Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 43, § 11 (2026)

Majority vote required for adoption of plan; effect of adoption; election of officers

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 11. If a majority of the total number of votes cast at a regular city election for and against the adoption of one of the plans of government provided for in this chapter shall be in favor of its adoption, this chapter, so far as applicable to the form of government under the plan adopted by the city, shall supersede the provisions of its charter and of the general and special laws relating thereto and inconsistent herewith, but not, however, until officers provided for under such plan shall have been duly elected and their terms of office shall have begun. The officers provided for under the plan so adopted shall be elected in accordance with the provisions of this chapter relating to such plan and in accordance with section fifteen, and their terms of office shall begin at ten o'clock in the forenoon of the first Monday of January following their election.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1932–1980 · leading case: Archambault v. Mayor of Lowell, 180 N.E. 157 (Mass. 1932).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Archambault v. Mayor of Lowell, 180 N.E. 157 (Mass. 1932). “These sections purport to deal with the whole subject matter of the award of contracts and, even if, as contended by the defendants, § 28 is not applicable to the contract in question, supersede the provisions of the prior charter of the city concerning this subject matter,…”

Kaczmarski v. Mayor of Springfield, 193 N.E.2d 574 (Mass. 1963). “This section shall not apply to the school committee, or to officials appointed by the governor, or to assessors if elected by the people.”

Petti v. Lyons, 402 N.E.2d 1090 (Mass. App. Ct. 1980). “Winslow was still holding the office by virtue of his election of December, 1914, for the remainder of a term, which would not expire until January, 1917.” Also in the case at bar, the adoption of Plan B by the city of Brockton did not vitiate the statutory pattern of the 1901…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.