HomeMy WebLinkAboutReport of the Committee Established under Article 62 of the 1977 Annual Town Meeting, 1978 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ESTAMISUED UNDER ARTICLE 62 OF THE 1977
ANNUAL TOT7 ITETENG
A citizen's article was placed in the 1977 Town Warrant which sought to
amend section 30, article V, of the town by-lams by changing the number of
town meeting members required to secure a roll call or written ballot from
50 members to 30 members.
The final motion, which was presented to town meeting as article 62,
read
THAT THE MODERATOR APPOINT A SPECIAL AD HOC
STUDY COPEITTEE, CHARGED WITH EXPLORING TILT
POSSIBILITY OF INSTITUTING A NEW SYSTEM OF
RECORDING VOTES FOR LEXINGTON TOWN MEETING,
AND THAT SUCH COMMITTEE REPORT BACK TO THE
1978 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING.
On August 3, 1977, the town clerk notified the following town meeting
members of their appointment to this Committee by the moderatorm
James H. McLaughlin, 55 Asbury Street
Stephen M. Politi, 25 Deering Avenue
Stephen W. Doran, 16 Village Circle
Jim McLaughlin and Steve Politi both served as members of the 1970 TA
Committee for a Roll Call Vote and the 1971 Voter Identification Committee.
Jim McLaughlin also chaired the 1973 moderator-appointed Committee on the
Recorded Vote, and Steve Politi was a member of the 1972 Voter Identification
Committee. Stephen Doran was the author and sponsor of the 1977 warrant article,
and introduced the motion to form this special study committee.
The Committee 's first and main task was to explore a system of recording
votes used in the Amherst Massachusetts representative town meeting.
Briefly, the system involves the use of computer cards bearing the name
of each town meeting member. The cards are keypunched and processed at the
Abherst Computer Center, and are used at the request of 40 town meeting members
to determine the vote on any issue. The cards, which also bear "aye" or "nayh
along the top, are collected by precinct tellers, who report the count to the
moderator. The cards are then given to the town clerk.
The process takes approximately the same time as a standing vote, and
thereby allows the Amherst town meeting to often have six or more recorded
votes in a single evening. On the following day, town officials process the
cards through the computer. Then a list of town meeting members' votes is
made available to the press and interested citizens for a permanent record
of voting behavior.
Members of this Committee discussed the system in detail with several
Amherst town officials, including the town clerk, the moderator, town meeting
members, and with members of the League of women Voters, who initiated the syste
in Amherst in 1974.
This system was also discussed with the Lexington town clerk and town
manager, as well as with the 'MIA Executive Committe, and other town meeting
members and interested citizens.
This Committee has concluded that the Amherst system would be neither
practical nor efficient in Lexington. Administration and implementation would
be costly. Storage, staffing, and transporting the material would present
an unnecessary and costly burden to town officials at this time.
, • •
• . . . .
' •
•
gaert AleXf-nerTIL eirrerairrhitexoffee
MEMC31W4DUM
TO: Robert. M. Hutchinson, Jr., Town Manager DATE:Jan. 18, 1978 PAGE:
SUBJECT: Town Meeting
Recorded Vote
(The CoMmittee' agrees with MiSa Mcflonough's appraisal summarized below) '
I have Met With Steve Doran regarding the use of computer punch cards to be
used for Voting at town meeting and we discussed the following disadvantages:
1. • With our:present system of roll call there is no expense involved. The •
• new system would require the purchase of punch cards. This new system is
presently. being used in the Town of Amherst and I have been told by the
Amherst Town Clerk that she uses approximately 3,000 cards per meeting.
..2. These computer voting cards are permanent records and therefore eventually
would create a storage problem. Storage problems already exist in the
Town Clerk's Office due to the nature of the records required by law to be
filed permanently in this office.
3. If the computer count is different from the count given at town meeting
when the Moderator declares the motion adopted or defeated, a question
•
could arise regarding the legality of the motion.
