10° and Clear
Image
Why fix it if if ain't broke? That's the argument of those who are happy with the existing structure of town government. On the other side sits a diversity of opinion asking whether Franklin might not function better with some tweaks to the existing rules of engagement.
Even though Franklin continues to style itself as the “Town of Franklin,” its governing structure is defined by a Home Rule Charter that provides for a Town Council–Town Administrator form of government. Franklin’s own charter states that it “provides for a Town Council – Town Administrator form of town government,” and is titled the “Franklin Home Rule Charter.” In practical terms, that places Franklin in the group of Massachusetts municipalities that operate with a council/manager-style structure rather than a traditional open town meeting model or an elected mayor.
As community discussion turns to potential updates—such as staggered terms for elected officials or changes to board composition (for example, adding members to the Zoning Board of Appeals)—it helps to understand what can be changed locally, what state law controls, and the formal routes for changing a charter.
What a municipal charter does—and why communities revisit it
A charter functions like a municipality’s “operating constitution.” It allocates powers, sets up the structure of elected and appointed offices, and establishes procedures for budgeting, appointments, and decision-making. Over time, charters can drift out of alignment with the realities of growth, workload, and public expectations. Common charter-review topics include:
> Election timing and term structure (including staggered terms)
> The appointment/confirmation process for boards and commissions
> The internal checks and balances between council and manager/administrator
> How representative government is apportioned (e.g. members elected at large or by neighborhood or precinct)..
> Transparency measures, citizen petition rules, and procedural clarity
The interest among some in changes like staggered terms is typical of communities looking for continuity and institutional memory on multi-year projects—especially those involving zoning, housing, capital planning, and long-range infrastructure.
The state-law pathways for changing a charter
Massachusetts provides multiple ways to adopt, revise, or amend a local charter. The primary statewide framework is M.G.L. Chapter 43B (Home Rule Procedures Act), which lays out procedures for adopting, revising, and amending home rule charters.
In broad strokes, communities typically pursue one of these routes:
> Charter commission route (often used for major revisions).
Chapter 43B includes procedures for creating or electing a charter commission and then presenting proposed charter language to voters. The mechanics and timelines can vary, but the hallmark is that a commission is empowered to propose a comprehensive charter package for ballot consideration.
> Amendment route through the legislative body (often used for narrower changes).
Chapter 43B also provides an amendment process. Importantly, certain “big ticket” governance changes—especially those that affect the composition, method of election/appointment, or terms of key governing offices—are restricted and may require action by an elected charter commission rather than being done solely by the legislative body. That limitation is explicit in Chapter 43B, Section 10.
This point matters directly for ideas like staggered terms: depending on how the change is drafted and what offices it affects, it may fall into the category that must be proposed via a charter commission.
Special act route through the state legislature.
Massachusetts also recognizes a charter-change pathway through a special act. The state’s guidance notes that, as an option to Chapter 43B, communities can adopt, revise, or amend a charter via a special act of the Legislature.
Communities typically pursue special acts when they want state-level authorization, have a unique structural issue, or already operate under older “special act” charter frameworks.
Example: changing the Zoning Board of Appeals
If the conversation includes adding members to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), it’s useful to know what state law presumes. Under M.G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 12, a board of appeals “shall consist of three or five members,” unless otherwise provided by charter.
That “unless otherwise provided by charter” clause is key: it means a charter can be the mechanism that allows a municipality to structure the ZBA differently from the default state pattern, if done properly.
In practice, many Massachusetts communities operate with five regular members plus associate/alternate members for flexibility when recusals arise. (Local rules often specify how alternates are seated.) Whether Franklin’s ZBA expansion is contemplated as additional full members, additional associates, or a change in appointment terms, the charter (and local bylaws/ordinances) may be central to making it lawful and workable.
Recent Massachusetts examples of charter change activity
Charter review isn’t theoretical—many communities are actively doing it:
> Somerville has placed a new charter before voters, with the city noting a 2025 ballot question on approving a new charter.
> Framingham has public materials describing 2025 charter amendment questions and a long list of proposed changes and clarifications.
> Amherst has conducted a charter review process through a committee framework, with documented procedures and timelines for recommendations and council action.
> Gardner has published information for voters about a charter-related ballot question and proposed changes.
These examples show a common pattern: communities build a public record (committee/commission materials, redlines, explanatory memos), then route changes through the legally required approvals—often culminating in a ballot question.
What this means for Franklin
For Franklin, talk of staggered terms and board composition changes fits squarely into the kinds of issues that charters are designed to govern. The main practical question is not whether such changes are possible, but which legal pathway is required under Chapter 43B—and whether the scope triggers the requirement that only a charter commission can propose certain governance-structure changes. That's a question that hinges on many technical details -- and their interpretation.
