Share This Article
The Massachusetts Legislature’s Joint Committee on Election Laws has reported favorably on House Bill 5521, legislation that would amend Sudbury’s Town Charter to create a recall process for elected officials. The committee referred H.5521 to the House Committee on Steering, Policy and Scheduling on September 3.
The bill’s advancement keeps the petition alive on Beacon Hill, but it drew criticism from State Representative Carmine Gentile. While Gentile formally sponsored the home-rule petition on the town’s behalf following a Special Town Meeting vote in May, he has been vocal about structural flaws he sees in the measure.
In a statement provided by Gentile today, he noted “I was frankly surprised that the Elections Committee passed H.5521 favorably. While I have no problem with Sudbury or any other city or town having thoughtful recall provisions in its charter, H.5521 is deeply flawed for three reasons: it requires only 10% of voters to call a recall election (statewide norm is 20%), it allows the recall process to begin as early as 3 months after the elected person takes office (statewide norm is 6 months) and it places the recall on the same ballot as the vote for a possible successor, a chaotic confusing process which would favor the losing candidate of the prior election and not enable voters and candidates time to make thoughtful decisions (statewide norm is to hold separate elections: one ballot on the recall and, if necessary, a later election ballot to fill the vacancy).”
Gentile went on to point out that the combination of those three elements were problematic in his view. “While some members of the Sudbury pro-recall camp have made the argument that there are towns with these features in their recall laws, nowhere in Massachusetts are all three put together to make such an aggressive recall law.”
According to the Massachusetts Legislature’s website, H.5521 was introduced on June 22 by Gentile and State Senator James Eldridge. Prior to the public hearing with the Joint Committee on Election Laws, Gentile told the Sudbury Select Board he thought the bill would be sent to study (effectively killing the bill). During the same conversation, Eldridge told the Select Board ““I co-sponsored the bill and that’s what I’ve done to indicate my support for it.”
The Joint Committee held a public hearing on July 21, taking testimony from both Sudbury residents who supported the measure and those who opposed it; including Representative Gentile himself. By reporting the bill favorably in early September, the joint committee opted to advance the legislation rather than send it “to study.”
Despite its progress, Gentile voiced confidence that the bill will not pass. “I do not expect that H.5521 will be enacted in the 194th Session of the General Court.”
Senator Jamie Eldridge is a member of the Joint Committee on Election Laws, but is not listed as having voted on the bill on September 1. Just 11 of the joint committee’s 17 members were listed as having voted, and they all voted favorably. Senator Eldridge’s office had not responded to a request for comment at the time this story was published.
Representative Gentile also leveled heavy criticism at the May Special Town Meeting that advanced the petition, characterizing it as being administered with disregard for the 4th edition of Town Meeting Time, a parliamentary handbook he noted was adopted by the Massachusetts Moderators Association and designated by Sudbury’s bylaws to govern meeting procedures.
He added “I have attended most of Sudbury’s town meetings over the past 40-plus years and never before experienced such a poorly run meeting.”
Rather than continuing to push the current language, Gentile advocated for stepping back and taking a more deliberate approach to Town governance.
“It would be wise for the Town to create a Charter Commission to thoughtfully review our town charter and make recommendations for changes, one of which would likely be well considered recall provisions,” Gentile said.
He concluded “Will we see such an article on the warrant for our next town meeting? I hope so.”
Representative Gentile’s complete, unedited statement is below.
“In answer to your question, I was frankly surprised that the Elections Committee passed H.5521 favorably. While I have no problem with Sudbury or any other city or town having thoughtful recall provisions in its charter, H.5521 is deeply flawed for three reasons: it requires only 10% of voters to call a recall election (statewide norm is 20%), it allows the recall process to begin as early as 3 months after the elected person takes office (statewide norm is 6 months) and it places the recall on the same ballot as the vote for a possible successor, a chaotic confusing process which would favor the losing candidate of the prior election and not enable voters and candidates time to make thoughtful decisions (statewide norm is to hold separate elections: one ballot on the recall and, if necessary, a later election ballot to fill the vacancy). While some members of the Sudbury pro-recall camp have made the argument that there are towns with these features in their recall laws, nowhere in Massachusetts are all three put together to make such an aggressive recall law.
All of this born of a special town meeting which was administered with disregard to the provisions of the 4th edition of Town Meeting Time, a handbook of Parliamentary Law adopted by the Massachusetts Moderators Association and designated in Sudbury By-Laws to govern procedures to be followed at our annual and special town meetings. I have attended most of Sudbury’s town meetings over the past 40 plus years and never before experienced such a poorly run meeting.
I do not expect that H.5521 will be enacted in the 194th Session of the General Court. Town Meeting Time, 4th edition, page 29 notes that, “It is generally accepted that if the state legislature does not take action on a petition for home rule legislation by the end of the legislative session within which it is submitted, there must be another town meeting vote to authorize the select board to resubmit the petition in the next legislative session.”
It would be wise for the Town to create a Charter Commission to thoughtfully review our town charter and make recommendations for changes, one of which would likely be well considered recall provisions – will we see such an article on the warrant for our next town meeting? I hope so.”