Panel weighs strengths and trade-offs of open town meeting, representative town meeting and town council options

A panel convened by the Acton Area League of Women Voters on the state of town meeting examined the trade-offs among open town meeting, representative town meeting and council‑style government and debated whether technology and statute should permit remote or hybrid participation.

The panelists — Mark DeSalvo, town moderator of North Andover; Jerry Slater, town moderator of Norwood; Pat Lloyd of the Collin Center at UMass Boston; Bill Rosenblum, select board member of Ludlow; Joanne Berry, Town of Acton open town meeting moderator; and Diane Baum of the Acton Area League — described how different forms affect participation, deliberation and the day‑to‑day pace of local government.

The discussion matters because Massachusetts towns are considering statutory changes that would allow remote or hybrid participation in meetings that now, under Massachusetts General Laws, generally do not permit remote voting in open town meeting. Panelists and attendees discussed equity, legal constraints and practical barriers such as technology costs and voter verification for remote votes.

Panelists described practical differences among forms. Mark DeSalvo said open town meeting concentrates “all power … in the room,” calling it “the most important factor of town meeting” while also noting its deliberative nature can make it time consuming. He described conducting meetings of up to 3,000 people and said his town typically sees 1,200 to 1,800 attendees at a single session. DeSalvo said he allows remote participation for speaking but not voting, because current state law does not permit remote voting in open town meeting.

Jerry Slater said Norwood’s representative town meeting uses elected members (about 29 seats per district, roughly 261 members total after recent bylaw changes) and has increased efficiency with electronic voting and pre‑meeting information sessions. He said registered voters may still speak at Norwood’s meetings and that the town publishes attendance and voting records for town meeting members to increase accountability.

Bill Rosenblum described Ludlow’s recent charter process to replace representative town meeting with a seven‑member town council and a town manager. Rosenblum said the charter commission held roughly 28 meetings over about a year, and that the proposed shift aimed to speed decision‑making; he also said the charter ultimately failed at town meeting. Rosenblum said one contested issue was whether the council president should sit on the school committee, given the school budget’s share of town spending.

Pat Lloyd summarized statewide patterns: roughly 260 towns still use open town meeting, 32 use representative town meeting, and many municipalities that outgrow town meeting move to a council or city form rather than to representative town meeting. She noted statutory population thresholds (municipalities under 6,000 residents generally must remain open town meeting) and that cities or towns may adopt council‑manager or mayor‑council forms once legal thresholds are met.

On remote and hybrid participation, panelists described competing legislative proposals: some bills would require hybrid capability; others would make it optional. Panelists raised two main practical hurdles: (1) cost and technical capacity for smaller towns and areas with poor internet service; and (2) voter verification technology needed to ensure only registered voters cast remote votes in an open town meeting. Pat Lloyd and others said technology is progressing but not yet universally available to guarantee secure remote voting.

Panelists also discussed accommodations and access. DeSalvo said reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act supports providing remote access for people who cannot physically attend; he described town processes that have allowed a small number of voters to participate remotely for health reasons. Slater said towns have used assistive devices for hearing‑impaired attendees and are working on improvements for visually impaired and non‑English speakers.

Panelists offered practical steps towns are using to increase engagement: pre‑meeting informational sessions, publishing attendance and voting records for representative members, registered‑speaker lists, electronic voting to speed tallying, and clearer prepared materials for each warrant article. Several speakers urged towns to consider outreach (for example, at local events) and to use published attendance as an accountability tool.

The webinar closed without a formal vote of the panel. Panelists encouraged attendees to follow legislative proposals at the statehouse and to consider local study or charter commissions when communities want to examine form‑of‑government changes.