Share This Article
Sudbury’s May 20 Special Town Meeting was unusual. The two main event articles set the stage for a contentious evening: the addition of a recall provision to the Town Charter and a vote of ‘no confidence’ in the Sudbury School Committee. But the way the meeting was run, the technical difficulties and the conduct of the participants have raised serious questions.
Moderator Cate Blake implored the nearly 1,000 residents to treat each other with respect at the top of the meeting. That’s a typical instruction from the Moderator at Town Meetings. Those words were repeatedly disregarded by residents in the Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School gymnasium.
The location may have played a role in incentivizing bad conduct such as shouting down speakers, booing, cheering and stomping, behavior more likely at a playoff game. The stage was at one end of the gymnasium with a sea of white folding chairs assembled across the rest of the basketball court. Those seats were flanked on both sides by bleachers, which elevated hundreds of residents above those seated on the floor. Many residents in the bleachers, particularly at the back of the room, were loud, confrontational, and repeatedly breached Town Meeting decorum.
The meeting started over an hour late, which also contributed to frustrations in the hall. An impatient room waited while a long line of residents got checked in and equipped with clickers. Some residents took to social media to complain about the delay, while others appreciated that the Moderator made sure everyone had an opportunity to get into the room before proceeding.
The clicker-based voting system struggled to process the volume of votes coming in, leading to long delays in getting results of almost every vote. Blake tried to use hand votes with pink cards whenever possible to speed things along, but several of the motions required a two-thirds or four-fifths quantum by Town Meeting rules, which made the clickers a necessary tool.
The unusual topics also drew many first-time Town Meeting goers unfamiliar with the role of Town Meeting as a legislative body. Residents bemoaned the lengthy process of presenting and debating amendments, even after the Moderator explained the rules, role and function of Town Meeting.
Residents throughout the gymnasium regularly heckled speakers and grumbled when speakers voiced dissenting opinions.
As the meeting wore on, the bad behavior and loud chatter escalated to the point that resident Kay Bell took to a microphone to ask the Moderator to regain control of the room.
At one point, a resident in the back of the room was repeatedly disruptive, shouting angrily and booing, to the point that the Moderator asked the Chief of Police, Scott Nix, to have a conversation with him.
Yet another incident involved two former Select Board members. Bill Schineller spoke at the microphone on the left side of the stage while Len Simon waited at the microphone at the center aisle. After he finished speaking, Schineller walked quickly towards Simon, appearing to swipe his shoulder at Simon as he turned abruptly down the center aisle to return to his seat.
The noise in the hall made it difficult for some residents to hear what speakers were saying, adding to the confusion and more shouting for clarifications from the Moderator.
All that confusion buried the most curious aspect of this Special Town Meeting: Article 3, the recall election provision, which would amend Sudbury’s charter, was never debated by citizen legislators.
The petitioner presented the article, the Select Board offered its position on the article, and Town Meeting immediately considered two amendments, as is standard process. After the second amendment was defeated, a resident called the question on the main article, which would send it directly to a vote. That motion passed, and the ensuing vote on the article itself passed.
Debate on amendments is strictly limited to the amendments themselves, excluding any other aspects of the article. The first amendment focused narrowly on the signature threshold for the petition stage of the recall process. That amendment failed by a slim margin of 424-487. The second amendment focused solely on the simultaneous successor election provision in the recall process and also did not pass.
Residents had no opportunity to discuss any other facets of the recall article. It passed 474-395.
Town Manager Andy Sheehan acknowledged in a statement that the Town had received some feedback about decorum and added “Town Meeting is unlike anything else so new participants may not have known what to expect. The technology issues and resulting delays didn’t help. It is hard to legislate decorum. It is really up to attendees how they act and to abide by the Moderator’s instructions.”
As for steps the Town might take in the future, Sheehan said the Town is already looking into it. “We have already identified some equipment that will help address the tech issues. I expect we will also review the Town Meeting bylaw to see if that would offer some room for improvement.”
Town Moderator Cate Blake said in a statement “This was a unique Special Town Meeting with four Citizen Petitions. The voters were presented with Articles that had strong opinions on both sides, which can (and did) impact decorum. Right now in Sudbury, I think the issue of decorum is larger than Town Meeting.”
Looking to the future, Blake added “Every Town Meeting I preside over, I learn something that helps inform the way I prepare for and conduct the next Town Meeting. I hope that our community and elected leaders can move forward in a constructive and more positive way.”
Update: 4:47p.m. – This story was updated with comments from Town Moderator Cate Blake