By Christopher Haraden

Voters at the May 4 annual town meeting will once again consider a proposal to rescind a 33-year-old provision that placed the Hull Municipal Light Plant under the control of the town manager.

A citizens’ petition submitted to town hall on January 22 seeks to return the light plant to independent operation, confirming a 116-83 vote taken on Article 37 at last year’s town meeting. Article 37 proposed reverting to the management setup that was eliminated in 1993 when town meeting amended the town’s charter. Although Article 37 was approved in the spring, Town Manager Jennifer Constable told the light board and select board during the summer that legal counsel had deemed the article “not actionable” because the wording did not include specific provisions necessary to make the change.

After debate about whether the select board could – and should – vote to file the home-rule petition with the state Legislature, in September the board agreed to pursue the matter on Beacon Hill.

The Legislature’s Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government accepted written testimony on bill H.4739 in November. Although sponsored by state Rep. Joan Meschino and state Sen. Patrick O’Connor, the bill has been referred to a study committee, according to light board member Jacob Vaillancourt, who sponsored Article 37. Vaillancourt said he believes the maneuver stalls the bill indefinitely.

The new citizens’ petition, sponsored by Leslie Taylor, seeks to amend Chapter 8 of the Acts of 1989 – the special act of the Legislature that established Hull’s town manager form of government and was amended in 1993 – “to remove the town manager from the operation of the municipal light plant and to restore the statutory authority of the municipal light board.”

Annual town meeting petitions need the signatures of at least 10 registered voters. Taylor said she collected about 25 signatures and sought to submit them for verification as early as possible. She said the petition sponsors believe Hull’s electric company should be run by a strong board and a separate manager, the way the light plant had operated for about 100 years.

Those favoring an independent utility also believe that the separation will ensure clarity in the light plant’s finances. Current and former light commissioners have debated the merits of the plant’s payments-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILOTs) that have supplemented the town’s budgets over the years.

Current light board members disagree on the proposed change. Supporters of the current management setup say that having the town manager in charge of the utility is similar to the structure of other town departments and provides stability in financial management.

“The 1993 changes we want to undo may have been motivated by problems at that time, but the 1993 changes never did preclude the very mismanagement it claimed as its motivation,” Taylor said in a statement to the Times. “Instead, stripping control from the elected board has resulted in the town budget dependent on automated unregulated flows of money from the electric ratepayers.”

Last year’s approval of Article 37 and this year’s citizens’ petition are not the first attempts to undo the management structure change approved in the aftermath of a recall of four of five light board members. A similar proposal to repeal the 1993 legislation was referred to a study committee at the 2011 town meeting.

“We must do this again because the select board and our state representatives dropped the ball,” Taylor said. “Adding to the key phrase ‘restore the statutory authority of the light board,’ we want to help restore the authority of votes by town meeting. The select board’s disrespect for the town meeting votes, and their clinging to the status quo of money flowing from the electricity bills to the general account, results in the subversion of the authority of the light board.”

The warrant for the May 4 annual town meeting remains open until February 12.

Like what you’re reading? Stay informed and support our work with a Hull Times subscription by clicking here.

Do you have an opinion to share? Click here to write a Letter to the Editor.