Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Australian Ballot topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears outside presentation on Australian ballot and home-rule petition options
Summary
A guest presenter outlined how some New England towns use a deliberation session followed by a referendum ballot, and the Concord committee discussed turnout, representativeness, and statutory constraints but did not recommend pursuing legislation now.
At the Nov. 20 meeting the committee heard a presentation from Dinos Gonatos on the Australian (referendum) ballot model, in which a town holds a deliberation session and then, several weeks later, conducts a yes/no vote at the polls on the committee’s recommendations. Gonatos described examples from New Hampshire and Vermont, where turnout in the referendum phase can be substantially higher even as attendance at the deliberation session falls.
Gonatos said adoption in Massachusetts would generally require new legislation or a home‑rule petition. Committee moderator Carmen Rees noted past local polling after an electronic-voting demonstration: about 53% of respondents favored using clickers only for counted/two‑thirds votes, while 40% favored using clickers for all votes. Members raised legal and procedural constraints: many types of town‑meeting business (notably annual appropriations and zoning bylaws) are governed by state statute and would not be easily moved to a poll without specific legislative authorization.
Committee members expressed mixed views: some saw Australian ballot as a possible tool to increase participation (especially for caregivers and weekend-inaccessible voters), while others — including members who emphasized remote participation and the committee’s limited legislative bandwidth — said pursuing a home‑rule petition would be complicated and might not be the highest priority. The committee declined to make a formal recommendation on Australian ballot or to pursue a home‑rule petition at this time; members asked for further research and examples before committing to legislative outreach.
The discussion included references to other towns’ recent actions: Scott Yellis reported that Westford recently approved pursuing a home‑rule petition; Carmen Rees and others cited existing charter models (Longmeadow, Hopkinton) as useful precedents for drafting petitions. The chair said he would research Westford’s motions and consider whether a future, more narrowly scoped home‑rule approach might be appropriate.