4. In accordance with our by-laws, our present system of a written or roll
call vote shall be posted. in the Town Office Bldg. for one week within
twenty-four hours of the vote. This does not pose any problem as a .photo
copy is made of my record made at town meeting and posted the first thng
the following morning. The official record is a permanent record. There
is no storage problem, no expense and immediate voter identification.
5. Cards would have to be keypunched. If this is done at the school, there
could be a problem when there is a change in the Town Meeting Membership.
This could, and has happened the day of town meeting.
6. The used punch cards are the same as ballots and therefore must be treated
as such. In order to be run through a computer, they must be taken to the
computer center by someone from the Town Clerk's Office who must wait
until the run has been completed, making sure that no card is mislaid.
This woad be time consuming, especially when time is so valuable right
after town meeting.
7. The time for each system would be approximately the same at the town
meeting if a recess was not called.
•
This seems to be a very negative report but I fail to see any advantages
in this new system over what we alreadyhave. I believe that Steve almost
felt the same way after our discUssion.
•
MaLTSUED .WITILTH7-nal4ISSION OF
/g/ A r
14.
Arty4 41,04 MISS e.DONOU.a1 and MR.. HUTCHINSON:
Frlr.M: Mary R. McDonough, Tolda Clerk
-3-
The Committee reviewed the reports and recommendations of prior Lexington
study committees on this same subject matter.
The decision to sit by precinct was a result of a recommendation of the 1972
Voter Identification Committee. Precinct seating is intended to allow citizens
attending town meeting to keep track of how their elected town meeting represen4
tatives are voting; to encorage citizen attendance at town meetings; and to
make available a written record of standing votes, By indicating how each precinct
voted as a unit.
The requirement for a recorded. vote was lowered from a majority vote to
53 members in 1974, following the recommendations from both the Recorded
Vote and Voter Identification Committees.
The 1974 Town Meeting also eliminated the by-law provision for a secret
ballot, and enacted provisions for a written ballot as an alternative to a
poll of the meeting.
A Recommendation
The Committee recommends that the adoption of an informal, pre-selection
process be studied as an approach to increasing the frequency of recorded votes.
Objective standards could be formulated for identifying warrant articles
which particularly merit a recorded vote. Articles so identified, by a TA
subcommittee or other group, could then be starred in the Warranr Information
Bulletin.
At town meeting, a =A representative, on behalf of the MIA, would request
that the vote on these pre-selected articles be taken by written ballot or poll.
This request would still need the support of 49 other town meeting members.
In the Committee's opinion, this proposal offers several potential benefits:
1. Recorded votes will become more frequent and less haphazard. Too
often a recorded vote is requested only seconds before the vote
is called. Too often an article of town-wide import is called
without a recorded vote---each town meeting member assuming (or
hoping) that someone else would make the request.
2. Individual town meeting members will be relieved of the onus of
requesting a recorded vote, although each town meeting member
would retain the right to request a recorded vote on all articles.
3. Since town meeting members will know in advance that recorded
votes will be requested on designated articles, the element of
surprise will be eliminated.
* * * * *
The Committee feels that more experimentation is needed with the written
ballot process. The Committee also feels that this method, with practice, will
develop into a time-efficient and practical alternative to a roll call vote,
while at the same time, retaining many of the advantages of a roll call vote.
The lack of immediate visibility is the largest single problem associated -eLe
with a written ballot. This weakness should be studied further.
The Committee urges the publication of all town meeting recorded votes in
the Lexington Minute Man.
-4-
The Committee was divided on three issues : precinct tellers, recesses,
and the number of town meeting members required to secure a written ballot .
Following is a majority (Stephen Politi and Jim McLaughlin) and minority
(Stephen Doran) discussion of those issues:
Majority Report
No data has been presented or obtained to indicate that the 50 vote
requirement has unduly restricted the use of recorded votes or that lowering the
requirement will increase the number of recorded votes. For this reason, the
Committee majority can not recommend a further lowering of the 50 votes now neede .
to obtain a recorded vote. Similiarly, the suggestion that this 50 vote require-
ment be lowered for the written ballot only is premature, since town meeting
has had only one experience with this voting method.
