Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Reconsideration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Motion to reconsider Article 33 fails after extended debate over turnout and expert testimony
Summary
A motion to reconsider Article 33 (the 'move the vote' article) was brought to the floor and defeated by fewer than the two-thirds threshold after residents debated turnout, late-hour voting and the presence of non-resident expert witnesses.
CANTON — A motion to reconsider Article 33 failed after more than two hours of floor debate over whether the town should reopen the vote on the 'move the vote' article, which would change how moderator elections are conducted.
Stephen Connolly, who identified himself at the microphone, moved for reconsideration and said the timing and turnout of the Monday vote—"less than 200 people in the room"—meant the article’s result deserved a second look. "For 200 people to decide this important article is unnecessary," Connolly said, arguing more residents should be able to take part.
Tom Birmingham, chair of the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan committee, requested that the proponent explain "what new information has come to light since Monday's vote to justify your acceptance of this motion," and raised concerns about outside experts who spoke at the earlier meeting without advance submission of materials.
Opponents of reconsideration countered that Monday night's session had been publicized months in advance, that attendees had voted to extend the meeting until midnight, and that those who supported the article had their opportunity to be heard. "I rise in opposition to reconsidering," Michael Albert said, noting the vote to extend the meeting had been approved and arguing the late hour was not, by itself, a reason to reopen the matter.
Residents also debated procedural safeguards: George Camo urged standard practices such as closing doors and ensuring only residents present vote; Janet Maguire and others urged the body to allow greater debate and inclusion but did not prevail.
Moderator explained that under current bylaws a motion to reconsider requires a two-thirds vote to carry and that, if successful, the underlying article would be returned for further consideration at a later session. After the pro/con debate, a motion to move the question was carried and the moderator declared the reconsideration motion had failed to reach the required two-thirds threshold.
Because the vote on reconsideration failed, Article 33 remains decided as voted on Monday and will not be relitigated at a future session as a result of this motion.
