Marshfield’s Board of Registrars will convene for a formal evidentiary hearing on May 22 to evaluate a series of legal challenges brought against a recently certified recall petition. The move follows the filing of five separate objections from residents Steven Lynch, Joe Pesvich, Pamela Keith, and Eric Kelly, who are disputing both the legal sufficiency of the recall and the validity of specific signatures collected by petitioners.

The meeting opened with a reorganization of the board, as members David O'Reilly, Dave Kohler, and Walter Sterling met remotely to establish leadership for the upcoming proceedings. Motion Made by W. Sterling to elect D. O'Reilly as chair. Motion Passed (3-0-0). Sterling noted that while the board was new, some community members had already begun looking to the group for guidance on the recall process. I noticed in one of the town publications that Dave O'Reilly is noted as being the chair of the Registrar boards, Sterling said during the nomination.

Special Counsel Lauren Goldberg of KP Law was brought in to provide independent legal guidance, as Town Counsel Robert Galvin—who also serves as a member of the Board of Public Works—noted the importance of specialized expertise in election law for this matter. Goldberg explained that the board must act as a quasi-judicial body, hearing evidence to determine if the petition, which requires 3,174 signatures per precinct to move forward, meets the legal threshold. The board’s decisions are supposed to be based on substantial evidence—the kind of evidence that would convince a reasonable mind to accept a particular conclusion, Goldberg told the registrars.

The challenges arrive as Marshfield grapples with a projected $4.5 million to $6 million fiscal deficit for FY27 and a stalled search for a new Town Administrator. While the registrars did not discuss the political motivations behind the recall, they emphasized the gravity of the signature verification process. David O'Reilly asked if individual signers might be required to participate in the upcoming hearing. I was just wondering... if at any moment a person's signature is in question, are they ever called? O'Reilly asked. Goldberg confirmed that if an objector challenges a specific line, the voter can be summonsed to testify in person.

The board must now navigate the requirement to move forthwith while ensuring all parties have time to prepare legal arguments. Dave Kohler expressed concern regarding the timeline, noting, How soon does this have to take place? I've got some work through the 17th of May. Goldberg clarified that while the law requires prompt action, a late May date would likely satisfy a court’s standard for timeliness. Motion Made by D. O'Reilly to schedule the hearing for May 22, 2026, at 9:00 AM. Motion Passed (3-0-0). The hearing will be held in person at the Select Board chambers to better facilitate witness testimony.

Town Clerk Narice Casper, who typically serves on the Board of Registrars, announced she would recuse herself from the board's deliberations on this specific case. I’m stepping out because I am the Town Clerk and I have other duties with regard to this. So I’m not participating as a Registrar for this, Casper said. The board will meet again briefly on May 7 at 10:00 AM via Zoom to finalize the calendar of deadlines for legal briefs and witness lists before the formal hearing begins.