Town Meeting dissolved weeks ago, yet Article 25—a citizen petition signed by over 200 residents who spent three years attending meetings seeking relief—remains trapped in a bureaucratic holding pattern wrapped in an enigma.
We were told the article calling for transparency and financial oversight of the airport enterprise account posed a “legal detriment” due to a court injunction against the Town Manager regarding municipal services. But conflating executive operational policing with legislative financial oversight is a deliberate distraction. An injunction constraining executive management does not strip Town Meeting members of their statutory right to demand fiscal accounting.
If Town Counsel truly believed Article 25 violated a court order, the proper legal path was to approach the judge for a formal ruling or clarification. That is what should have been done properly. Instead, officials hid behind an unproduced, invisible “legal opinion” to pull Article 25 off the floor entirely, leaving zero public record or legitimacy.
Even if a valid legal concern existed, standard parliamentary procedure dictates that Town Meeting itself should have voted to Indefinitely Postpone or Table the matter. At the very least, if the article were indefinitely postponed or tabled, there would have been real, open debate on the floor. That public discussion was vital—it would have sent a clear message to the remaining airport commissioners that the political winds of Plymouth are blowing directly against them. Stifling debate only protected them from public pressure.
Article 25 simply asks Plymouth to follow standard practice—much like Nantucket Town Meeting, which cleanly segregates mandatory grant agreements from discretionary ones. The FAA requires a 5% local monetary match precisely because federal policy recognizes that non-mandatory grants carry long-term municipal obligations, requiring community buy-in rather than a shell game that hides grant commitments from citizens.
Meanwhile, leadership at the executive level is moving in the opposite direction. I commend the Select Board for taking decisive action by appointing two new Airport Commissioners, with a third seat now opening as a longtime commissioner resigns over conflict-of-interest laws and business ties on airport property. The Select Board fired a clear shot across the bow, exercising necessary leadership as the remaining commission circles the wagons even deeper amid growing airport scrutiny.
Yet while the Select Board acts and commission ethics conflicts surface—the very issues 200 petitioners worked years to address—Town Meeting was told its hands were tied.
Now, with the Moderator and Town Counsel barring Town Meeting from acting at all on this enterprise account, leadership is trying to have it both ways. They expect Town Meeting to vote on and fund an enterprise account that representatives are forbidden to have eyes and ears on. How could any Town Meeting member, in good conscience, support an enterprise account budget at the upcoming Spring Town Meeting without the basic oversight and transparency that residents demanded?
As our town debate turns toward forming another Charter Commission to rewrite local government, we must ask: Why change the very charter officials refuse to follow today?
In less than six months at Spring Town Meeting, representatives must vote on this exact enterprise budget. Suppressing debate doesn’t protect the town—it only shields bad process. Article 25 belonged on the floor, and come spring, Town Meeting members will hold the power of the purse to demand the transparency denied to them now.
– Al DiNardo
DiNardo is a Town Meeting member representing Precinct 17.