The basis of John Thayer’s complaint to the Tisbury selectmen this week was simple inequity. Mr. Thayer receives a $240 a year stipend for being a Department of Public Works commissioner, while two other commissioners receive their stipend plus health benefits worth around $20,000 a year.

But the questions it raised are complex. Are some members of town boards hanging on just for the benefits? Is the lack of health benefits dissuading younger people from getting involved in town affairs? Should all board members get them, or should none? Could the stipends perhaps be increased and benefits decreased.

Now, after 14 years — for that is how long the current unequal system has existed — the town is planning to reconsider its policy relating to health benefits for board members.

The history goes back to the mid-1990s when Tisbury was, as now, facing tight budgets and looking for ways to cut costs. It was proposed to cut out the generous health coverage given to members of town boards.

The selectmen decided by a 2-1 majority to stop the benefits, but not all at once. They grandfathered them, so those board members then enjoying them would continue to do so, as long as they continued to serve, while new members would not get them.

And so today a situation exists where one selectman, Tristan Israel, receives health coverage while two do not.

Also according to town administrator John Bugbee, one member of the board of health, Kenneth Garde, receives coverage while two do not; two members of the board of the department of public works, Arthur Dickson and Fred Thifault have coverage, while two do not and one, Mr. Garde, is eligible; and one member of the board of the water department, David Schwab, has coverage and two do not.

Stipends for board members vary: $3,000 for the selectmen, $300 for the water department, $240 for the DPW and $200 for the health board.

The inequity of the arrangement was clearly keenly felt by Mr. Thayer, who told the selectmen he was first elected the year the change came into effect. Thus for 14 years his service to the town has been rewarded at $240 a year — the stipend has not changed — while that of two fellow board members has been rewarded with $240 plus health benefits, estimated by Mr. Thayer at some $15,000 a year and by Mr. Bugbee at closer to $20,000.

Not that he was sniping at his fellow DPW members.

“It is obvious we are not here for the compensation, that in fact we believe in service to the town,” he said.

But he implied that might not be the case for all members of all boards.

The uneven application of benefits, he said, had “contributed to the general malaise we see each year in our elections,” because longtime incumbents had a powerful reason to run again each year, while potential challengers had no such incentive to mount a challenge.

“Let me say that I understand that the reason for the policy was an effort to shave dollars from annual budgets,” Mr. Thayer said. It was not punitive or biased.

“However, the policy, in my opinion has had an outsized effect on the lack of participation by younger members of our community.

“It has aggravated the stagnation on town boards, for those members who have to keep running to keep a health care policy for their families.

“This is a policy that is penny-wise and pound-foolish.”

Mr. Thayer, reading from a prepared statement, went on to enumerate the responsibilities of his board, which he said had grown substantially over the years, and which included solid waste management, sewer and wastewater management, contract development for roads, infrastructure and town construction and repair projects, dealing with union issues, public meetings, participation on all town committees, cemeteries, parks and recreation. In addition to their own biweekly meetings, they meet regularly with other boards.

He said the town could reverse its policy for relatively little cost to its overall $21 million annual budget.

“Assuming a benefit cost of $15,000 a year, the cost to the town would be between $45,000 and $90,000,” he said.

While he acknowledged these were tough financial times, he believed it was important to act now to provide an incentive to encourage participation from town boards “from which we ask so much.

“We either make a decision to invest in a down cycle and take a more promising trajectory, or we do nothing, and wither,” he said.

Mr. Thayer said he did not want to be fobbed off with a referral to a committee or taken for long-term discussion.

“I have asked for a review of this policy for as long as it has been in place, I have seen the undesired and unintended effects and I am asking for your action in addressing this policy, which I believe has to be changed,” he said

He got part of his wish. The proposal was not buried; it will be up for discussion at the next meeting of the board.

But the two selectmen present, Mr. Israel and Jeff Kristal, had reservations.

For a start there was the cost. Providing benefits to all the board members who previously received it would add up to a lot more than Mr. Thayer estimated: around $183,000, for it would cover not only the boards Mr. Thayer mentioned but also the water commissioners and assessors as well.

Mr. Israel, a beneficiary of the grandfathered benefits, said he put his $3,000 annual stipend toward the cost of his health benefit.

He doubted the climate was right for change, and wondered if reinstating the health benefit might encourage some to run for office for the benefits rather than out of a sense of duty to the town.

He also thought there might be a case instead for increasing the stipends received by board members.

But, he said: “I certainly think it’s a dialogue worth having.”

Mr. Kristal said he thought Mr. Thayer made a good point about “incentivizing people to get involved.”