Cassius: “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves…., Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar”, Act I, Scene II.”
Although I am a sitting member on the Groton Town Meeting Review Study Committee, this Letter is being written, with genuine regret, as the opinion of a private, concerned, citizen.
It has been suggested, in recent times and in different venues, Groton’s open Town Meeting format no longer reflects the opinions of the vast majority of the Town’s citizens. The prevailing argument given is the perceived, limited attendance of residents. And, attendance at Groton’s recent Special Town Meeting, on Saturday morning, January 26, 2013, as was reported in some media outlets, would seem to reinforce this argument, …but, really?
Indeed, that morning’s Meeting started with 277 Groton citizens present, more than satisfying Groton’s Special Town Meeting’s current Quorum requirement of 155 residents. And, as described elsewhere, the Warrant’s Articles I and II both passed, unchallenged, by voice votes. When Article III’s “Main” Motion (New Central Fire Station funding) was voted upon, the Meeting’s voice vote was challenged from the floor, and 285 hands were then raised and tallied (227 Yea’s vs. 58 Nay’s).
Now, the description I just gave you might suggest, a mere eight additional residents arrived to vote that morning, thus reinforcing the aforementioned argument.
In reality, a grand total of 398 residents, or nearly six percent (6%) of Groton’s registered voters, were signed in as attendees (Source: Groton Town Clerk’s Office). Or, in other words, prior to the vote on Article III’s “Main” Motion, 121 more citizens had arrived late, while 113 citizens, having voted on one (or both) of the first two Articles, picked from the Town Meeting’s Warrant, given a freedom paid for in blood, with a civic obligation, and the opportunity to stay and express their opinions and positions on Articles’ III and IV, filed out of the Meeting early, never to return.
We know their voices impacted Articles I and/or II’s outcome, but what effect might they have had on Article III and Rule Loving’s Citizen’s Amendment? Could their opinions have altered the end result? Could those additional votes have had a profound effect on Groton’s history that day?
A century ago, in what was a far different age, this behavior, in departing a Town Meeting prior to it’s adjournment, might have been looked upon as (in no specific order) boorish, irresponsible, ill-mannered, immature, self-centered, selfish, thoughtless and/or tactless. That Saturday morning, after two separate episodes of mass exodus, I have little doubt those same thoughts and feelings existed, if only silently expressed, in the minds of many of those who felt it their civic obligation, and responsibility, to stay and participate in directing Groton’s affairs.
No (with apologies to William Shakespeare)! The fault is not in our attendance levels at open Town Meetings, but in ourselves. On that particular Saturday morning (as with many other Groton Town Meetings in recent memory), it was exhibited in the “a la carte” nature of voting behavior seemingly (and increasingly) preferred by Groton’s citizens.
Think about it.
Scott Evans Harker
Martins Pond Road
” Boorish, irresponsible, ill-mannered, immature, self-centered, selfish, thoughtless and/or tactless”…… Seriously?
At least all these reprehensible people you are attacking took the time to show up to the Town Meeting in the first place. Where is your disgust for the 94% of Groton voters that didn’t show up at all?
Perhaps instead of passing judgement you should look at the reasons for poor attendance and early exit of these meetings.
Holding a Town Meeting on a Saturday morning makes no sense whatsoever. The vast majority of Groton’s voting population have children in school and most of these children participate in weekend sporting events, be it practice or a game. Someone needs to get these kids back and forth.
Many Groton families have both parents employed full time leaving no other day but Saturday and typically Saturday mornings to take care of tasks they can not attend to during the work week.
Look around at the next Saturday town meeting. Most attendees are beyond the age of having school aged children, or beyond retirement age. There is a reason for this; the rest of the voting populace have other things that need to be adressed on a Saturday morning. The votes taken at a Saturday town meeting more than likely are not a good representation of how the majority of Groton voters would have voted had they been able to attend.
How about starting the meeting on time for once, and streamlining the process instead of taking a vote to see if we need to vote on taking a vote? The whole process is so archaic, it’s laughable.
I don’t claim to have all the answers to correct this issue, but moving the meetings back to a week night would be a huge step in the right direction. Modernizing and streamlining the process so meetings don’t run for three hours or longer would help attendance and also guarantee that more of the people that do attend stay for the entire meeting. Perhaps something as simple as setting time limits on articles and presenters would help.
Russ:
My apologies for not responding, sooner, to your remarks (failed septic pump). I sincerely appreciate your taking the time to read, think about and comment on my Letter.
Groton’s recent Saturday morning Town Meetings, I believe, were a experiment, on the part of our Selectmen, to see if that day would provide a larger attendance. And, as the father of two children who were born and raised to adulthood in Groton, I could add a half dozen more reasons, to your own, for not attending a Saturday Town Meeting. Yes, for those dealing with the pressures of parenthood, in this day and age, there is strong justification for placing a low priority on town governance. This is why I DON’T chastise the vast majority who chose not to attend. By not knowing their reasoning, or circumstances, I can’t criticize their decision.
