Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Town Meeting Warrant Indemnification topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Select Board discusses annual warrant, indemnification ballot question and schedule for town meeting
Summary
Town staff reviewed the draft annual town meeting warrant and clarified that acceptance of M.G.L. c.258 s.13 (municipal indemnification of officers) is a ballot question to be included on the election ballot used for the election of town officers; staff and counsel differed initially on whether it also must appear in the town-meeting warrant.
Town staff and the Select Board discussed the annual town meeting warrant and the process for submitting an indemnification acceptance under Massachusetts General Law chapter 258, section 13, during the March 5 meeting.
Staff summarized the warrant: Articles 1 and 2 establish the town and school reduced balanced budgets; Article 3 is the proposed override (discussed separately), and subsequent articles cover enterprise funds, capital improvements, exemptions, revolving funds, and citizen petitions. Town staff said there are 17 articles in total in the draft warrant and previewed capital and enterprise items and a pending pilot (payment in lieu of taxes) related to the Attleboro water treatment facility.
Article 14 deals with acceptance of M.G.L. c.258, s.13, which authorizes a town to indemnify municipal officers and appointed officials for legal fees and losses up to $1,000,000 except for intentional civil-rights violations. Town counsel initially indicated the article need not be placed on the town-meeting warrant and that it is instead a ballot question placed on the official ballot used for the annual election of town officers. Staff clarified that, under the statute and the town charter language, the acceptance question should appear on the election ballot for the annual election of officers; it does not have to be presented as a warrant article at the business portion of town meeting.
Board members requested a clear yes-or-no explanatory statement that can be used to inform voters about the ballot question without crossing into prohibited advocacy; staff agreed to prepare Q&A language and to search historical voting records for prior acceptance references dating to the mid-2000s. No final decision to place the article on the warrant was recorded; the meeting concluded with staff planning to file final ballot/warrant language and to confirm historical records with the town clerk.
