The Orange Shirts
One major note in this meeting was the “Orange Shirts”. Money came from somewhere to emblazon stickers, hats, and t-shirts with the slogan “vote YES for Middleboro’s future” adorning several dozen attendees. An IBEW bus dispatched about a dozen such people right as my bus was letting off, all with matching chairs and carrying spring water. We entered the registration area together in front of my bus. They did not register or receive a ballot, but sat with Middleoboro residents and participated in voice and hand votes. I’m not sure whether these non-residents were organized by unions or corporations.
(Update begins:) I should specify why I’m so sure many Orange Shirts are from out of town. I walked to downtown this mornin at 7:45 to grab an umbrella and score a donut to start my day. I met an Orange Shirt about 75 feet from the entrance of Honey Dew, asking where the Honey Dew Donuts was. He was standing under the sign. When I pointed it out, he walked past it again until I directed him there. No Middleboro resident doesn’t know where this store is…it’s right downtown, across from the bloody post office. He came out of the store as I was going in with five coffees.
End of Update
I am unsure of town meeting law is different, but a mass of people wearing shirts pushing one side of a vote are banned within a certain distance of the ballot box in most elections. As seen in the photo, not only was this political advertisement prevalent in the crowd, but pro-casino advocates were also in heavy number within a few feet of my ballot box.
“I don’t want to be here all day!!!”
So said the Jim Thomas, the moderator, at the outset of the meeting. I’d spent the last hour wondering around, enjoying such “with it” music as Simon and Garfunkel, and the oddly chosen “Don’t Worry, Be Happy”. But we were there for quite some time. The meeting was called to order at 11 am. Following the Pledge of Allegiance and the National Anthem, the crowd enjoyed a fly-over by a plane pulling a “no casino” banner. Two State Police helicopters were scrambled, and chased the plane out of the area.
The first order of business was the report prepared by the “Casino Gambling Study Committee”. The moderator had chosen this committee, assured that they were all neutral on the question of the casino. By the end of the study, the members voted 7 to 0 in favor of the agreement. Citizens with questions about the final study wasted their time asking them. Sadly, the Chair of the committee had left his report in the car and it would take him half an hour to retrieve it.
When one citizen talked about another report done on a similar question early, she got into the details of the reports’ authors, prompting the moderator to gavel her down and telling her “You’re boring us all to tears.”
The report was eventually accepted, unanswered concerns notwithstanding.
The wise elders speak
The actual question on acceptance of the casino was led off by reports from three boards. The selectman voted 5-0 in favor of signing a contract with the Mashpee Wompanoag, with Adam Bond speaking for the selectmen. He decried the “indignity” of meeting state mandates and explained this was the best way to make up for previous fiscal mismanagement in the town.
The Finance Committee voted 4-2 against, explaining that they felt it was a rush to judgment, and questions about opening up an ambulance service left questions unanswered, as did the low payments offered to the town before the resort opened its doors.
The aforementioned Gambling Study Committee embraced the report 7-0.
Citizen questions about further obligations to the town ? including a $3.5 million bill on the water system, were explained as necessary anyway, so they were simply rolled into the contract.
“An Almost Invisible Casino”
Moderator Thomas took a break to explain that people sitting under the shelter of tents should come out to the sun. The tents were for shelter, said Thomas, but “my eyesight is failing, and I can’t see you that well.”
The moderator reserved the first 10 slots for speakers nominated by the umbrella groups for and against. Speakers were given two minutes, though many of them went over ? the only one gaveled down was an anti-casino speaker who hit the 3:05 mark. Pro-casino speakers his 3:45, 3:28, and Adam Bond’s wife made it to 4:04 before the crowd drowned her out (I used a stopwatch). The pro- side had slightly better speakers, the last one making grand promises about spending on school athletic programs. The highlight for me was the pro-casino speaker talking about “An Almost Invisible Casino” the Tribe wanted to build. Meanwhile, the police chatted with the media…
Democracy isn’t worth the heat
Now was the time that the citizens of Middleboro had been promised would be opened up for discussion. After the “institutional” speakers had voiced their opinion, we would have our say. The Chair of the Board of Selectman moved immediately to cut off debate before any citizen could speak. Moderator Thomas quickly agreed, took a hand count, and was ready to rush into voting. To his credit, one man of Mr. Studley stood and demanded division, getting 6 others to agree. In a half-hour process, citizens were divided and roughly counted, with a supermajority opting to relax at home rather than use their democratic rights voting to end debate. I find it of note that the chief of town government was so eager to silence its citizens.
