Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Recall topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Danvers recall proposal prompts debate over thresholds, grounds and practicality
Summary
A citizen-backed recall proposal included in the committee's redline drew sustained questioning from finance committee members about thresholds, clerk screening and potential misuse; the committee recommends separate warrant article and high signature thresholds to limit frivolous filings.
Discussion of a recall provision proved to be one of the most contested elements of the review committee’s presentation to the finance committee.
Sally Calhoun described the committee’s approach: the recall provision was based on a citizen petition and, on the committee’s advice, would likely be presented as a separate warrant article. She said the committee intentionally drafted language to prevent recalls based solely on how an official voted: “Provided, however, that the vote of an elected official on a matter other than in connection with a conflict of interest violation shall not constitute valid grounds,” she said.
Committee members and finance committee participants pressed for procedural safeguards and clearer thresholds. Calhoun explained the numerical progression the committee included: an initial affidavit must include 350 registered voters (a screening threshold for town clerk acceptance), and, if accepted, petitioners then have 20 days to collect signatures equal to 20% of registered voters to proceed. Several finance committee members described the 20% threshold as “so ridiculously high” it would be practically unattainable for all but the most serious cases; one member observed that obtaining that many valid signatures in 20 days would be very difficult even for a clear emergency.
Opponents also raised concerns the recall language was still too open-ended in what would constitute grounds beyond a vote, potentially allowing recall campaigns triggered by personal or political disagreements. Supporters argued the high numerical thresholds and the required initial 350-signature affidavit would screen out frivolous efforts and ensure only serious claims moved forward.
The committee said Town Counsel has advised that a recall would likely require a home-rule petition and that the Select Board would discuss the recall article separately at its Nov. 17 meeting. Finance committee members asked for clearer drafting to tighten language, reduce ambiguity about the town clerk's screening role, and confirm the practical likelihood of meeting the signature thresholds.
The finance committee took no vote; members said they would defer to the committee’s work once the draft reflects counsel’s clarifications.
