[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6360988,"mediaKeyId","2171634-217b985857b2183dd2b0947b4db5b03d","parentId",2171634,"title","Committee raises legal question about Peabody donation after suggestion to reduce number of library trustees","audioSeconds",1106,"startMs",3169000,"endMs",4275000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2171634-217b985857b2183dd2b0947b4db5b03d&start=3169&end=4275","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2171634-217b985857b2183dd2b0947b4db5b03d/thumbnail_3169000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6360988/Town-of-Danvers/Essex-County/Massachusetts/Committee-raises-legal-question-about-Peabody-donation-after-suggestion-to-reduce-number-of-library-trustees","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6360988-59cc66a1533459f7e14d74f8e42d5d08/orig.mp4?Expires=1771212220&Signature=Zm~Csi0PkMWEGdF-HdCZfk5QLHu200K26TSf8W8-ilb2smdrRtBfugJg6k1honOPI8~uiFpvd9oVfu27P3p3h6Fs3Ub3vW12HqWQi9qKMwuJLhzKY239gduYVPd0ufwgrl42FU4h9EIniyjrrz2b3foatkGSrWFT3zDSEqKO0hJTWw~JKabyeBvMwOiW4xNIeKxc94vHF1QgD7-MFwzkuh29A0rDm7HHHSlRtggjQlTYyS6PWFm2jU9QLpSVkaFY3OVZCilvtapAPaKhjaao3h2BopNSQN3mCKTik6y1PsT0EeENzNLIeXBNHKk9wLwnmtHuYtATDthAsm5cGtT1og__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Town of Danvers, MA","date","2025-01-30T00:00:00Z","article","Committee members discussed the size and legal status of the Peabody Institute Library’s board of trustees after a Jan. 23 email from committee member Dan Gagnon. Gagnon’s note, reviewed during the Jan. 29 meeting, said the library was established under an act of the Massachusetts legislature in 1882 and quoted George Peabody’s original donation letter specifying nine life trustees and voter‑selected successors.

Sally summarized Gagnon’s research and noted the town had merged the George Peabody Society’s fundraising fund into the Peabody Institute’s fund; committee members debated whether that merger affects the legal constraints tied to the original donation.

Several members said the trustees’ historical role and responsibilities still matter. One member argued the trustees once oversaw building and grounds and that trustees also hire the library director, oversee budget advocacy, and manage trust funds that augment municipal appropriations. Another member said the nine‑member board is large compared with other town boards and proposed reducing the trustees to five to improve effectiveness; that member said she would recommend five if legal constraints permit. Others said they would oppose a reduction and stressed the trustees’ fundraising and advocacy functions.

The committee did not change trustee numbers at the meeting. Members agreed to recommend that the Select Board consult town counsel about whether the Peabody donation or the institute’s founding act legally requires nine trustees and, if that constraint does not apply, whether a reduction to five would be appropriate. The committee also suggested that, if the Select Board wants a recommendation, the committee would provide a preferred target number and the legal memo from town counsel for inclusion in the package sent to town meeting and town counsel.

Why it matters: The number and selection method for library trustees affects local governance, fundraising roles, and citizen representation on a long‑standing municipal institution funded in part by a historical trust.

Next steps: The committee will recommend that the Select Board seek town counsel review and said it will include its own proposed trustee number and rationale if requested.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Town of Danvers: Town Meeting/Manager Acts Review Committee Meeting - 1/29/25","oneSentenceSummary","Committee members discussed whether a historical gift from George Peabody legally fixes the Peabody Institute Library trustees at nine members. Some members recommended reducing the board; the committee agreed to recommend the Select Board consult town counsel before pursuing any change.","taxTitle","Town of Danvers, Essex County, Massachusetts","taxId",56467,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6360993,"Danvers review committee drops town-residency requirement for town manager, advances multiple Act edits",1430,622000,2052000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2171634-217b985857b2183dd2b0947b4db5b03d&start=622&end=2052","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2171634-217b985857b2183dd2b0947b4db5b03d/thumbnail_622000.jpg","/articles/6360993/Town-of-Danvers/Essex-County/Massachusetts/Danvers-review-committee-drops-town-residency-requirement-for-town-manager-advances-multiple-Act-edits","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6360993-110c820a5dfbf0ad3d3583253fde5d74/orig.mp4?Expires=1771212220&Signature=AUVDJV9AxsR1lntFztUTP81Rs2VnlVbZhTrfd2ROznMdilysXxwU8TaD6knDcLXzd2c8CQEFQAN2NP2XTHeoDPPKOtozfi~5OUCvknfRdFYYdi7RxF~h5c437D8~VyI3qHQ3r1-gTHvaGcjdr0aV634lir4Jz6iv4Lf8BJSKYMVAG9jvg3QcUHHBACkk6VxV4vzEXn8PUFaTRxz6sSfvUv2qlhxyeGyAK9lbQirUhpei6J0x~IStAWBTKvVZAwoiOxd0XBJOu2BVS2j9N889VjCxL5FHIr4h3db4sbCNf3q~Ub4t0XwvJLBOB6vRFF8c-6skOYcUZn57ToM0CNVpRA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Danvers Town Manager Acts Review Committee members voted on Jan. 29, 2025, to remove the Town Manager Act language requiring the town manager to be a resident of the Town of Danvers and approved a series of additional edits to Sections 9–13 of the Act.