Voting for and against the casino
Voting took place with a tear-away ballot. As mentioned earlier, it was almost a 2 to 1 victory. Oddly enough, though, there was a final article on the warrant ? to vote on whether “the Town approves of the creation of a Gambling Casino Resort Complex within the Corporate Boundaries of the Town”. Many people had left after casting their vote, but other remained to listen to this debate. After a re-hash of old arguments, the question was called (I’d waited at a microphone for half an hour, but was ignored by Moderator Thomas. He had a preference for calling on people whose names he knows). Another hand vote was taken, a much closer one. Moderator Thomas decided that the “no” side had prevailed. So the “town of Middleboro” voted against having a casino, and in favor of signing the casino contract.
Where do we go from here
The hand vote, moved by petition, has no legal status. Legally speaking, the town of Middleboro has voted to allow the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe to build a hulking complex within its town limits. This deal, which Treasurer Tim Cahill, fmr Atty. General Scott Harshbarger, the Finance Committee — in short, anyone who knows how to count — said was a rip-off, is now signed into law.
The ball is in the General Court. May they prove to have more wisdom than the selectmen of Middleboro, more patience than its people, and more temperance than its moderator.
Sabutai — Terrific. Thank you. Now, David, will you please fix the headline? Middleborough did not say “yes, kinda” to the casino. It said “yes” to the deal and “no” to the casino, as Sabutai and I have now both explained.
<
p>
Needless to say, the legality of the “yes” vote should be challenged immediately because of the antics of the “Orange Shirts” described by Sabutai. Pretty incredible, given the lengths to which town police went to keep the media at a distance.
It’s not David’s headline, it’s mine. The reason I say “yes, kinda” is for three reasons:
<
p>
If the selectmen of Middleboro cared about doing it right rather than just doing it quick, we’d put a referendum on the ballot of the next town election. That’s the only proper way to handle it.
<
p>
If one was tempted to challenge the validity of the meeting, I would say that the best avenue is the Orange Shirts. I think pre-emptively cutting off debate before it could start is somewhat legal, but there was no discussion of that motion before it was voted upon.
… for setting the record straight. And now I’ll urge you to change the headline:
<
p>
1. Article 2 pertains to the agreement, not the casino itself. So your headline is technically inaccurate, as you yourself explain in your report.
<
p>
2. Yes, some people left before Article 3 was voted on, but turnout overall was pretty poor. Doesn’t matter. A vote is a vote is a vote. You sound as though you’re ready to challenge the validity of the hand count. Why didn’t you call on the moderator and demand a more accurate vote? And if you did, and he failed to recognize you, well, what does that say?
<
p>
3. Article 3 was perfectly legal, of course. It wasn’t binding, but not because its proponents didn’t want it to be. The fact that it wasn’t binding is further evidence of how opponents have been disempowered.
I changed the headline a little bit. But that’s all I”m going to do.
Now it’s even more inaccurate, but I appreciate your liking me. đŸ˜‰
Both headlines were accurate, and the people of Middleboro as a body said — and intended to say — contradictory things.
Article 2 on the warrant asks whether the town will (emphasis mine)
<
p>
<
p>
That agreement, in turn, provides as follows (emphasis mine):
<
p>
<
p>
I could go on, but you get the idea: the agreement, which the town has now formally backed, says that the Tribe wants to build a casino, and that the town supports its doing so. That is, to say the least, in tension with the idea that the town actually opposes the casino.
to town officials in Middleborough who told me that it was absolutely necessary for the town to approve the deal, because the Wampanoags are supposedly going to build the casino whether the town wants it or not.
<
p>
One of those officials then added that he hopes the state comes in and kills the casino!
<
p>
A small sample? Yes, but these are well-known, elected officials.
