EDITORIAL: Lots to chew on

Now that the dust — and thrown microphones — have settled, a few reflections on Marblehead Town Meeting 2024:

First, the good: The clickers were a hit, and the technology functioned just fine for the most part. We tip our caps to the League of Women Voters, whose tellers served the town well for many years when hands needed to be counted. But knowing a precise vote total in a matter of seconds was satisfying and promoted transparency — never a bad thing in government.

There is a small matter of parliamentary procedure that needs to get ironed out before voters next pick up their clickers. Marblehead Town Meeting has long operated with the rule that for someone to present a motion for reconsideration proposing to retake a prior vote, they must have voted on the prevailing side in the original vote — in other words, that they are trying to reverse a vote they originally supported, perhaps because of a misunderstanding or new information came to light or perhaps — and more cynically — because they want to undo the majority vote once the prevailing side has left the building.

How do we now establish that someone voted on the prevailing side initially? Are we removing this requirement? This issue does not rise to the level of abandoning the use of clickers. But it will come up again and should be resolved, one way or the other.

The success of the clickers also got us to thinking of other ways technology could enhance the Town Meeting experience.

As Major League Baseball fans know, the sport now uses a “pitch clock” to speed up games. Massachusetts’ appellate courts have visible timers to keep advocates mindful of how much time they have left to state their case.

The appeals court example is particularly instructive, as the justices always have the option of allowing lawyers to go over their allotted time, if they have unanswered questions or are otherwise finding the presentation helpful. The presence of the clock puts a positive type of pressure on speakers to focus their remarks.

The town moderator should similarly retain the discretion to extend a speaker’s time. But the equivalent of a “pitch clock” could help rein in those sprawling Town Meeting debates.

We also think it would be helpful if the people in the main auditorium could see and hear the people in the gymnasium and vice versa. It would be better if we could foster the sense that everyone is attending the same meeting, rather than treating those in the gym as faceless second-class citizens.

If it is a capacity issue, perhaps there could be broader collaboration between the School’s technology department and MHTV. Just a thought.

Now, the not-so-good: We share the dismay of those like letter writer William Hewig about the breaches of decorum during the proceedings. The microphone-and-clicker-throwing incident was the most conspicuous, but there were others, as Hewig notes.

We agree with those who believe that there should be some sort of repercussions for the microphone throwing, lest the message be conveyed that such behavior is at all acceptable. Our public safety officials may also want to review how they responded at the moment. Chances of actual violence may have been remote, but it is better to be safe than sorry.

The subject that stirred the most passion, of course, was the MBTA Communities Act, and the one thing that we can say for sure is that the issue is not going away.

As the debate over the town’s compliance with the act rages on, it may be helpful to stop asking, “What would John Glover do?”

For one thing, as a couple of our letter writers note, discerning how our forefathers might view the MBTA Communities Act is debatable, at best.

Perhaps more importantly, a decision of this significance should be made on facts, not feelings. Town pride and a reverence for the “spirit of Marblehead” is a good thing — to a point. But when it is invoked to gin up a crowd and override reason, that’s where you lose us.

As the proverb goes, “pride comes before a fall,” and in this case, the “fall” could include the loss of significant amounts of state funding and the incurring of significant legal costs. If that’s a path the town wants to go down, so be it. But those advocating that route should stop hiding behind John Glover and stick to the facts.

Finally, while Town Meeting is always going to involve a significant time commitment and never going to be convenient for everyone, this year we’ve heard particularly loudly concerns that the timing of the meeting may have disenfranchised some of the very people who might have been most helped by the new housing options the MBTA Communities Act may have created in town — parents who would need to find babysitters to attend or young people whose work hours may not be 9-to-5.

Scanning the auditorium, it seemed few in the crowd were under the age of 40. Some may ascribe the lack of younger faces to sheer apathy, but our sense is it seems that people are simply busy and have other commitments.

Town Meeting has been called the “purest form of democracy,” but there is little “pure” to a process when it erects barriers to participation for one demographic group.

What might a more inclusive Town Meeting look like? Some towns hold Town Meeting on a Saturday and knock out all of the town’s business in a day, which might be easier for young families to fit into their schedules.

With other democratic processes — most notably early voting and voting by mail — there has been a broad recognition that participation should be paramount.

Perhaps Town Meeting should change with the times, too.