The Marion Annual Town Meeting took place over two days, Monday, May 12 and Tuesday, May 13. Much was discussed, argued, and voted upon. On the docket were 51 articles (three of those being citizen’s petitions), one special article, and two questions. See the end of this article for a summary of voting results.
The meeting began with Town Moderator Brad Gordon taking the podium, greeting the crowded room, and outlining the night’s schedule. The Town Meeting took place in Sippican School’s large multipurpose room. Every seat was filled with many on the wings and even some crowding into the school hallway. More seats were brought in, but there could not be enough to provide all in attendance with a seat. As more residents kept piling in, Gordon mentioned he was pleased with the large turnout and mentioned the importance of the night’s meeting, saying, “we must recognize the fragility of our democracy.” Gordon also mentioned, should they not be able to get through all of the meeting’s voting, the meeting would have to take place over multiple days. This eventually turned out to be the case.
Article 1 was passed unanimously, making the first article to garner serious public comments Article 2, or the approval of the FY26 budget. Questions were raised by two members of the public as to the nearly doubling of the Finance Director/Town Accountant budget. Finance Director Heather O’Brien stated this increase was due to staff moving to the Finance Department from other departments, primarily Administrative Services. This article was then passed and was followed by the passing of Articles 3-11 without serious discussion or contention.
Article 12 regarded the acquiring of new math curriculum. It was questioned why this proposal was not included in the FY26 budget or if the other district-member towns, Mattapoisett and Rochester, would also be chipping in. It was stated both other towns would be voting on identical articles at their town meetings (Mattapoisett’s passed May 12), and the curriculum didn’t appear on the budget yet as it had not been voted upon. It was approved with a majority, with some voting “nay.”
Article 13 also saw heavy discussion and regarded the appropriation and transfer of funds for pavement and sidewalk management. Some members of the public took time to air their grievances over road/sidewalk quality. Others supported burying the powerlines while the roads during excavation. Primarily, there was heavy discussion and criticism of pedestrian safety and utilities, urging the repair and addition of sidewalks and increased measures to facilitate signal and light safety for pedestrian crossing. This article was passed unanimously. Articles 14-16 were then passed with minimal comment.
Article 17 was for Town House renovations (ADA and building code compliance, fire suppression, and HVAC). A presentation by Building Commissioner Bob Grillo initiated discussion, where it was stated there would be no elevator installation but a lift, similar to the new Harbormaster building. This decision was said to have seriously lowered costs. The Finance Committee did not recommend the article, with Chair Shay Assad calling for an amendment to split HVAC installation into a separate vote. He stated the removal of this item would lower costs by $606,075.
Board of Health member Ed Hoffer said it was unwise to split the vote, saying “we shouldn’t kick the can down the road” in terms of HVAC necessity. Assad stressed his case, noting worry of debt increases and subsequent tax raises. Eventually, a vote on Assad’s proposed amendment was levied where it was not passed by the public. There was also discussion on building an entire new town hall, with another member of the public stating the matter had already been decided by voters a few years ago, adding “so now it’s our responsibility to keep it up.” Article 17 was passed in its entirety by roughly a two-thirds split.
Articles 18-30 were then passed without substantial debate. The Special Article, Article S1, was also passed. Importantly, there was a break to check the Celtics’ score from Gordon. With the Celtics leading, he asked “do we support?” to which the crowd cheered “yay!” and raised their yellow cards.
Following this was the discussion on Article 31, or the removal of the Stretch Energy Code from the Code of Marion. Following a presentation, Planning Board Chair Andrew Daniel rose and stated, “I’m sorry for endorsing it,” referring to his previous support following the town’s original adoption of the code. Daniel spoke of “skyrocketing” building costs and the state’s decision to change the code without deliberation with town bodies. He finished, saying “We gotta get out of this, and quickly.”
A member of the public later responded, asking, “What’s your alternative? The clock is ticking. The state committed to net-zero percent – and the Stretch Code is the way to do it.” Another citizen brought forth the idea of a secret ballot, to which numerous members of the audience shouted “no!” The suggestion was rescinded with a “never mind.” A vote was held where the article was approved, thus removing the Stretch Energy Code.
Before going to the discussion of the town’s proposed historic district, the moderator made a motion to jump to the other “money articles” or, the articles dealing with the allocation of funds, as those articles required a vote before 10:00 pm.
Article 38 was passed and was followed by a lengthy discussion on the first Citizen’s Petition, Article 51. Select Board candidate George “TJ” Walker, a member of the town’s Board of Assessors, presented his petition, with members of the public following to cite their grievances with public infrastructure. Nearly all stated their displeasure and the inconvenience of the town’s sidewalk and road situation. One citizen stated, “I gave up on the sidewalks. I walk on the yellow lines. Please change the priority. Fund sidewalks.” The article was passed with a majority.
On Tuesday morning, Walker told The Wanderer he has suspended his campaign for Select Board. His full statement can be seen in the Marion Select Board candidates’ statements section of this paper.
The final article discussed on Monday night was Article 32, regarding the proposed historic district. Will Tifft, chair of the Historic District Study Committee, began with a short presentation on “how’d we get here?” as to the article and accompanying district. He noted more than 120 other towns in Massachusetts with similar districts and ended his statement by saying “a historic district is the best way” to protect Marion’s historic architecture.