<
p>
That’s why people voted today the way they did.
I have no idea who you talked to, but it sure seems to me that if the town had rejected the agreement, the Tribe wouldn’t have had a chance of getting the state to approve class III gaming (slots, etc.). That’s where the money is, and that’s why people go to casinos. Frankly, I wonder whether the Tribe’s financial backers would stick with the project if they can’t get approval for class III gaming. And in any event, the impact of a class II casino would be far less than a class III casino, because far fewer people would come.
<
p>
So let’s think this through. You say the town had to approve the agreement, because the tribe was “going to build the casino whether the town wants it or not.” But if your town official is right that the tribe would go forward regardless of what the town did, that reflects an assumption (which I think is correct) that the state cannot “kill the casino” — but what the state can do is refuse to allow class III gaming. Doing so would guarantee a far less disruptive casino, and might kill the project all together. And the best way to get the state to refuse class III gaming would have been to reject the agreement, because that’s by far the best way to send a message to the state that the town doesn’t want a casino.
<
p>
In short: the strategy, if strategy it was, that you describe doesn’t make sense to me. Now, it seems to me, the Tribe and the town officials who back the plan can go arm-in-arm to the State House and ask it to approve class III gaming, having gotten the town to sign off on the deal by a 2-1 margin. The close voice vote, called by the apparently visually-impaired moderator after a lot of people left, will be a forgotten footnote. You know as well as I do that that’s how it works.
<
p>
I’m no expert on the ins and outs of casino law, so those with more knowledge, please feel free to correct me if I’ve got something wrong on the legal process.
If you want to talk about how things work, here’s a scenario that makes a great deal of sense. Tim Cahill wants the state to build a casino. Deval Patrick has been making supportive noises — perhaps he’ll soon issue an all-out endorsement. Since the Wampanoag casino could harm the state casino, the state could very easily croak Middleborough by not coming through with promised infrastructure improvements and the like. I’m sure you noticed the semi-warning signals the governor has been sending to Middleborough.
The folks from Casinofacts.org have links to video and newspaper articles with Glenn Marshall saying that if Middleboro doesn’t want the casino, it won’t be built there.
<
p>
The “we have to get the best deal, because it’s coming” argument is a con.
why are you trying to argue that a proper vote of the Middleborough town meeting is somehow invalid, or doesn’t mean what it clearly does? Sabutai says that “the people of Middleboro as a body said — and intended to say — contradictory things.” I’ll accept that. I hope you will, too.
Thank you. I am not a Middleboro resident so I did not belong there. If these “orange shirts” were not residents, then they did not belong there and the credibility and reliability of that vote is damaged.
If so, then that is NOT debateable, and must be voted on at once. IF it carries, then the previous question, i.e., the question being debated when the motion to move the question was made, must be voted upon forthwith, no further debate allowed. This is all standard Robert’s Rules stuff.
But did it? According to sabutai’s excellent reporting, the third question (1) was non-binding and “has no legal status”; (2) was resolved by a show of hands, thus reflecting only what the town moderator thought he saw amid thousands of hands in a football field; (3) was very close, undermining the reliability of the moderator’s conclusion; and (4) happened after the official balloting was over, so that “[m]any people had left.”
<
p>
Sabutai’s report of the imported orange-shirts is certainly noteworthy, and one hopes that Bill Galvin & Co. will look into it. But I don’t see the third question having legs.
while I was finishing my comment. đŸ™‚
David — I addressed your first three points in my message to Sabutai, but I’m flummoxed by your stance on #4. What do you mean by “the official balloting”? Article 3 was part of the town meeting warrant. It was just as official as Article 2. The official balloting was obviously not over until people had voted on Article 3 and their votes had been counted. Pro-casino people who left before the vote on Article 3 deserve no more consideration than people who stayed home. For that matter, they deserve less consideration than elderly people who couldn’t make it to the meeting.
Just a shorthand — I should have said paper balloting or something like that. See my more detailed comment upthread.
No one should pretend that the people of Middleborough didn’t know what they were doing when they voted in favor of the casino deal but against the casino itself.
