Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Recall Petition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Danvers review committee adopts amended recall-petition language after close votes
Summary
On Dec. 18 the Town Meeting/Town Manager Acts Review Committee adopted an amended Section 2 of a citizens' recall petition after close, divided votes over whether pre'office conduct should be grounds for recall. The panel also adopted Sections 1 and 3—2 of the petition (with edits) and authorized the chair to make cleanup edits before forwarding the draft.
The Town Meeting/Town Manager Acts Review Committee on Dec. 18 voted to adopt amended language for Section 2 of a proposed citizens' recall petition, after weeks of drafting and a series of close procedural votes.
The committee'appointed group convened in the Senior Center Great Room and debated whether recall grounds should be limited to actions taken while an official holds office or should also encompass conduct that predates election. John Almeida, who prepared three redline versions of Section 2, said he tried to reflect the committee's earlier straw polls: "I took my shot at language in here that reflects those two things" (a preference for limiting recall to in'office actions and for general rather than enumerated grounds), he said.
After a member proposed removing the clause that would bar pre'office conduct from consideration, that amendment resulted in a 4'4 tie and therefore failed. The chair then put a refined John Almeida amendment to the committee'which restructured the sentence to state the expectation that recalls would address malfeasance or misconduct while leaving any final judgment of grounds to the voters. The committee voted to adopt Section 2 as amended; the chair counted six members in favor.
The committee also debated the petition's procedural thresholds. Members noted the draft's initial'petition requirement of 350 signatures and discussed whether raising that number would deter frivolous petitions. One member argued that a petitioner able to collect 350 signatures likely could collect 600 and that an initial threshold of 350 already represents a meaningful barrier; others urged caution and suggested raising the later stage threshold instead.
On related provisions, the committee took several section'by'section votes. It approved a change to Section 1 removing a parenthetical listing specific offices and retained a six'month restriction before a recall petition may be filed (members debated a proposed change to 12 months and declined it). Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 were accepted after minor wording edits (for example clarifying "business hours" language and vacancy'filling references). Section 8'which restricts appointment to town offices while recall proceedings are pending or after a recall'provoked debate over whether the restriction should apply only to the same office or to any town office; the committee ultimately approved the section as written.
Chair (unnamed in the transcript) summarized the result of the session and asked members to prepare the document for the next step: "We had a lot of work. We'll get back to the select board or town meeting as appropriate," the chair said. The committee voted to authorize the chair to make grammatical and cleanup edits consistent with the committee'approved language.
The committee took a five'minute break during the evening after a period of close votes and reconvened to finalize the amended Section 2 and later sections. The committee agreed to present the revised petition language to the select board or return it to town meeting as its next step.
What happens next: The committee authorized the chair to finalize edits; the document will be prepared for the select board and town meeting review. The committee scheduled its next meeting for Jan. 15, 2025 to continue its work on the Town Manager Act and remaining procedural items.