I AM criticizing those who do attend Town Meetings and believe they’ve satisfied their civic obligation by picking and choosing what Articles they wish to vote on, then depart leaving the rest for others to decide. Then, if the results, after the fact, don’t meet their expectations, they complain Groton’s open form of Town Meeting no longer satisfies the interests/attitudes/opinions of the majority. One simply can’t have it both ways.
I am in that group who are now, as you say, “…beyond the age of having school aged children, or beyond retirement age”, …and proud of it. All this really means is I, along with others you’ve tagged, had more free time to research and study the issues behind the money Articles that were on the recent STM Town Warrant, and vote with a reasonable degree of intelligence about each, whether or not one might have agreed with the outcome of the voting.
Like many others of the “Over the Hill Gang” who attended the STM, I’ve grown to respect the fact those men and women, in our Town’s public domain, be they on boards, commissions or committees, whose dedication to their responsibilities is essential to the smooth administration of Groton’s day-to-day affairs, in relying on Groton’s open Town Meeting to set their direction, have a right to expect the same degree of dedication, from the membership of Groton’s Town Meeting.
One last thought: As a sample size, 398 out of 7,352 registered voters (from Groton’s 2011 Annual Report), regardless of how they voted or what they voted on, is considered, statistically, significant for determining the opinions of the larger number. Thus, I suspect your statement, “The votes taken at a Saturday town meeting more than likely are not a good representation of how the majority of Groton voters would have voted had they been able to attend”, could be successfully contested by a good statistician.
When the time arrives for the Town Meeting Review Study Committee to hold public hearings, your attendance, and voicing your perspectives (as is your right), would be valuable in helping the Committee shape it’s recommendations for our BoS.
Sincerely,
Scott Evans Harker
Scott,
I appreciate your addressing dome of my concerns. However you may have missed a couple of my points. The Saturday meetings not only dissuade people from attending due to prior obligations, but it also dissuades those who do attend from staying for the duration of the meeting. I know some of the citizens who left after article 1 and article 2 and it was not due to a disinterest in the balance of the meeting, but simply due to the fact they had prior obligations, and the amount of time they had available to stay had run out..Many whom I spoke to stayed longer than they had planned because they chose not to be rude or disruptive and leave during the middle of an article, but instead stayed until the article’s completion.
Just like the people that didn’t attend, you shouldn’t chastise or criticize the people that had to leave early. Because just like the non-attendees that you give a waiver to, you do not know the reasoning or circumstances behind why people had to exit the meeting before it ended either.
As far as the 398 people out of 7352 being ‘statistically’ a good representation of how the whole town would vote, you know what they say about statistics. Mathematically, perhaps it shows a good representation of voters, but in reality it does not. It’s my argument that based on the meeting being held on a Saturday, a large demographic of Groton can not attend the meeting, thus this large demographic is not represented in the vote.
Meetings need to start on time, need to be streamlined, and need to have time limits set for each article, both for presentations and for debate. Bringing the process out of the stone ages would cut the length of the meetings by at least a third thus driving up attendence and allowing meetings to run to completion without mass exodus.
Russ,
Good evening, Again, my apologies. We’re dealing with a iced up septic system so this took a while to submit.
You may be please to learn, if you don’t know it already, it was just reported the Spring (Annual) TM will be held on Monday, April 22, with the first Adjourned Session (if any) to be held the next night on Tuesday, April 23. This is a clear departure from the past when Adjourned sessions were held on a following Monday evening.
FYI, one investigation I (personally) hope the GTMRS Committee will undertake – which addresses several issues you raise – is a study to consider bringing electronic voting to within the four walls of Groton’s TM. Wayland’s TM is now using same to, apparent, great effect, in that it re-instates vote confidentiality while vastly speeding up the voting process.
However, in response to your thoughts. I have no doubt, as you suggest, there were those who left the Special Town Meeting early, that Saturday, to satisfy other obligations and, in not knowing what those reasons might have been, it might be unfair for those, still in the audience, to criticize. But, for better or worse, without knowing that was the case, perception, alone, is everything.
My response/argument is simple: For the TM process to be successful as the mechanism governing our Town’s affairs, it requires respect for the need of dedicated, physical attendance, intellectual involvement and interaction,. A fair question, though, is whether or not the STM, or any TM was/is announced, far enough in advance, to permit folks to plan their personal lives around it’s scheduled date (or, if, for parents, that’s even possible).
Re: Statistics reflecting Demographics: We may just have to agree to disagree on this point. There are many different “demographic” criteria one could choose from: age, income level, education level, physical location in Town, marriage status, parental status, ethnicity, handicapped, etc. Take your pick. Which is (are) the most important to consider as it relates to measuring participation in TM?
As for your thought, “Bringing the (Town Meeting) process out of the stone ages would cut the length of the meetings….”, aside from my “FYI”, this is solely the responsibility of the Town Meeting’s membership, i.e., you and I. The Moderator has multiple responsibilities, just a few of which are starting the Meeting on time (your point about this is taken), insuring the initial quorum is present, if one is required, and insuring …and maintaining decorum, but thereafter, it’s really up to the Meeting’s membership, by motion and vote, to set the rules and requirements of the Meeting on any given Article.
Regards,
Scott Evans Harker