<
p>
Except for the actual vote, everything else is anecdotal evidence. But here is a pretty powerful anecdote from The Standard-Times:
<
p>
<
p>
Folks, here is someone who felt browbeaten into voting “yes” on the agreement, but who, in her heart, is against this scourge coming to Middleborough and destroying the quality of life in her town.
<
p>
It’s sad that Holden doesn’t think the casino can be stopped. You can always fight. You can go to court. You can lay down in front of the bulldozers. But this is the message that casino promoters have been putting out, and far too many people are buying it.
<
p>
Just say no!
and I’ve lived here for two years…kinda…(been at school, but two summers here).
It’s right next to Benny’s. But it’s very small … easy to miss. Had coffee there with my 93-year-old uncle once.
I will post these separately to foster better readability and discussion.
<
p>
I am a resident of Middleborough and volunteered at the Meeting for the Town Clerk as a registrar and counter.
<
p>
1. The orange shirts
The casino backers sported orange t-shirts and white hats that said “Yes for Middleborough’s Future.” There were also green and yellow buttons with a “C” and a feather.
<
p>
Shirts were worn by HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS of pro-casino residents. Look at any photos of the crowd and you’ll see them (as orange or red, depending on the quality of the photo filters). These shirts were distributed by the pro-casino groups and worn at the meeting by residents, not by large masses of imports who supposedly participated in the process.
<
p>
Shirts (and signs and buttons and bumper stickers) are prohibited withing 150 feet of the entrance to a polling place during elections. There is no such prohibition that I am aware of at Town Meeting.
<
p>
Meeting workers were even asked to remove their shirts and buttons and did so. As registrars, they are prohibited from taking part in any discussion of issue while acting as registrars.
There was NO way that large groups of individuals entered the athletic fields without passing through registration. Access to the fields was limited to through the building through the gymnasium and by the registrars. Even handicapped individuals had to enter the building through a side door and go through the registration, not entering through the door behind the registration tables that led to the field.
<
p>
Many bus loads arrived packed with orange-shirting residents, including multiple buses from Oak Point, the active adult community located 3 miles north of the site. All of these individuals registered (through Precinct 1) and were admitted to the meeting properly.
<
p>
In addition to the 36 individuals at the registration table, there were another 20 or 30 volunteers shepherding residents through the process and more than a dozen police officers in the registration area. Many people were sent to the special instructions area to be dealt with by the Town Registrar. A handful of out of towners were sent away (back through the building) as they were not admitted. Even the poor workers for Cirelli’s were stopped numerous times from entering the building until they were given red (non-voter) identification tags.
<
p>
Is it possible that a few non-residents were in the fields? of course. But the organization of the setup, and the amazing police (and police dog presence) would have prevented any large scale incursion.
I had no part in the planning and relatively few discussions with town officials prior to this week, so for the most part I was just following along with the rest of the residents.
<
p>
As I was told, the Selectmen repeatedly sought assistance from the Secretary of State’s office about having this issue done as an election rather than a town meeting. They were rebuffed at every attempt. A Town Meeting was the only method for doing this (or perhaps it was for doing it prior to next March?).
<
p>
The fields and the setup they had was the only way to accommodate a crowd as large as it was, never mind the originally estimated crowd of 9,000-10,000. Perhaps they could have opened the High School Auditorium with a two-way video link for the elderly…
<
p>
All preparations were done with the ability to handle a large crowd and keep everyone as comfortable and informed as possible. Even at only 3800, this was still the largest Town Meeting in the history of the Commonwealth and the planners had no blue print to plan a legal and proper meeting of this (or larger) scope.
Article 2 was the meat of the day, a binding town vote to instruct the Selectmen to sign or not sign a contract.
<
p>
Article 3 was a non-binding referendum that had no clear instruction nor any standing to make anything happen or not happen.
<
p>
Human nature is to do what needs to be done and leave. People leave annual and special town meetings after their issues are complete. (People leave baseball games in the seventh inning too.) In fact a few years back, Middleborough changed its Town Meeting quorum requirement so that 150 was still a quorum to start a meeting, but the quorum to continue to do business at and opened meeting was reduced to 100, so the Town could better finish meetings after the issue oriented people left.
