Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Voting Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Concord committee authorizes chair to finalize town‑meeting survey after debate over wording
Summary
The Town of Concord’s Town Meeting Study Committee voted to authorize Chair Eric Moore to finalize four survey questions on remote participation and voting formats after members and public commenters pressed for neutral, concise wording and clarity on ballot options and outreach timing.
The Town Meeting Study Committee in Concord voted to let Chair Eric Moore finalize the wording of four survey questions about remote participation and voting formats after an extended discussion about neutrality, readability and outreach timelines.
The committee met Sept. 24 and, citing an imminent loss of quorum, prioritized a short review of the four questions drafted by Carmen Reese and edited by committee members. Committee members and several members of the public urged that the questions be condensed into bullet points and carefully worded to avoid leading respondents. Eric Moore said the survey must be “locked down by tomorrow,” explaining the survey administrator will be unavailable after that point.
Why it matters: The four items — whether Concord should permit remote participation and voting, whether deliberation and voting should be separated (an ‘Australian ballot’ option), whether to preserve open town meeting or shift to a representative town meeting, and related ballot-format questions — would shape how the town collects public input and could presage future proposals to change town‑meeting practices.
Discussion and vote: Committee members debated two alternate formats: Carmen Reese’s condensed wording and a set of value-style questions proposed as an alternative. Reese and others warned that including an unbalanced explanatory bullet such as “some argue” could bias responses unless a counterpoint was provided. Multiple public commenters, including David Allen and Scott Gillis, pressed for strictly neutral phrasing and simpler core questions (for example, a straightforward question asking whether voters prefer their town‑meeting vote to be private or publicly known).
Faced with time constraints and differing preferences, a committee member moved to approve the top (Carmen‑revised) question and drop the alternate values questions; that motion was withdrawn and replaced by a motion to authorize the chair to finalize the four questions based on committee and public comments. The motion passed by voice/roll‑call vote with committee members present recorded voting “aye.” Chair Moore said he would walk through the four questions for one more check and invited public comment on each.
Other actions and next steps: Shannon agreed to post the redrafted slide deck on the committee web page so the public could review it and send edits. The chair requested any suggested language changes be submitted by 9 a.m. the next day to accommodate the survey administrator’s schedule. The committee also reviewed outreach materials — including two postcard mockups — and discussed distributing the Microsoft Forms survey to schools, PTGs, the Concord Children’s Center, boards and the League of Women Voters; an interview and a guest piece for The Bridge were noted as upcoming outreach items.
What remains open: Committee members asked for more comparative information on how clickers and remote voting have affected meeting length and participation in other towns, and agreed to schedule focused meetings to research and present solutions (remote voting features, clickers, shorter meetings and accessibility). The chair said fuller discussion and any votes on recommendations will come at later meetings; for now the committee’s action was procedural: to let Moore finalize the survey text.
The committee adjourned at 8:22 p.m. and scheduled its next meeting for Monday, Sept. 30, at 7 p.m.
