COUNTERPOINT: Keeping the town manager in charge of light department operations ‘benefits everyone’
/Op/Ed by Polly Rowe
Article 37: Hull Town Manager serving as Hull Light Plant Manager benefits everyone. Town meeting warrant Article 37 is a proposal submitted by light board member Jacob Vaillancourt and others to remove the town manager from the role of municipal light plant manager. It seeks to restore to the light board the statutory responsibility found in Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 164, “including but not limited to the ability to make policy, hire and fire the light plant manager, employees (pursuant to union and any civil service requirements), and to perform as a board those actions and responsibilities it had prior to 1993,” when the town manager was designated to serve in the light plant manager role. (The Hull Times, March 6, 2025).
HULL MUNICIPAL LIGHT PLANT
The rights, duties, and obligations of municipal light commissions and light plant managers are authorized by, and defined according to, state statutes dating back to 1890. Case law of recorded Supreme Judicial Court decisions on constitutionality continue to serve to inform and address these fundamental legal concepts outlined in Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 164. Accordingly, one light board member’s sharing in the board’s public meeting of a constituent’s analogy comparing the town manager (unanimously appointed by the select board) who serves as light plant manager to Elon Musk, an unelected bureaucrat unaccountable to the public, was factually unfounded, and thus not applicable.
Respectfully stated to my fellow Hull residents who will vote on Article 37 at town meeting, most of us are woefully uninformed about the rights, responsibilities, obligations, and legal statutory and town charter delineations of power and authority vested to the municipal light board (commission), the municipal light plant manager (town manager), and the relationship between these two entities. Town meeting’s vote on this article will have profound consequential outcomes on the town as a whole that are numerous and significant: they will substantively financially impact all residents and local businesses. Because the light board’s primary fiduciary obligation is to protect the ratepayers in providing reliable, efficient, affordable electricity at steady rates (without volatile price fluctuations), I would implore voters to garner the facts to fully understand all aspects of the opposing opinions and perspectives in order to make a well-informed decision on this matter of such fundamental importance.
Hull Municipal Light Board public meetings have included discussions on several key issues of concern, including the perceived conflict of interest by some regarding Hull’s town manager also serving as the light plant manager, payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs), and the light board’s advisory-only role that excludes executive decision-making authority. After attending the March 27 meeting, I respectfully characterize Article 37 as an understandable, yet nonetheless emotionally fraught, overreaction to past events and circumstances that transpired in a previous administration. The realization that Article 37 is a solution in search of a problem makes me want to first clearly define the problem(s) that need to be addressed before we vote on an ill-conceived solution that may prove to be irrevocably detrimental to everyone involved.
Massachusetts cities and towns must have a municipal light plant manager as mandated by state law. This role “shall be entrusted to one officer, who shall be appointed and may be removed by the mayor in a city and by the selectmen in a town.” (Chapter 164, c. 370 *8). It is optional, not state-mandated, for communities to choose individuals at town meeting to serve as light commissioners. In 1993, in accordance with Hull’s town manager form of government established in 1989, residents voted at town meeting to give unrestricted control of and authority over the municipal light plant to the town manager following the recall of all but one (current) member of Hull’s municipal light board including due to egregious, unlawful, incompetent, gross mismanagement. History repeats itself when we fail to learn its lessons: Hull does not want, nor can it afford, a repeat of the pre-1993 fiscal fiasco.
The fiscal operation of the municipal light plant is governed by MGL Chapter 164, not by the statutory procedures applicable to other town departments. This law ascribes broad authority in at least eight categories to a municipal light plant manager: “The town manager shall supervise the operation of the municipal light plant and shall have the authority to hire, suspend, or remove personnel, and to negotiate personnel and all other contracts, and shall be responsible for the day-to-day functioning and operation of said light plant in accordance with the provisions of chapter one hundred and sixty-four of the General Laws. The municipal light board shall set rates and advise the town manager on general policy. The town manager shall present the annual budget of the light plant to the finance committee (advisory board) and board of selectmen.” This reflects a clear contrast to the pre-1993 system in which the light board operated without any of the necessary checks and balances on potential “fraudulent, unlawful, and excessive” monetary expenditures.
MGL Chapter 164 delineates the powers, duties, responsibilities, and limitations of municipal light boards and their individual commissioners. (1992 Golubek v. Westfield Gas & Electric Light Board). For example, the light board “has the power to give the MLP manager general directions with regard to the operation of the plant, including general directions as to the engagement of labor relations consultants, but not the power to hire agents, servants, and attorneys. That power, by statute, is expressly vested in the manager alone,” and “individual MLP commissioners cannot usurp authority of the manager.”
MLP managers and commissioners must act in accordance with certain ”reasonable” standards guided by what’s known as the business judgement rule. An established industry standard, this rule presumes that directors and commissioners act independently, unbiased, and with no self-interest while exercising reasonable due care in making fully well-informed decisions to protect the best interests of the “corporation” they serve. “The proper exercise of due diligence in decision-making by a director in informing himself of material information and in overseeing the outside advice on which he might properly rely is, of necessity, a pre-condition to performing this ultimate duty of acting in good faith to protect the best interests of the corporation.” In this context, it’s worth re-stating select board Chair Irwin Nesoff’s statement that the town manager, a Hull citizen and residential taxpayer, also serving as the light plant manager, does not receive any additional stipend from the light plant beyond the salary that was negotiated for the town manager position.
The Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company (MMWEC) recently performed a financial review of Hull’s light plant to assess its overall financial health, with a specific focus on financial and operational indicators. (The Hull Times, January 23, 2025) As a result, MMWEC has recommended that the light board consider a rate increase due in part to the need for the light plant to replenish its cash reserves; it further recommends that the light plant not pursue more debt in the meantime. MMWEC’s presentation to the light board indicated that the light plant “had a relatively strong cash position prior to 2022.” However, power and operating costs “became more challenging in 2021 – with base rates remaining static while overall costs appreciated,” the report stated. In this context, as we await news of a potential rate increase, it’s worth noting the town manager’s budgetary statement (March 12, 2025 select board meeting) that all costs – administrative, contracts, health insurance, supplies, materials, pensions, and benefits – continue to increase since the light board’s last rate increase 11 years ago in 2014.
The Hull Municipal Light Board provides ratepayers reliable, efficient, affordable, almost 70% carbon-free electricity with excellent service superlative to most light departments. Along with a present prioritization of increasing cash reserves, the light board is fully focused on planning for the future, including an expansion of our current capacity and various alternative power supply sources needed to meet the increasing demands on the system.
In my humble opinion, the current White House administration’s (denial) perspectives on global climate change adds an additional stressor to our local economy because the grants for future funding may be unavailable or very limited at best. Before we take a radical leap from the frying pan into the fireplace by approving at town meeting Article 37, which seeks to remove the current town manager as the light plant manager, we should first actively pursuit other viable alternatives, such as the following: Let’s seek to clarify the parameters of the light board’s advisory role. Let’s ask if it is possible for the Hull Municipal Light Board, in accordance with the legal guidelines set forth both by statute under MGL Chapter 164 and in Hull’s charter, to be given an opportunity to have a seat at the table with the town manager to participate in the discussion of PILOTs regarding any future monetary expenditures and appropriations taken from the light board to the Town of Hull, and have the light board formally put on record their votes on these matters.
Unless and until we have first done our homework by exploring the alternative options available, I implore Hull residents to vote “no” on Article 37.
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.
© 2025 The Hull Times. All rights reserved.