<
p>
I wish everyone had stayed after voting on Article 2 to vote on Article 3.
<
p>
I think the Moderator could have done a better job of communicating instructions to the attendees on how the meeting was going to run. But even had he, I assume there still would have been a rush to the exits and buses after Article 2.
<
p>
Article 3 is a recorded vote of Town Meeting. There is no action that it commands to be made. It can be put aside as a “garbage time” vote (switching to a basketball analogy), but many, especially the casino opponents, will point to it and have every right to do so. Unless the next steps of those opponents are more successful than they were on the Article 2 vote, I would agree that it may well be relegated to footnote status.
<
p>
As for the results and messages, yes they are mixed. By a 64% majority, Town Meeting voted to (have the Selectmen) sign a contract with the Mashpee Wampanoag to move forward in building a resort casino in the Town. By a majority, the Town Meeting stated that they prefer not to have a casino in the Town. This town has been deeply divided on the issue for months…why would Town Meeting action need to be any different?
Town Meeting follows parliamentary rules. The moderator, elected by the Town voters (fewer of whom showed up at the last election to vote him in than showed up at this Town Meeting) has the gavel and the rule.
<
p>
It had been previously arranged that determined that there the opponents and proponents would each have 5 speakers making presentations. I was shocked that there was any question and debate outside of that, seeing that there were plans for so many people. I would have assumed that someone would have sought to limit debate after (or before?) the first question was asked. There was a good 30-40 minutes of questions (and some comments and questions that were deemed out of order as they did not refer to the contract and were gaveled down) prior to that motion, a legal parliamentary motion, being made and passed overwhelmingly by a show of hands.
<
p>
After the 10 presentations (and yes the Moderator was liberal in his two-minute time clock), a motion was made to move the question (ie, close debate and proceed to a ballot). Such a motion requires a two-thirds majority. It was very clear that there was such a majority in a show of hands. Nonetheless, some opponents demanded a division of the house (a counted vote) on that motion. The moderator attempted to have hands counted where people were but found that was not feasible and called for a literal division of the of the house. Those who were opposed to closing debate were asked to move to one corner of the field and be counted. That number was 356 (10% of the crowd). After that, those in favor of closing the debate were asked t move to an opposite side of the field. Eventually the talliers exceeded 713 in their count and the motion to close debate was carried. This division of the house in my mind was a colossal waste of time and energy and human capital in 85 degree heat–nonetheless, it was done according to the proper parliamentary procedure.
<
p>
One may certainly nitpick the Moderator on his actions. he could have better used clock. He could have given better instructions on the balloting. He could have given better information that the Meeting would continue with Article 3 after the balloting for Article 2. For the time I was present, I saw nothing that was done outside of any proper parliamentary process.
<
p>
For those that feel aggrieved, whether or not there is any legal recourse to the Moderator’s actions and the conduct of the meeting, there is an Town election soon enough. And with the kind of track record we unfortunately have with Town elections, those 356 votes might be enough to elect a new Moderator.
Purplemouse, I do appreciate your reaction to what I wrote. I am not at all denying that the organization of this meeting was an extremely complex “leap into the dark”, especially given the conditions. I give credit to all the volunteers and officials who did such work under tight deadlines. However, I hold the belief that giving it a “good try” is not sufficient in a democratic society, and the only standard by which decisions of this import should reach is “a full and accurate reflection of the will of the people.” Yesterday’s meeting, for the reasons I recounted, simply did not meet that standard.
<
p>
I want to react to much of what you wrote, but I’ll just summarize it into one piece.
<
p>
Orange Shirts: There were many residents of Middleboro wearing those shirts, and there were piles of them at the bus pick-up locations for distribution. Clearly, a great deal of money and effort went into ensuring that the pro-casino side could equip any like-minded voter. I did not say otherwise. Furthermore, it may well have been within the law to co-ordinate clothing and supplies, and advertise for a position during a meeting. As I said before, I don’t know. I maintain some practices, particularly advertising ones ballot, and hanging around the ballot box to observe others voting, did have an element of intimidation in it.
