TM voter clears the air following controversial motion

Editor’s Note: At the second session of Canton’s Annual Town Meeting on April 27, Canton resident Allen Karon made a motion to reconsider Article 34, the local option meals tax that had been defeated two nights earlier by a rare 133-133 tie vote. Karon’s motion, although ultimately unsuccessful, was controversial nonetheless, for it extended town meeting to a third session on Monday, May 2, and gave new life to the supporters of the proposed tax hike.

In the letter that follows, Karon defends his controversial decision on both religious and procedural grounds, and explains why, after being treated poorly by some of his fellow voters, he is glad town meeting is over and never wants to move for reconsideration of an article “ever again.”

The 2011 Annual Town Meeting that just concluded was one of the most interesting ones that I have ever attended. For starters, I am a Jewish voter who tries as much as possible to honor Shabbat and the major Jewish holidays, in which “melacha,” or creative work, is prohibited by the Torah.

Although I am not one who strictly follows all of the commandments to refrain from performing any of the 39 categories of creative work – of which I consider voting to fall under one of those categories — it is my tradition not to cast a vote on Shabbat or a major Jewish holiday. There have been times when the annual town election has fallen on one of the first two days of Passover — I have voted absentee in those years.

This year, the first day of town meeting fell on April 25, the start of the eighth and last day of Passover. My branch of Judaism, the Conservative branch, considers the eighth day of Passover as part of the seventh day as well. The seventh day of Passover is defined as a major “Yom Tov,” or major holiday by the Torah, in which creative work is prohibited.

For over a year, I knew that I could not attend the town meeting on the first night this year as a result. Therefore, on April 25, I stayed home and had the proceedings recorded on my VCR, which I watched on Wednesday morning after the Passover holiday ended.

Normally, articles at town meeting pass or fail by comfortable margins, and even when I disagree with the result, I know that my vote is not the crucial one that passes or defeats the article. However, when Article 34, the local option meals tax, came up for a vote at 11 p.m. on Monday, April 25, I initially thought that it would be a close vote.

But when I learned that the article failed by a 133-133 vote, I was very angry, not necessarily because of the result, but because I felt that my one vote that could have made a difference was denied to me because of my religious beliefs. I felt a very stinging discriminatory religious effect that made me very outraged. I was also very outraged because I thought, “What if I had opposed the tax and it passed by one vote, and I could not cast the tying vote to defeat it due to my religious beliefs?”

On the day of April 27, I was initially conflicted by whether or not to file a motion to reconsider Article 34. When I heard complaints and confusion from other voters about the meaning of the tie vote, I knew right then and there that I had to make the motion.

After doing so, the moderator ruled that it could not be debated on the same day that I made it, and that debate had to wait until Monday, May 2. I could have moved for adjournment of the session right then and there, but I decided that I could wait it out and get my right to contribute to the debate the following Monday.

Had I known that someone would move to dissolve the town meeting as a preemptive strike before my motion to reconsider would come up for debate, I would have moved to adjourn town meeting to Monday, May 2, immediately after Article 35 was dispensed with. Hindsight is 20/20 in that regard.

During Wednesday’s session, I was heavily pressured by the opponents of Article 34 to withdraw my motion, but I felt that to withdraw the motion would mean that I agreed to have my voting rights taken away, so I refused. I was called “naughty” by one of the opponents, but I would not back down from my firm stance. I decided to wait it out and see how many voters would show up on Monday.

Let me explain that my motion to reconsider was not filed with the intent to steal Canton votes. I was only trying to check whether or not the true wishes of the Canton voters had spoken with regard to the article, and I was merely requesting of town meeting whether or not they wanted to reopen Article 34 up for further debate in light of the tie vote.

In any legislative body, when there is a tie vote, a motion to reconsider is not only in order, but it is expected, because you can reasonably argue that you could provide more information that could better inform the voters and possibly change the outcome of the article.

I was disappointed to find that only 130 voters turned out for the May 2 session of town meeting while 266 voters had voted on Article 34 back on April 25. This alone seemed to confirm the moderator’s remarks that Canton was not interested in further debate of Article 34.

In hindsight, I am glad that I lost my motion to reconsider, because had my motion passed, I would not have known what to do next with that small of a crowd. I probably would have moved to postpone further debate on the article to a later time, but the schools could have taken advantage of me and moved for quick passage of the article, which would have made me and all of Canton even angrier, and may have made some voters take their frustrations out on me.

I do agree with the moderator that playing political “games” will turn off voters, but I firmly believed that my motion to reconsider was not frivolous — I had some basic justification to make the motion other than a wish to revote the article on a different night with a different crowd. The confusion over the tie vote more than met that standard of not being frivolous.

To address some confusion from Canton voters as to whether or not an alternate remedy would have sufficed instead of reconsideration, I found out that Article IV, Section 12 of the town’s general by-laws explicitly states that no appeal can be taken from the results of a standing vote. In other words, motions to recount the vote have to be automatically treated as motions to reconsider the article, or they are out of order. The general by-laws also simply state that once a vote is taken on a matter and the article is dispensed with, the article cannot be brought back up for further debate at the town meeting, except by a two-thirds vote.

I am glad that town meeting is over, and I hope that I never have to move for reconsideration of an article ever again. I hope that next year’s town meeting will change the by-law to move the first session to the first Monday in May of every year — that will permanently eliminate this particular holiday problem. If the by-law is not changed, there will be a similar problem with the first night of the 2024 Annual Town Meeting falling on the last day of Passover.

Sincerely,

Allen Karon

Short URL: https://www.thecantoncitizen.com/?p=5018

Posted by Canton Citizen on May 11 2011. Filed under From One Citizen to Another, Opinion, Town Government. Both comments and pings are currently closed.