A common thread among several Town Meeting articles this year is that they propose small but potentially important tweaks to enhance transparency, both in terms of how Town Meeting itself and Proposition 2 1/2 override votes are conducted, and how the town sets certain fees. All deserve serious consideration. Here’s a rundown of our thoughts.
Article 51
Local attorney John DiPiano deserves credit for proposing a warrant article that seeks to tighten up a Town Meeting procedure that might otherwise remain a potential source of controversy and conflict.
The late Town Moderator Gary Spiess created a “practical guide” to Town Meeting since adopted by his successor, Jack Attridge. That guide establishes a procedure for reconsidering Town Meeting votes.
Under the established procedure, a person presenting the reconsideration motion must have voted on the prevailing side in the original vote — in other words, they now want to reverse a vote they previously supported. If two-thirds of Town Meeting agrees that the vote should be reconsidered, the original motion is voted on again, but only one time and only on the same night the vote was taken.
If Town Meeting carries over multiple nights, reconsidering a vote taken on a previous night requires a 90% vote, according to town bylaw.
Now that Town Meeting votes by clicker instead of a show of hands, verifying that someone voted with the majority initially is a simple matter of checking their clicker and issuing them a new one, according to Moderator Jack Attridge.
DiPiano then wants reconsideration proponents to state the “information not known or knowable at the time of the original vote.” Perhaps this is a quick fix, but Spiess’ original procedure envisioned revoting in a second category of instances, when there had been a “misunderstanding” when the first vote was taken.
We have seen instances at Town Meeting when voters become confused when the motion is to “indefinitely postpone” (reject) an article — in other words, an affirmative vote supports a negative outcome on the article. We can envision a scenario where a group of people say, “We thought we were voting in favor of the article itself, not in favor of indefinitely postponing it.” As long as it is clarified that this, too, would qualify as “new information,” there may still be no problem with DiPiano’s proposal.
Reasonable minds can differ on whether 30 minutes is the right amount of time to allow reconsideration motions to be brought, as DiPiano proposes. Spiess’ original procedure only requires reconsideration to happen the “same night,” and we know some would argue that residents should stick it out until the bitter end, not leave after the proposal they most care about is acted upon. If a smaller Town Meeting quorum with a different composition undoes an earlier vote after they leave, the people who bolted for the exits only have themselves to blame, the theory goes.
But we live at a time when distrust in government is already high, and we should be trying to foreclose the chances that people wake up the next day to find out that the rug had been pulled on a winning vote they had taken the night before. This is democracy, not a game of “gotcha.” There are any number of reasons why someone might not be able to stick it out until the end of the night, including child care concerns.
Most of the time, the time limit may be a nonissue because the misunderstanding or new information will come to light almost immediately. We could maybe see an amendment being proposed to broaden the time limit to 45 or 60 minutes. Or maybe it could be tied not to the clock but the warrant — you can only request reconsideration of the last five articles, or last 10.
The concept, however, is sound. Town Meeting should give Article 51 its full consideration.
Article 49
We are similarly open to Article 49, proposed by resident Jack Buba, that would establish the role of Town Meeting parliamentarian — a volunteer licensed attorney appointed by the Select Board who would advise the town moderator on procedural questions.
While there might be a risk of having too many cooks in Town Meeting’s kitchen — town counsel is present, too — as long as the role is advisory, we see little downside to the moderator having the benefit of additional legal expertise. Indeed, an extra set of attorney’s eyes could help insulate any vote taken at Town Meeting from potential legal challenges — and the expense that would come with such challenges.
We are open to hearing “cons” to this proposal that are not immediately apparent. But we lean “yes” on Article 49.
Article 50
In another citizen petition — this one advisory only — resident John Prindiville seeks to advise the Select Board that it should avoid “bundling” Proposition 2 1/2 override proposals that clear the initial Town Meeting hurdle when they are placed on the town election ballot.
We note that, especially with major expenditures, like renovations to Abbot Library or the Old Town House or remedial work at the Transfer Station, this has already been the town’s practice, and we would expect that practice to continue.
However, we share Chair Erin Noonan’s concern that tying the Select Board’s hands in all instances might unnecessarily pit one department against another and disfavor underrepresented groups, which include families with a direct stake in school funding.
It’s unclear whether Prindiville’s article is intended to include the general override to address an operating budget shortfall that the town has been lucky to avoid this year but will likely have to confront as soon as next year. It would make little sense to allow residents to pick and choose which services they would like to maintain at their current levels and in which departments they would be OK seeing layoffs, even if the only division was a “schools” general override and a “general government” general override.
The fact that the article appeared on the warrant at all should be enough of a “word to the wise” to the Select Board: Give us a menu whenever you can. But we can’t endorse urging the Select Board to abandon a flexible approach entirely.
Articles 38-41
While we initially had some concerns about centralizing power and moving decision making away from Town Meeting, we are persuaded that Articles 38 through 41 would enhance transparency as the Select Board convenes public hearings before adjusting the rates for building, plumbing, gas and electrical permits.
Currently, a Town Meeting vote is required to change those fees, but as Building Commissioner Stephen Cummings noted recently, most Massachusetts cities and towns instead give their select board or mayor and city council this authority.
Town Administrator Thatcher Kezer explained, “The goal here is to modernize how we manage permit fees and ensure they’re fair, consistent and responsive.”
Rates would be set by doing an analysis of costs throughout the region. As long as the Select Board heeds the admonition mentioned at the Finance Committee’s warrant hearing — that any new fees be explained clearly to residents — we are on board with making these changes.
The Current Editorial Board
The members of the Current’seditorial board are Bob Peck, chairman of the Current; Virginia Buckingham, president of the Current's board of directors; board member Brian Birke, Current editorial staff member Kris Olson, and Joseph P. Kahn, a retired Boston Globe journalist.
