I am concerned with the possibility of significant bias in our town’s voting process.
On May 3, we gathered and cast our votes on whether or not to pass a resolution to purchase a parcel of land on Old Mill Road for development into a sports field. The resolution failed by a slim margin of three votes.
The Select Board announced that at a follow-up meeting they would hold a revote on the resolution, because of the slim margin. The Board leader stated that this was completely legal. This time, on Sept. 27, the same slim margin of three votes resulted, but this time with just enough votes to pass.
In the first vote, there were only two possible outcomes: the resolution either passed or failed. The decision should have been based solely on this outcome.
Allowing a second vote after an initial failure introduces additional opportunity for the resolution to pass. Enumerating the possible outcomes: (1) if the first vote passes, the resolution passes; (2) if the first vote fails, a second vote can either (3) pass or (4) fail. Three of the outcomes allow passage and only one causes failure, creating a 3-to-1 bias toward passing.
Thus, the decision to allow a revote after failure unfairly increases the likelihood that the resolution will pass.
We can never know if a revote would have been held had the resolution passed the first time with the same slim margin. I personally doubt it. I feel there was undue influence in the final passing of the resolution.
The original result should stand. Our town’s voting process should be cleaned up to eliminate the possibility of bias, even if it is well-intentioned or inadvertent. The voting process should be clear cut and not open to interpretation or adjustment.
James Boutelle
Old Mill Road
