Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Town Manager Act topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Danvers review committee recommends recall language, removes residency requirement, and shifts town accountant appointment

Danvers Finance Committee · November 14, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The review committee proposed several substantive Town Manager Act edits: a separate home-rule recall article, changing the town accountant appointment to the town manager, eliminating the town manager residency requirement, formalizing select board notifications, and tying select board investigative authority to 0.02 of the annual budget (≈$28,000).

The Town Meeting/Town Manager Act Review Committee presented a set of redlined changes to the Town Manager Act to the Finance Committee, focusing on three substantive changes: a recall-election provision (derived from a citizen petition), transferring appointment authority for the town accountant to the town manager, and eliminating the town manager residency requirement.

On the recall provision, Sally Calhoun said the committee ‘‘lifted out’’ recall language from its general redlines and recommended it proceed as a separate home-rule petition and warrant article. Staff said the select board will discuss the recall language at its meeting on Monday, Nov. 17; the committee explained the proposed recall mechanics include an initial affidavit with 350 registered voter signatures and then a 20-day period to collect signatures equaling 20% of registered voters — thresholds committee members described as deliberately high to make recalls rare and to exclude recalls that are based solely on an official’s vote.

The committee recommended changing statutory language so the town accountant would be appointed by the town manager, aligning the act with long-standing practice and enabling the town manager, as chief fiscal officer, to assemble a consistent fiscal team. Calhoun said that change prompted pushback from the select board, which expressed concern about having direct oversight access to the town accountant in cases of suspected impropriety.

On residency, the committee debated options (contiguous communities, mileage limits) but concluded that residency requirements limit the candidate pool and do not necessarily correlate with a manager’s effectiveness. ‘‘A town manager can live in another community and be here for something like that if need be,’’ Calhoun said, noting that hiring authority and performance oversight remains with the select board.

The committee also proposed adding clearer communication requirements — for example, the town manager shall notify the select board of departmental consolidations and render at least monthly operational reports — and adjusting a rarely used statutory allowance that permits the select board to incur limited investigative expenses. The $10,000 figure in current law was proposed to become a formula — 0.02 of that year’s annual town budget — which the committee estimated to be about $28,000 at present.

Finance Committee members questioned timing and legal clarity for several provisions; the review committee and staff said select board and town council review will follow and that warrant articles are expected in December and January with the February town meeting as the target arena for votes.