Concord committee backs exploring a Home Rule Petition to pilot remote town meeting participation

The Town Meeting Study Committee on Sept. 30 debated whether Concord should seek state permission to pilot remote participation at Town Meeting and broadly endorsed pursuing the idea while acknowledging major technical and procedural uncertainties. Chair Eric Moore framed the question as threefold: is remote participation a good idea for Concord; how much must be known before recommending a Home Rule Petition; and what operational and legislative steps would be required.

Committee members and invited guests who have worked on the issue described both the opportunity and the risks. “If we want that deliberation to thrive, we need to make it more widely available,” said David Allen, who has advised local efforts on the subject, arguing that remote access can extend the reach of direct democracy. David Carr added that while the in-person experience is distinct, well-designed remote options could draw new participants into civic life.

Others cautioned that remote attendees are likely to feel “second-class” compared with people in the room and noted concrete technology barriers, including bandwidth and device access. “When you’re remote, you are always second class,” Allen said, while David Carr pointed to variable home bandwidth and urged caution about degrading the in-person experience.

Despite the concerns, several committee members — including Katie Bresnick, Alice Kaufman, Eric Van Loon and Phil Swain — said Concord should move forward now to secure the right to experiment rather than wait. The committee discussed leveraging existing petition language and coordinating with other towns, notably Wayland and Carlisle, to increase the chances of securing a legislative slot and a viable pilot. Scott Gillis, one of the original petitioners, said the intent of prior warrant language was narrow: to authorize the Select Board to petition the legislature to allow remote participation, not to mandate immediate implementation.

The group debated whether to endorse a motion supporting a Home Rule Petition at a future meeting or to wait for public input from the planned forum and the committee’s survey. Several members, including Carmen Reese and Kristen Haggerty, urged that the public process should be respected so residents have an opportunity to shape the details before a formal town-level endorsement.

Committee members also discussed implementation logistics the Select Board and future operational committee would face if the town wins authorization: vendor selection, secure remote voting mechanisms, moderator and teller roles, and a multi-year governance structure modeled on Wayland’s long-running committee. Participants repeatedly emphasized that any petition language should make offering remote participation permissive (a “may” provision) rather than compulsory for the town.

No formal vote was taken at the Sept. 30 meeting. The committee agreed to continue developing proposals, to coordinate informally with Wayland and other towns, and to return to the topic at its Oct. 15 meeting with clearer language and recommended next steps. The committee also asked members to review the Massachusetts Moderators Association report referenced at the meeting and to prepare outreach and petition language options that could be considered by the Select Board and Town Meeting in the coming months.

What’s next: The committee plans further public outreach, a focused public forum in October to gather resident input, and follow-up discussion on Oct. 15 to refine any warrant article or recommendation for the 2025 Town Meeting cycle.