When Governor Charlie Baker unveiled his municipal modernization bill last December, mayors, town managers, and selectmen across the state rejoiced.

They said it would give them more local control, more flexibility. They would be able, without seeking legislative approval, to run their cities and towns more independently and efficiently, from deciding the number of liquor licenses they could issue, to something as simple as whether legal notices could be posted on line rather than in the local newspaper.

But buried in the bill’s 1,100 pages is a section that veterans see as a backdoor kick in the pants, the first serious move to get rid of veterans preference in Civil Service hiring.

The original version of the bill before the Legislature’s Joint Committee on Public Service had a section that made it easier for cities and towns to opt out of Civil Service hiring entirely. A new, recently inserted section calls for a special commission to study revocation of veterans preference.

Jesse Flynn, veteran outreach coordinator for Massachusetts Fallen Heroes, a veterans advocacy group, suspects the real intent is to restore a patronage system.

“So instead of a vet who served his country getting a job, somebody who knows somebody will get the job,’’ says Flynn. “We’ve had veterans preference since World War I. And they want to take it away now? After more than a decade of constant war? A disgrace.’’

Flynn and other veterans advocates point the finger at the Massachusetts Municipal Association, which represents the commonwealth’s cities and towns, as being the driving force behind a stealth campaign to end veterans preference in hiring for police and firefighters.

Geoff Beckwith, the executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association, acknowledged that his organization favors giving cities and towns more flexibility in hiring police and firefighters, but denies having any specific opposition to veterans preference.

“Veterans preference is not driving this. There’s a broader context. It’s about local management,’’ Beckwith said. “The Civil Service system itself is old, outdated, and antiquated. It’s a rigid system. The veterans element is one part of this. It’s important we look at all of the elements.’’

Beckwith said his group understands that this is controversial, “that it’s important and sensitive.’’

“That’s why we recommend a dialogue that’s meaningful and real,’’ he said.

I agree. We need to have a dialogue about what we owe veterans, especially after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, in which the service for so many was performed by so few for so long. I think we owe them a lot.

Veterans preference in Civil Service hiring, especially for police and fire, always made sense to me, and not just as a way to repay veterans for their service. In jobs where people are expected to put themselves in tense, hazardous situations, a military background, in which you’re used to taking orders you might not necessarily like but are bound to follow, is desirable.

As for the argument that veterans preference limits the diversity of the applicant pool, that flies in the face of the fact that the US military is far more diverse than most institutions. Minorities are disproportionately represented in all branches of the service. If you can’t find a qualified black, brown, or other non-white veteran these days, you just aren’t looking hard enough. That said, all police and fire departments can do a better job of seeking out veterans of color.

But after more than a decade of sustained war, when multiple deployments were the rule and not the exception, the moral obligation for veterans preference has grown exponentially.

We have an all-volunteer military, in which, since 9/11, only about 1 percent of the population has served through two wars that took lives, limbs, and peace of mind. Veterans preference is one of the few incentives afforded those who volunteer for military service.

Of course, there is a simple way to eliminate the need for veterans preference, and that is to institute mandatory national service, so that everyone can be a veteran. Bringing back the draft would have the added benefit of eliminating unnecessary wars, because politicians and their richest backers won’t start the wars they’ve been sending other people’s kids to fight.

But that isn’t going to happen.

While Baker filed the initial bill, administration officials are not rushing to embrace the idea of studying revocation of veterans preference.

Lizzy Guyton, Baker’s press secretary, said the administration “is cognizant of the concerns raised by this provision and open to compromising with the Legislature to craft a bill that best serves our veterans’ needs.’’

In other words, Baker doesn’t want to alienate veterans over this, and that’s good.

Meanwhile, some cities and towns are getting rid of the veterans preference on their own.

Since 2009, 12 municipalities have gotten rid of Civil Service as the way they appoint police officers: Manchester-By-The-Sea, Wellesley, Provincetown, Reading, North Attleborough, Franklin, Norwood, Westwood, Walpole, Burlington, Acton, and Maynard. Wellesley and Westwood dumped Civil Service for appointing firefighters, too.

So veterans get no preference in those towns in hiring. And the trend for getting rid of Civil Service is growing. Half of the towns that have dumped it did so just last year.

As for the cities and towns who have gotten rid of the veterans preference or want to, they might as well get rid of their Veterans Day and Memorial Day parades or commemorations, too. Spare vets the platitudes.

If you don’t think veterans deserve a preference in hiring, don’t bother telling them how special they are.

As antiquated as Civil Service might be, in a growing number of places in Massachusetts, it is a bit antiquated to say “Thank you for your service,’’ to veterans.

People should just be more honest and say, “Thank you for your service. Now, get lost.’’

Kevin Cullen is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at cullen@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @GlobeCullen.