The Committee majority does not identify the 50 vote requirement as the
roadblock to more frequent recorded votes. Research of the voting procedures
of the 46 representativetown meetings in Massachusetts, undertaken in 1973,
supports this conclusion.
As the table below illustrates, there is no apparent correlation between
the number of votes needed to obtain a recorded vote and the frequency of
recorded votes.
Requited Vote Frequency of
Town Town Meeting Size for Roll Call Recorded Votes
West Springfield 273 any 1 member once in 29 yrs.
Milton 279 25 members never
Agawam (now council gov't) 188 any Llmember:e occasionally
Arlington 252 20 members frequently
The roadblock, if any, to more frequent recorded votes appears to be the
hesitancy of town meeting members to assume the initiative of requesting a
recorded vote in the first instance. The pre-selection method, endorsed by
the whole Committee for further study, addresses this hesitancy; lowering the 50
vote recuirement does not .
Questions of teller appointment and the calling of recesses, raised by the
Committee minority, are within the jurisdiction of the Town Moderator and exceed
the charge of this Committee.
/ The Committee majority is proud of the many successful efforts of town meeti:
to improve its accountability. In the final analysis, the more frequent use of
recorded votes may well be dependent upon a showing of strong public interest
in and support for recorded town meeting votes, rather than the enactment of
cosmetic by-law changes.
Stephen N. Politi
James M. McLaughlin
-5-
minority Peport
The present rule requiring 50 town meeting members to secure a recorded
vote has failed us miserably. Since 1974, Lexington Town meeting has averaged
just over one recorded vote per year, an atrocious statistic reflective of a
very basic problem.
As town meeting members, we function practically anonymously. Our decisions
are usually determined by invisible voice votes or swiftly moving standing
votes.
Fifty town meeting members seems unfairly high, and it is difficult to
reconcile the fact that 10 citizens can place an article before town meeting,
but 50 elected representatives are needed to secure a roll call on that same
article.
The Committee rinority is wholly unsatisfied with the proven statistics of
the past four years, and does not believe that 1 or 2 recorded votes is sufficient
to maintain accountability in the town meeting institution.
It is readily apparent that the written ballot has the potential to be an
effective and efficient procedure to improve accountability in our town meeting.
The written procedure will surely improve to the point where only a fraction of
the time needed for a roll call is needed for a written ballot.
The written ballot is distinct from the roll call in many significant
features, and the number of town meeting members required to secure one of
those processes should also be distinct. The Committee minority recommends that
the possibility of requiring 25 members for a written ballot, while retaining
50 members for the more time-consuming roll call, be studied further.
If there is "no apparent correlation between the number of votes needed to
obtain a recorded vote, and the frequency of recorded votes, " as the Committee
majority claims, then what is the rationale for having a requirement at all? If
a by-law change is simply "cosmetic," what is the justification for requiring
50 members?
The status quo has failed. It is clearly tine to admit that after 4 years,
the figure 50 is an unsatisfactory and arbitrary number.
This Committee was charged with studying the system of recording votes.
Teller appointments and the calling of recesses during the voting process are
clearly part of that system, and to dismiss them simply as something "within
the jurisdiction of the town moderator" is to fail to address a critical weakness
of our recorded vote procedure.
There should be a specific procedure for the appointment of precinct tellers
In.the interest of time, order, and efficiency, when the moderator calls for
a standing vote, the task should be automatically assumed by one of the three
elected precinct officers. A more organized and structured procedure would
prevent the confusing, arbitrary, and time-consuming appointment of tellers
on the floor of town meeting.
Also in the interest of conserving time during the voting procedure, the
Committee minority recommends that the meeting not officially recess during
the period that the town clerk tallys the votes. The recess serves no useful
purpose except to prolong the meeting; surely coffee can be obtained informally
by any member desiring such, without the entire meeting recessing.
The Committee minority hopes that many of the recommendations contained
in this report will be discussed further, and welcomes your comments and criticis
Stephen W. Doran