<
p>
You say “There was NO way that large groups of individuals entered the athletic fields without passing through registration. Access to the fields was limited to through the building through the gymnasium and by the registrars.” Well, I saw a line of people get off a bus, walk through the far-right side of the gymnasium, and one individual chatted with a clerk. Then they moved en masse to collect materials. I was busy checking in myself, so I did not see the transfer of materials, but did note on the exit that none of them showed a sign of carrying a ballot. These people simply did not check in, nor did they show any id as we had all been told to expect. This is probably an oversight, but I had one chance to check in, and I saw large numbers of people evading the process. Maybe this was the only time it happened, but I know what I saw.
<
p>
Secretary’s Office I find it curious that the Secretary’s office rebuffed the Selectmen after Secretary Galvin had spoken extensively about the planning process. On the 25th, he spoke of speaking with Town Clerk Eileen Gates. Perhaps after expressing a plan to keep an interest in the meeting, he told his staff to forget about it.
<
p>
Articles II and III I realize there is an interest in spinning the votes on 2 and 3 to undercut questioning of the result. The media has embraced the spin of the town officials and the pro-casino side. Fact is, having some 1,500 people vote on a question is probably the second-highest total in Middleborough history. Given that the third article pre-dated the second and was submitted by petition, it’s interesting that it was relegated to “garbage time”. Again, the interests of the Tribe came before the interests of the citizen of Middleboro. I’m not expecting that the votes wouldn’t be close on those two articles considering how the town was divided, but they should at least be consistent. The fact that the votes were not indicated the failure of this meeting. Moderator Thomas gave conflicting instructions about the importance of Article III and when the buses would leave throughout the day.
<
p>
“This division of the house in my mind [about closing debate] was a colossal waste of time and energy and human capital in 85 degree heat” One thing I often say is that “Democracy is a beautiful idea, and an ugly process.” I’m wasn’t comfortable standing out there — I couldn’t sleep on my side or front last night because my skin is so raw from sunburn. But when we’re asking soldiers to die to preserve our democracy, going out in the sun for a while is not much of a sacrifice. However, the fact that taking a simple vote was “a colossal waste of time and energy” illustrates the deficiencies in meeting planning better than I could have.
<
p>
<
p>
Though Middleboro has a well-deserved reputation of being “a place of the townies, and for the townies”, I am in discussions about running for Moderator. Mr. Thomas is likely well-intentioned, but this is a taxing job where details matter.
<
p>
Even though there will be a town election “soon enough”, the elders of the town decided that we could not afford to wait for that town election coming soon enough to hold a proper balloting on this question. Instead, a slipshod meeting was planned in deplorable conditions. This meeting was not a democratic exercise, no matter how hard anyone worked — though I do give credit to Mr. Brunelle for a strong effort to make the best of a bad situation. We came out of that meeting with two results that cannot with any seriousness be said to reflect the will of the people of Middleborough.
<
p>
I find it sad — and illustrative — that town officials are ready to do anything and everything to avoid putting this question on a ballot so everyone can have a say.
I am interested in and troubled by the events you saw regarding those entering the meeting and would ask you to share those events directly with the Town Clerk (I will forward her this discussion).
<
p>
As for Galvin, it is my understanding that requests for assistance and advice had gone unanswered for weeks. His statements and “saber-rattling” came much later in the process.
<
p>
The problem with Article 3 was, in my mind, that it was an inactionable item. I am not a lawyer or town counsel, and was surprised when it passed muster to appear on the warrant. And I do not think the votes were necessarily inconsistent. I heard some people mention that they prefer not have a casino (No on 3), but if one seems to be coming anyway, we would best support it and get our share (Yes on 2).
<
p>
My problems with the division of the house were that it was reasonably clear that a supermajority had spoken. But the parliamentary process moved forward. I agree that better planning (talliers already appointed and in place, for example) might have lessened the waste of time and the amount of sunburn (I had sunscreen, by the way… you should have asked).
