What does your vote at the Special Town Meeting Mean?

What does your vote at the Special Town Meeting Mean?

Don’t be misled by the Petitioner’s explanation of what your vote on each of the articles mean. The Petitioners explanations are demonstrably wrong as is explained below.

There are strong opinions and valid arguments of both sides of the issue, but it is important that the voters understand the effect of their vote.

In my opinion, the effect of “yes” and “no” votes is relatively simple. The four articles are a clear request to the Select Board to drop the lawsuit that was filed to get a ruling on whether the Town has the right to allow farming at 665 Clapboardtree Street.

“Yes” votes will request that the Select Board drop the lawsuit. If the lawsuit is dropped, the Land Trust has explicitly stated that they will not allow farming at 665 Clapboardtree Street for a variety of reasons including that farming is detrimental to the biodiversity of the existing meadow. So a Yes vote, if the Select Board decides to follow the recommendation, will allow the Land Trust’s decision to stand and farming on 665 Clapboardtree be prohibited.

“No” votes will defeat the four Articles that are being presented and thereby encourage the Select Board to stay the course and allow the judge to rule whether the Town can allow farming at 665 Clapboardtree Street (if they so choose). Select Board Chair Gotti stated that if the Judge rules against the Town, it is over (no appeal) so presumably there would be no further expenditures on the case.

It is that simple.

If you are interested, below is my reasoning:

I attended the January 13 Fin Com meeting and paid particular attention to the discussion concerning the Special Meeting Petition that has been demanded and has now been scheduled for February 2nd.

In my opinion, the Fin Com and Town Counsel did an outstanding job explaining Massachusetts Town Law and how it applies to the Special Town Meeting Petition and the subsequent Town meeting. My understanding is that regardless of the Finance Commissions (Fin Com) opinion, the Special Town meeting will allow Westwood residents to express their views. Also, my understanding is that according to the Town and the private counsel they consulted with, whatever is decided at the Special Town Meeting will not be binding on the Select Board or the Town. Apparently the petitioner, Ms. Sibley, believes that some of the articles in the petition are binding on the Town.

After extensive discussion, the Fin Com voted on each of the four articles for “indefinite postponement”; clearly the supporters of the Special Meeting Petition were hoping that the Fin Com would vote “yes” to support their four articles.

In my opinion the Fin Com did an exemplary job for a number of reasons:

1) Literally everyone that wanted to be heard was allowed to speak without interruption.

2) They allowed the petitioner to present her petition (I don’t think they were required to).

3) They held extensive deliberations in which a variety of views were discussed, including one member that revealed they had signed the petition, and one member that said he felt the Town should follow the donors will (and presumably drop the lawsuit).

4) Fin Com Vice Chair Mike Gay was calm and consistently provided a voice of reason.

The Fin Com allowed the petitioner to go far beyond simply presenting the petition to them by reading it. They allowed her to make an extensive statement concerning her opinions regarding the Select Board. Furthermore, they allowed her to make statements about what their vote would mean which are presumably her opinions, but are definitely not stated anywhere in the Petition that was being discussed.

Article 1 of the Petition reads as follows:

To see if the Town will recommend that the Select Board, Town Counsel, or any duly authorized Town official employee immediately withdraw, discontinue, and cease further pursuit of the Town’s current lawsuit against the Westwood Land Trust.

Here is a verbatim transcript (taken from the online transcript) of what Ms. Sibley said about Article 1:

“A vote to approve this article is a vote to allow this public discussion and debate to take place in order to provide the select board with a sense of the meeting regarding its lawsuit against the land trust.”

“A vote to approve this article is not equivalent to taking a personal position in support of or in opposition to the town's uh lawsuit against the land trust.”

“A vote to approve this article is not equivalent to taking a personal position with respect to whether or not the article should pass.”

“A vote of indefinite postponement is a vote to deny Westwood residents the right to participate in public discourse on this topic. “

“A vote of indefinite postponement is a vote to defeat the primary purpose of the special town meeting, which the town is still legally required to hold as a result of a valid citizens’ petition. “

Town Counsel and/or the Fin Com can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the Fin Com role with respect to the four articles (and any article before them) is to review them, discuss the merits of the article and then make a recommendation to the Select Board and the Town meeting regarding what they believe should be done on that Article. If the Fin Com had voted yes, they would be recommending that Town’s citizens vote in favor of that article at the Town meeting.

It is more than a little difficult to understand how the Fin Com or Town meeting attendees voting for Article 1 is not “taking a personal position in support of or in opposition to the town's uh lawsuit against the land trust”; presumably each Fin Com member is considering the merits of an article and then voting based on their personal opinion. A vote for Article 1 would be the Fin Com agreeing that the Town should drop the lawsuit against the land trust and recommending that the Town’s citizens also vote to pass the article.

The petitioner said voting for Article 1 is “not equivalent to taking a personal position with respect to whether or not the article should pass”. That is exactly what a vote for Article 1 would be; again had the Fin Com voted in favor, they would be agreeing that the Town should drop the lawsuit against the land trust and recommending that the Town’s citizens also vote to pass the article.

The petitioner said “A vote of indefinite postponement is a vote to deny Westwood residents the right to participate in public discourse on this topic.” As was explained at the Fin Com meeting, the Special Town Meeting and Town’s citizens will have the opportunity to voice their opinions regardless of how the Fin Com voted on Article 1.

At best, the petitioner statements regarding what the vote on Article 1 means were misleading. I would assume that she did not intend to mislead, but simply did not understand the mechanics of Town government (I know I didn’t).

The petitioner went on with similar statements about each of the Articles and what a vote on each of them would mean. In my opinion, the Fin Com went the extra mile to let the petitioner voice her opinions about the Select Board, the Petition and what voting for the Articles means and whatever else she chose to discuss. I think I understand why and support their decision to do so. It certainly gave the petitioner a forum to express her views and opinions.

I think both sides of the discussion regarding the lawsuit concerning 665 Clapboardtree Street agree that ideally the dispute will be mediated and a reasonable compromise reached. I hope the judge will delay her decision and direct the parties to mediate. If not, I hope she rules in favor of the Town because I believe they are right.

Whether you agree with the lawsuit or not, I don’t think it makes sense to walk away from the lawsuit before the judge issues her opinion. The funds have already been expended, we cannot get them back. I think this was the logic that the Fin Com applied in deciding the best course of action was to recommend “indefinite postponement”. If necessary, the issue can be addressed at the May Town meeting.