To the editor:
From the opening of Town Meeting in Marblehead, there was an “energy” in the room. It felt like opening day, or was it Christmas morning?
With specific regard to Article 36, which seemed the most important of the two nights, it was clearly front loaded, from enduring a 22-slide presentation to the discretionary time limits meted unevenly to to voters wishing to speak. But we were warned multiple times this would be the case.
Despite this, Article 36 was clearly and decisively defeated by a large number of citizens that cared deeply enough to show up and vote.
After which, 200 or so contented citizens left the meeting… a vacuum that was exploited with a disingenuous “motion to reconsider” that was proposed after multiple other articles were heard, throwing the meeting into disruption.
This motion was questioned with multiple calls for “point of order,” all of which were ignored by the moderator. At this point, the moderator had a duty to assess the validity of the motion to reconsider.
“No debate” was heard and a vote rushed over a raucous audience. Then the vote stopped after the tally began to rise and the slate scrubbed to zero. The moderator announced that comments would be taken, of which none were heard and microphones were dead. Despite no lack of willing participants.
The purpose of a motion to reconsider is new information that causes a voter of the majority side of the original vote to change their mind. This information should be shared and “considered” by all.
Another vote ultimately shot down the motion, to a victorious uproar. Nothing was fair or honest about this reconsideration, an ace up the sleeve all along. It’s fairly easy to see the motion was merely a mulligan from a disgruntled loser in the original vote. A thinly veiled attempt at a “revote.” No new information to reconsider or prove that the motion was valid. I am left to wonder if those in charge of the meeting were in willful disregard of the rules or ignorant of the process… Neither of which are acceptable, and both completely unpalatable to anyone paying attention.
Town Meeting is based on the idea that every vote counts on BOTH sides and that we get a fair deal from the deck. This is not a game to be played, votes are not there to make us “feel” like we are part of the process. The sanctity of the process and of each and every vote MUST be honored, no matter the outcome!
If fair play is considered merely a charade, then it should come as no surprise to those controlling the meeting (or marking the cards) when voters jump from their seats and call fraud. Expect voters to be upset and to hear about it loudly!
In the words of Lee Iacocca, “lead, follow, or get out of the way,” to which I would add, “whichever you choose, do so with integrity.”
Thomas Peach
Marblehead