The action followed an extended discussion in which committee members debated whether residency or a geographic radius requirement helps ensure community \"buy‑in\" or unduly narrows the candidate pool. The committee approved Sally's redline edits to multiple sections and agreed to notify the Select Board and, where applicable, to leave contractual details to negotiations.

Committee chair Sally opened the discussion by rereading Section 8 and presenting a proposed redline. John, who had to leave early, said before departing that, \"when it comes to the vote, I just wanna make sure that I registered my vote as, not having any restrictions on their on the residency.\" Noah Levitt said the committee should \"remove the residency requirement\" because managers are professionals reachable and present in town; Marybeth Ferry said she did not \"necessarily feel this should be a residency requirement\" but worried about long‑term retention and community connection for nonresidents.

The committee took a recorded voice vote on Section 8 after discussion. The chair reported that seven members present voted in favor; a member who had expressed a preference earlier (John) was not present to cast a formal vote.

Votes at a glance
- Section 8 (Town manager residency language): motion to adopt Sally's edits passed (voice vote; 7 members affirmed; one member had expressed an opinion but did not cast a formal vote). Motion text: \"Adopt section 8 as discussed tonight with the edits and the red line that Sally provided.\" Mover: John (expressed and moved); Second: not explicitly recorded in transcript; Outcome: approved. Notes: committee removed the residency requirement language.
- Section 9 (filling a vacancy/temporary town manager appointment): approved (voice vote; tallies not specified). Motion text: \"Accept section 9.\" Outcome: approved.
- Section 10 (designation during temporary absence): approved (voice vote). Motion text: \"Accept section 10, with Sally's edits.\" Outcome: approved.
- Section 11 (removal procedure, prelim./final resolution, hearing timeline): discussed; members debated whether the suspension pay clause (3 months' salary) should remain or be handled in contract negotiations; committee agreed to seek clarification from the Select Board chair before finalizing. No final substantive deletion recorded tonight (action: committee will follow up with Select Board chair/town counsel). Outcome: action: request for follow up.
- Section 12 (compensation limits tied to appropriations): approved (voice vote).
- Section 13A–F, I (manager powers and duties, supervision, reorganizations, appointments/removals, annual reporting, property procurement): motions to accept edits were made and carried by voice votes. Notable edits approved: requiring notice to the Select Board before reorganizations (30 days notice inserted), removal of the word \"all\" in the appointment/removal clause and an added phrase to make personnel notifications \"consistent with applicable privacy laws,\" and small language clarifications on bonds and who may swear in a town manager. For several items the committee asked staff to confirm existing practice (for example, whether compensation details already appear in budget documents or manager reports) and to consult the Select Board chair or town counsel where appropriate.

Why it matters: removing the residency requirement expands the potential candidate pool and aligns Danvers with other Massachusetts communities that have moved away from mandatory residency. The committee’s edits also aim to increase transparency to the Select Board while preserving managerial discretion to run daily operations.

What the committee did not decide: the committee debated whether the Act should explicitly require the town manager to be bonded or whether that should remain discretionary for the Select Board; members agreed to retain optional bond language wording permitting the Select Board to require a bond \"if deemed necessary or appropriate.\" The committee also flagged personnel suspension/compensation language (Section 11) for follow up with the Select Board chair and town counsel.

The committee will reconvene next week and invited absent members to raise objections or request reconsideration of items already voted. Sally said she would note any follow‑up items \"so I don't forget\" and will get clarification from the Select Board chair on questions about contract practices and suspension/severance language.","The Town Manager Acts Review Committee voted to remove the requirement that a town manager be a resident of Danvers (Section 8) and approved edits to several other sections of the Town Manager Act, including appointment, temporary appointment, reporting, and personnel provisions.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee raises legal question about Peabody donation after suggestion to reduce number of library trustees

Danvers review committee drops town-residency requirement for town manager, advances multiple Act edits