Lengthy discussion followed, taking over two hours from introduction to vote. Another presentation followed, this time by Andrew Bonney in opposition. “A historic district infringes on private property rights and is fundamentally unfair.” Often throughout this presentation, Bonney used the words imposed, infringed, and unfair. Bonney also stated his displeasure with two properties being opted out of the district, belonging to the Hillers and Bardens. He and many locals wanted the option to opt out. He finished his statements by saying, “if there is a problem with zoning, let’s fix that before incremental bureaucracy.”
The chair of the Historic Commission, Meg Steinberg, and other members came to speak in support of a historic district. Some locals living within the confines of the proposed district cited numerous concerns, those primarily being fears of overreach by the district’s accompanying committee, the restriction of property options, increased insurance costs or insurance dropping, and the feeling of the rest of the town imposing their will on the smaller population that would be in the district. Finally, there was a motion to end comments that was passed by the majority of voters, thus beginning the vote for the article itself.
Incorrectly, the moderator, citing a member of Town Counsel, stated a simple majority was needed for the vote to pass. Tellers were required to count the close vote, with a final tally of 154 in favor and 150 against. The moderator declared the article passed, to immediate outcry from the audience. Resident Johanna Vergoni rose and shouted, “What? Please explain to me why things have changed tonight!” She cited being told numerous times that a two-thirds vote would be necessary for approval. Eventually, a consultant for the interested committee stated that a two-thirds vote is necessary, to which the moderator corroborated and declared the vote actually had failed. The original ruling was overturned.
For the first day, in summary, 32 articles, one Citizen’s Petition, and the one Special Article, were passed. One article was rejected, that being Article 32, or the creation of a historic district.
The second day of the meeting saw roughly half the seats in the room filled and began with Gordon thanking town staff for allowing Town Meeting to go on and told the people present to “give yourself a hand” for attending two days of meetings.
A lengthy discussion on Article 33 kickstarted the second night, with Daniel presenting on accessory-dwelling units. He explained that both the Planning Board and Select Board presented the bylaw to protect residents and expand the town’s ability to increase housing while limiting ADU’s to one per property. Though Daniel and the moderator stressed that public comment on this article stay strictly on ADU’s, most discussion diverted into short-term rentals (STR’s).
Some residents were upset, with one saying, “no one has any clue,” referring to the number of STR’s in town. Wording and the mixing of topics led to another resident rising only to begin “I’m confused.” A motion to table Article 33 indefinitely failed. Town Administrator Geoff Gorman warned, “we do not have short-term rentals in our bylaws,” with Select Board Chair Norm Hills adding, “we do need control over the ADU’s not becoming short-term rentals.” Eventually, the article was approved.
After Articles 34 and 35 were approved, Daniel again rose to give a presentation on Article 36, or the one focusing on short-term rentals. “The town currently has no regulation regarding short-term rentals,” he said. Planning Board member Ryan Burke made a motion to add an amendment that would cap the number of STR’s in town to 5% of total homes. This motion failed. A resident added before the motion failed, “we need to get a handle on this or there will be no limit to how far this will go.” While discussing another failed amendment addition, this one relating to parking, Gordon said, “we are having a sidebar. You can entertain yourselves. Anybody know any jokes?” This article was eventually approved.
A speedy approval of Articles 37-48 began. Select Board member Randy Parker paused the approvals to state this Town Meeting was the last official duty of Select Board member Carleton “Toby” Burr Jr., thanking him for his service and dedication.
Article 49, a Citizen’s Petition to withdraw Marion from the state’s Green Communities program, was retracted by its owner due to it having been superseded by Article 31’s approval.
Finally, the last article, Article 50, was put forth. Select Board member Toby Burr gave a presentation for his Citizen’s Petition regarding the separation of the Police and Harbormaster departments.
“The purpose of this citizen’s petition is to have a discussion,” he began. He added the police “have a different job than managing Marion Harbor.” He stated his regret for his former decision to support merging the Harbormaster and Police a few years ago. The Chair of Marine Resources Commission, Vincent J. Malkoski Jr., was upset that neither he nor the commission was consulted before putting the article forth. He mentioned his two years of work in the original department merger. “You are being asked at 9:00 pm, Tuesday night, on the second day of Town Meeting to consider this.” He also talked of compensation and Harbormaster workers losing pay and benefits. “Does anyone here believe a rotating Board of Selectmen is capable of running law enforcement?”
Burr later added, “What matters is what kind of harbor management we want – do we want police or managers, customer service? Do you want harbor management to focus on police activities or to focus on customer-service activities?”
Police Chief Richard Nighelli spoke about the challenges of the state’s police-reform movement. “The truth is, now they have rules and regulations – it takes away from the town’s liability.” He spoke against splitting, though he initially stated his neutrality. He completed his statements by complimenting the Harbormaster and the department as a whole. “One department,” he ended.
Harbormaster Adam Murphy also voiced his disdain for the proposal, saying he liked the current arrangement and benefits greatly from having access to police databases and correspondence. He also mentioned he and his colleagues would be treated differently and that police officers are more respected. “Marion used to be a model I was proud of.” Rather than voting on the article itself, a motion was put forth by a citizen to table the article indefinitely, and that motion passed. Thus ended the 2025 Marion Town Meeting.
Marion Annual Town Meeting
By Sam Bishop