Share This Article
[I am Kay Bell, a member of the Permanent Building Committee, the Sudbury Housing Trust, and the Liberty Ledge Sewataro Advisory Committee. I wrote the testimony below as a resident of Sudbury and not on behalf of any committee to which I belong.]
Honorable Members of the Joint Committee on Election Laws,
A Charter Amendment Warrants a Public Development Process
H. 5521, “An Act providing for recall elections in the town of Sudbury” is not ready for adoption. A well-meaning, smart group of my neighbors took initiative and worked on the bill before you for a few months. Their development process was not public and did not include opportunities for public hearings and a period of thoughtful discourse in the wider community before it came to the floor of a hastily convened special town meeting.
At the extraordinary Special Town Meeting, several residents were prepared to participate in discussion and had prepared amendments to offer in order to improve the proposed recall provision before passing it on to your committee. However, the tactic of calling the question was employed after only a few brief minutes of discussion in the hall.
Altering Sudbury’s Town Charter surely deserves wider and deeper consideration than has been afforded in this case.
Incorporating a recall provision into the Sudbury Town Charter will be a positive change, once a reasonable process has been used to create a provision that will serve the Town better than the proposal before you possibly could.
I have three concerns with the substance of the bill, in addition to the process concerns above.
Time in Office Before Recall
First, a three-month window before an elected official becomes eligible for recall is too short. That brief period could easily be used by an individual or group upset by a loss at the ballot box to harass the official, undermining their effective service and preventing them from getting the real work done for the community. I would like Sudbury to allow officials a longer period of service before they become eligible to be the object of a recall effort.
Low Threshold, No Cause Required
Second, the threshold for initiating a recall is too low. Only two hundred fifty signatures are required to begin the process and the low ten percent of registered voters’ signatures to force a recall election.
Separately, the bill defines no required cause for recall. Without one, simple policy differences could become grounds for recalling an elected official. I believe that recall should be reserved for real malfeasance — a clear ethics violation or dereliction of the duties of office — not disagreement over policy.
Needless Ban from Service
Third, the bill’s two-year ban on even being appointed to a Town committee after an official has been recalled is onerous and unnecessary. Sudbury’s appointing authorities – most often the Select Board or the Town Manager – are fully capable of assessing an applicant’s qualifications for voluntary service. If an elected official has been recalled for genuine malfeasance, that will be known and can be weighed accordingly. If an official was ousted over policy differences, that too will be clear. Let the appointing authority be the arbiter of appointments.
More Thoughtful, Inclusive Study Required
Please consider recommending H. 5521 for further study. I’m certain Sudbury can build on the work already done to produce a stronger and better-balanced recall provision – one that will make our Town Charter even better than it is now.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify and for the critically important work you do to safeguard our elections, the heart and soul of our democracy.
[Written testimony may be submitted to the Joint Committee on Election Laws at 24 Beacon Street, Room 413-F, Boston, MA 02133, or by email to Emerson.Gagnon@masenate.gov and Karen.Rooney@mahouse.gov. through Tuesday, July 28 at noon.]