Taunton council tables probe of alleged election interference, asks elections office for safeguards memo

The Taunton City Council voted Monday to table further work on allegations of attempted interference in the preliminary election until a date‑certain, and asked the elections office to provide a written summary of safeguards for handling ballots and returns.

The matter, originally scheduled for executive session under Massachusetts General Law chapter 30A, §21, was moved into open session after Councilor John McCall invoked his statutory right to an open meeting because he would be the individual discussed. City Solicitor Matthew J. Costa advised the council that the meeting would be run as a council hearing rather than an adjudicatory proceeding and that attorneys would not conduct formal cross‑examination. “The council will ask questions of the participants and the participants will answer the questions,” Costa said.

Council members described a split over whether to proceed with testimony from witnesses present at the meeting or to pause until Elections Director Mark Pacheco and other direct witnesses could attend. Several councilors said they were reluctant to make determinations based only on written submissions and video clips posted online.

“We have to hear from people who were present that night,” Councilor James Quintel said. “We have to get a clear picture — CCTV, witness statements, body cam — before we make a finding.”

The council ultimately approved a motion to table the matter to November 18, the date requested by Councilor McCall, and carried a separate motion asking the elections office to produce, by the next business day, a list of procedural safeguards the department will deploy to protect chain of custody and prevent interference in tabulation. Council President Martin asked that the draft procedures already prepared by the elections office be added to the Monday morning agenda packet so the public could see them.

The council also considered a separate open‑meeting‑law complaint arising from comments made at a prior meeting. The law department recommended a written response and, after a short discussion, the council authorized the law department to send a letter saying it found no OML violation. Attorney Costa’s 10/28/2025 letter to councilors stated the complaint did not allege failures to post or to limit topics in the agenda and therefore did not evidence an OML violation.

Public input during the meeting pressed the council to move ballot counts into larger, public spaces and to make chain‑of‑custody practices and video evidence more visible. At public comment, Brian Ratcliffe urged, “If you want a fair election, move it to this room so we can come in and watch it.”

Next steps: the council will reconvene on Nov. 18 for the election matter; the elections office has been asked to deliver a written safeguards summary in advance and to add the draft procedures to the Monday packet for public review.