A NECSEMA Transparency Project
Public records obtained under G.L. c. 66, § 10
Home › Core Observations of the NFG Machine
Observation 4 of 5The same coordinator described a board that declined to act as having “tabled it so it wasn’t a no vote.” Easthampton adopted by a two-member board after the one member who asked for public input first left and her seat went unfilled — the Massachusetts Association of Health Boards having advised that two of three could vote.
Where the question did reach voters directly, it lost. Bellingham Town Meeting defeated the proposal 110 to 70 in May 2025, and Manchester-by-the-Sea residents voted 81 to 76 to overturn their ban — a non-binding result the Board of Health declined to honor, leaving the regulation in force.
Residents were largely unaware of what had been decided in their names. In a survey of registered voters across twenty-three of the twenty-four municipalities that had adopted the policy, 34 percent knew their Board of Health had adopted it, and 24 percent clearly recalled receiving notice of a hearing on permanent access bans.
Each exhibit gives the quotation, the speaker and the date, sourced to the public records production in which it appears.
“Then I met with Boards of Health in all seven of my municipalities. They all voted to hold a public hearing. It’s not a legal requirement but…”; of a board that declined, that it “tabled it so it wasn’t a no vote”; and of the town meeting route, “all you need is for one town meeting member to stand up and shout… and it’s over.”
Maureen Buzby, presentation script.
“You do not have to provide a virtual option for a public meeting. And you can have 2 members of a 3-member board vote.”
Cheryl Sbarra, MAHB, to Ryan Griffin, April 9, 2026. The third member had urged that “there needs to be considerable discussion and public input prior to the board considering a generational ban” and that it “might also be appropriate… to be considered by the City Council (elected officials)”; her term expired, the seat went unfilled, and the two remaining members adopted.
“The vote to overturn the ban was 81 Yes, 76 No, and 4 Abstain. It was so close that the BOH is justified saying that you side with the ½ that want to protect youth.”
Wendy Hansbury, Manchester-by-the-Sea Health Director, to Board member Leah Peavey, April 29, 2025. The Town Meeting vote was non-binding; the Board maintained the regulation.
At the Pittsfield Board of Health the chair “really wants to avoid having members of the audience chiming in,” and had “received many emails in opposition — and they haven’t even had it on an agenda yet.”
Maureen Buzby, January–March 2025.
Twenty-four percent of voters across the surveyed municipalities clearly recall receiving notice of a Board of Health hearing on permanent access bans; 34 percent knew their board had adopted the policy. Seventy percent prefer a single statewide standard for age-restricted products.
Survey of N=400 Massachusetts registered voters age 21+ across 23 municipalities, conducted by Forbes Tate Partners for the New England Convenience Store & Energy Marketers Association and Altria Client Services LLC, June 19 – July 1, 2026; margin of error ±4.90%.