Vote on Tax Collector & Town Clerk Stirs Anger

As Dave Walsh reminded people on Thursday night, the Town Meeting is Stafford's highest form of government. At the June 12, 2025, Town Meeting, more than 100 people showed up to cast their votes and decide whether or not Stafford would adopt new ordinances to change the positions of Town Clerk and Tax Collector from elected to "appointed" (which really means hired). But by the end of the meeting, Brian Bagley called the vote invalid, after the new ordinances had passed.

June 12, 2025, Stafford Town Meeting

More than 100 people in attendance, it was necessary to move the meeting from the Veterans' Room to the upstairs auditorium. First Selectmen Bill Morrison went over the reasons he thought it necessary to make this change, which we have reported on in the past, but which boil down to:

• Both positions required to be certified, but certification is not required to run for these positions

• Because the positions are elected, they do not technicallyreport to anyone but the voters and can set their own schedules and cannot be removed from office by any means other than a vote

• The Tax Collector must be bondable

• Electing these positions limit the pool of potential applicants

A long discussion ensued.

Bagley kicked things off by noting that Stafford has always elected these positions, and that he preferred the people in those positions to be Stafford residents. He also noted that the positions would be appointed for four-year terms. The ordinances, however, also state that the Board of Selectmen can remove someone during their term for cause.

James Madsen got up and said he thought this was "a solution looking for a problem. He suggested changing the ordinance to define steps that could be taken if someone who was elected could not be bonded. On a similar note, Martin Cabrera asked why certification can't be a requirement to run? Current Town Clerk Keren Troiano said that state statutes say that it is not required. Current Tax Collector Stephanie Irving noted that she was already certified when she first ran for office.

Carol Parker said that she once ran for Town Clerk and then said, "What did I get myself into?" She called the positions "too critical" to leave up to an election. Walsh noted that he was not "definitively for or against" the ordinances, but called the jobs complicated. He wondered how many people thought they could run an election right now (a job that falls, at least partly, to the Town Clerk, who also certifies the results).

Notably, another Stafford resident whose name I could not hear said she was a Town Clerk in another town and that she thought the position should be hired. She said that a lot of training is needed, and if she thought she could lose her job every two years, she might rethink it. She also said, "As clerks, we're supposed to be bipartisan."

Henry Brooks said he felt things should remain as is, so Stafford "Can have a Democracy still, not have it taken away." Tim Cromwell said he worried about voter disenfranchisement and suggested the town should vote on this in November and to "keep the politics out of it."

Troiano said that if that were to happen, there would need to be two separate ballots: one for all of the people who were on the ballot, and one for everyone else. That spurred Beth Magure to ask what would happen if, due to an inexperienced clerk, an election was done improperly, what would happen. Troiano said it would be invalid and would either result in a court case or a new election.

Steve Geryk said, "When it comes to Town Hall, the politics should be upstairs." He added, " The best way to move forward in a professional way" was to "hire the best person for the job." There are plenty of positions to vote for, and he thought it best to "vote for the things that actually affect our lives."

Dave Galotto said the issue had "become political because it was brought up by Bill's party," referring to Morrison. "Are we saying that our voices aren't important?" he asked, after recognizing that others had noted how important the positions are to the town.

Many of these same sentiments were expressed over and over. Some felt the positions were too important to leave up to elections. Others felt doing things the way they've always been done was preferable and that it has worked fine thus far. Still others felt the issue should be voted on at a referendum rather than at Town Meeting. In fact, I started to wonder if someone would make a motion to move it to a referendum (and if that would work). However, Bagley simply made a motion to take the vote on a paper ballot.

Two votes were taken, one for each ordinance, and ultimately, the changes passed. The vote on the Tax Collector ordinance was taken first and passed 54-51. Some people left after that, and the vote for the Town Clerk ordinance passed 54-44. As you might imagine, after a passionate discussion, plenty of people seemed upset about the outcome. While murmurs of displeasure could be heard throughout the audience, Bagley got back up to speak and called the results of the votes invalid. He said that voters should have to be verified and validated, and said that people were confused about what a "Yes" or "No" vote meant. It's worth noting that Morrison explained this to the crowd at least twice, by my count.

The meeting adjourned abruptly, and those who were not happy with the outcome quickly began to make claims that the ordinance was "illegally voted in." Others took to Facebook to continue discrediting the outcome, including a post from the Republican Town Committee that called into question whether the vote had been "scrapped" already.

We'll see what happens next.