<
p>
I understand the urgency the Selectmen felt in moving this forward lest the opportunity be lost, be that good or bad. They are our representatives and we elect them (by our votes and by the our absence; and we apparently will have the opportunity to replace three of them in upcoming recall elections should we decide to.) Based on that timeline, a Town Meeting as plebiscite was held, a contract supported and signed, and now the casino process moves forward. Would 3800 people have turned out for an election? Who could say? Would the results have been different? Again who could say?
<
p>
I disagree that the meeting was not a democratic exercise, it was indeed the largest democratic exercise the commonwealth has seen. Based on the events of the last few months I think everyone has had a say. The rest of the process, in traditional representative government, in legal challenges, and in contract negotiations, will be much less transparent.
<
p>
As for the Moderator, I disagree with many positions that Rob Desrosiers, our previous Moderator, had, but I found him a superior Moderator. You are well spoken and reasoned (and obviously enjoy a good debate). Let me know when you pull your nomination papers, I will be happy to sign.
<
p>
I’ll be freezing for democracy this January in New Hampshire, so why not burn for it in July? I did put on some sunscreen, but I’m so pale as to be transparent. Thanks for the offer, and the kinds words about signing nomination papers…I’ll likely take you up on it. And I’ll be happy to discuss what I saw with any concerned official.
<
p>
About Article III, I can’t imagine denying a petition with so many signatures from the ballot. Frankly, that was a choice worse than the conflict we got. You said “I heard some people mention that they prefer not have a casino, but if one seems to be coming anyway, we would best support it and get our share.” The cashier at Ocean State said precisely the same when I went there yesterday afternoon. I find myself wondering how influential that perception was in the final vote, considering that it’s, well, not true.
<
p>
I agree that the selectmen were trusted to deal with town issues — that’s why they’re elected. However, there is a reason why the selectmen serve in many ways as managers, advising the Town Meeting on actions.
<
p>
<
p>
Well, some seniors who wanted to vote but couldn’t would have voted. We got 3,300 votes during the override vote, which was controversial but certainly not on the level of the casino. Why do you think the number of voters was at the low end of estimates? Because the conditions were so adverse. I’m just saying we could have chosen to do this better, and the selectmen chose not to.
Color of shirts notwithstanding, there is nothing improper about people who do not live in a town attending a town meeting. New England town meeting tradition welcomes all citizens, and with permission of the meeting (via the moderator) they may even be permitted to speak. The only restriction is that they can’t vote.
<
p>
The Secretary of State has no jurisdiction over town meetings, only over town elections.
“The only restrictions is that they can’t vote”. Well, these good folks were seated mingled with residents, not seated in an announced, designated area as required by town Meeting Law. There is nothing at all to assure that these attendees did not also vote. I’m unclear as to whether Coakley or Galvin are the final authority on town meeting…Galvin was more involved with the planning, but reports of these irregularities is being sent to the AG as well.
Each town has a mixture of tradition, statute, town charter and by-laws, and informal rules that go into determinining how a meeting is run. To the best of my knowledge, the Secretary of State has no say in how any of this happens.
<
p>
Moreover, if irregularities occur, they must be protested at the time of the infraction (such as, for example, if non-voters sneak under a barrier to place themselves in an area where their votes might be counted). Ultimately, the AG will rule on whether all was done properly. If a meeting is dissolved in the absence of any such formal protest, in my understanding, its actions have full legal force even if things were not done strictly according to Hoyle.
<
p>
There is obviously a hugely complex body of case law that documents (often contradictory) findings about how town meetings have been conducted. I haven’t heard of anything of substance that calls into question the validity of the results of this particular meeting, and I suspect that any attempts to overturn any part of it are destined for failure. Just a personal hunch.
a classic example of the Illuminati plan to destroy America in action.
War is peace.
A little known aspect of reports at Town Meeting.
<
p>
“Accepting” a report means that the Town Meeting also approves any actions within the report. In Town Meeting Time, there is a note about a Town Meeting that accepted the annual town report into which the school committee had inserted language about paying legal fees. By accepting the report, Town Meeting authorized the payment.
<
p>
In order to avoid being bound by language in a report, the wording of the motion should have been changed from “accept the report” to “receive the report”.
<
p>
Good job, sabutai. Very interesting!
Had no idea….too bad they didn’t print up the report or have it with them at the meeting.