community deserves representation as broad and forward-looking as the challenges we face.

Jeanne Hopkins
Mattapoisett