Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Courts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Select Board discusses support for shifting Bellingham court alignment back toward Norfolk County
Summary
Town officials explained operational and representational problems created when Bellingham's court business was transferred to Milford (Worcester County) in 1980, and the board reviewed a draft support letter asking state legislators to consider moving jurisdictional alignment back toward Norfolk County. The board agreed the chair could sign a community support letter.
The Bellingham Select Board on April 6 reviewed a draft letter asking state lawmakers to consider restoring closer court alignment for the town, arguing the 1980 transfer of jurisdiction to Milford (Worcester County) has left Bellingham residents and victims with longer travel and diminished local representation.
Chief Fitzgerald, speaking to the board, said Bellingham has been treated as an "add‑on" within Worcester County and that residents must travel to Worcester for trials and related court business. He said the arrangement can leave victims and witnesses with added time and cost burdens and reduces the town's direct voice in county‑level prosecutions and sheriffs' services. According to the presentation, the change would restore more direct ties to Norfolk County agencies and local trial sessions.
The board discussed operational complaints raised in the presentation, including limited court hours in Milford and difficulties with prisoner intake schedules. Several members said the issues described — travel to Worcester for trial sessions, parking and access to facilities — support sending a concise statement of local support to state lawmakers.
Board members asked how the letter should be signed and whether it should be circulated to other local offices. The chair agreed to sign and transmit the letter with the staff‑drafted language and to coordinate with state representatives who were named in the materials provided to the board.
No formal legislative action was taken by the board at the meeting; staff said they would forward the signed support letter and collect any additional endorsements from neighboring municipalities as appropriate.
