SWAMPSCOTT- Jack Paster has worked at town hall for 22 years, and he had no reason to believe that would change any time soon. In fact, in early 2000 he was offered a substantial raise–$30,000 over three years–for the two jobs he holds, as clerk-collector and treasurer. But if he does stay on, it may be as a hired hand, not an elected official.

The five-member board of selectmen wants to erase Paster’s two posts, and several other offices, from the Swampscott ballot. It hopes to streamline town government by putting it in the hands of a town administrator, who would be appointed by–and accountable to–the selectmen, rather than the voters of Swampscott. All three members of the board of public works would also lose their status as elected officials; like Paster, they would serve at the pleasure of the selectmen.

Paster initially agreed to the plan, and said so publicly. But then he had second thoughts, which he expressed in a way that caught the attention of people who don’t ordinarily follow town politics. “I was blinded by the $30,000,” he announced at town meeting on October 10, according to the Lynn Daily Item. “I swallowed hard and stood up to support the plan. I felt like I had sold my soul to the devil.”

If Swampscott’s selectmen had ever thought charter reform would be painless, they learned otherwise that night. They had promised a more cost-efficient government, but now they stand accused of trying to take away the people’s right to vote. The citizens of Swampscott will have to sort all this out when they vote on the new charter sometime this winter or spring.

Carole Shutzer, chairman of the board, says the change would bring a “team effort” to town government. “Right now, everyone seems to go in their own direction,” she says, “and it isn’t working.”

Officials in other Bay State towns have reached the same conclusion recently. A proposal similar to the one in Swampscott will go before Dedham voters in March; if it passes, the current elected positions of comptroller, tax collector, and treasurer would all become appointed, either by the town administrator or the director of finance. The Dedham plan was approved for the ballot by an achingly close margin (106 to 101) at a special town meeting held in November. That same week, a blue-ribbon panel established by selectmen in Ludlow recommended that several elected positions in that town–including town accountant, treasurer/collector, and the entire board of public works–be abolished or turned into appointed jobs. That plan can’t move forward until the next regular town election, which isn’t until March 2003.

Indeed, adding a town administrator to the top of its organization chart would make Swampscott fall in line with most other Bay State communities. According to the Massachusetts Municipal Association, about two-thirds of the cities and towns in the Bay State have some kind of “professional” (i.e., unelected) manager to keep local government running smoothly on a day-to-day basis. The trend toward professional management was strengthened by a 1997 state law making it easier for towns to change the status of local officials from elected to appointed.

But Paster says there is no reason to change Swampscott’s 19th-century charter. Reform proponents have made only general claims about the benefits of centralized government, he says, but what would be lost in the change is “fundamental.”

“I feel I’m accountable to voters and they keep re-electing me,” Paster says. “The charter changes would put most of the control in the hands of the board of selectmen. It seems to me by doing that, the townspeople are putting all the control and authority in the hands of five people. Voting is a basic, fundamental part of being American and I’d hate to see it taken away.”

Town moderator Martin Goldman feels that Paster is overstating his case. “The idea of reforming town government has been a long time coming,” he says. “The town needs to be run like a big business, and for that we need a town administrator to come in and act like a CEO.”

With a land area barely over three square miles and a population of 14,412, Swampscott doesn’t seem to be quite the municipal equivalent of a “big business,” but its compact nature may actually strengthen the case for efficiency at town hall. There are few commercial or industrial properties on the tax rolls to help subsidize the costs of providing basic services to Swampscott households.

“This is a small town with few resources,” Shutzer says. “We don’t have any land to build on, and we don’t feel we get enough financial help from the state. It isn’t right to keep putting the financial burden on the taxpayers. We feel that by making town government more accountable, we can keep taxes down. The time has come to make some changes.”

The charter-reform push in Swampscott began early last year with a routine audit by the state Department of Revenue. “Appointing a town administrator or town manager is an appropriate direction for the town over the next few years,” the DOR report advised. “Absent this, the town is not well-positioned to navigate through the challenging years to come.”

A three-person town government study committee, appointed by Goldman, recommended that Swampscott join a slow-but-steady statewide trend toward reducing the number of elected town offices. Paster spoke in favor of the recommendations at town meeting last spring, but since then he’s “reappraised the situation,” he says. “I was temporarily blinded by the money, but now I’m able to step back and think more clearly.”

On October 9, one week before a special town meeting that was to decide whether to move ahead toward a townwide referendum on the charter change, Paster held a press conference to voice his objections. Appearing live on the town’s cable-access television station, Paster was joined by other charter-reform opponents, including members of the board of public works, board of assessors, and planning board. (In response, Selectman Dan Santanello told the Swampscott Reporter that the press conference “was laced with Paster’s lies,” specifically the implication that the selectmen offered Paster a raise in exchange for his support of charter reform. Santanello says the town’s finance committee recommended the raise.)

Paster asked the operators of Channel 16 to replay the speeches during the week, but the board of selectmen nixed the idea, acting on an opinion by the town’s legal counsel that the tape could not be rebroadcast because the cable channel cannot be used for political advertising or campaigning. This drove Paster to broaden his grounds for attacking the board of selectmen from defense of the franchise to protection of free speech. “Five people should not rule cable TV in the town of Swampscott,” he told the Reporter.

The press conference never went into reruns, but two days later charter-reform opponents got their licks in again at a meeting of the board of public works, which was broadcast live. After dispensing with water and sewage problems, the public-works board moved on to the cable-TV imbroglio, with member Chris Jaeger likening the selectmen to the Taliban. “They have squashed the beliefs and opinions of the people they serve,” she said, according to the Item.

At town meeting on October 15, finance committee member Cindy Merkle tried to steer the debate back toward the topic of efficiency. Echoing the DOR report, she said that inconsistent payroll information made it difficult for her committee to figure out exactly how many people were employed by the Department of Public Works. The debate dragged on so long that another town meeting was scheduled for the following night, at which the charter reform passed by a show of hands–with only about half of Swampscott’s 324 elected town meeting members in attendance. Assuming the governor and state Legislature have no objections, the plan will next face a much larger jury: the town’s 9,500 registered voters.

Proponents of charter revision remain cautiously optimistic. Goldman says that Swampscott voters, who approved a Proposition 2 and a 1/2 override last May, will demand a more efficient government in return for their rising property-tax bills. “We need new schools badly,” he says, “[but] until we get central authority or better fiscal manageability, it isn’t going to happen.” Paster feels that the Swampscott electorate is a better central authority than a town administrator would be, but he also worries that not enough voters will be motivated to keep power in their own hands. If a special election is held during the cold weather season, he says, low turnout may skew the results toward the board of selectmen’s plan. “I feel they should set the election up [in April], when we have our regular town meeting,” he says.

Gerry Perry, chairman of the town-government study committee, says that no matter when the vote is scheduled, time is on the side of the reformers.

“The vast majority of Massachusetts cities and towns have town administrators,” he says, adding that even before the DOR report, a private consulting firm hired by the town came up with essentially the same recommendations. “There are a few in town who disagree, but I think in the end they’ll see that it’s a better decision.”

Maybe so. But he shouldn’t hold his breath waiting for Jack Paster to change his mind again.

Teri Borseti is a freelance writer who lives in Franklin and is a regular contributor to The Boston Globe.