The recent Town Meeting revote to approve the land purchase for a new athletic field was an insult to the democratic process. It may technically have been legal, though I doubt that all requirements were met and would like to see a considered legal opinion.
But even if legal it certainly perverted the will of the people, who narrowly voted it down the first time. Yes, it was close, but that sometimes happens. (Just ask Al Gore.) The Select Board put it on the agenda again because they wished it had been approved the first time and thought it might be the second time, especially if potential “yes” voters were attracted to the meeting to vote for it. They did not allege any irregularities in putting it forward again.
What should we do now? Well, ideally we would invalidate the vote based on a legal opinion. Alternatively, a member of the Select Board, or possibly a member of the public, following appropriate processes, could put it on the agenda yet again, making it a two-out-of-three competition, like the MLB wild-card playoffs. But this is a greasy step on the slippery slope; it could lead to losers trying to make it three-out-of-five, like the MLB division series, or four-out-of-seven like the World Series, or to 21, like in volleyball.
You see the potential problem. That’s why rules are best set beforehand. When rules can be changed after being applied the door to chaos is opened wide. Alert readers who follow national politics might be able to come up with examples. At a minimum, everyone who agrees with this perspective should firmly and repeatedly tell Select Board members what they think.
Harvard is a small town; Town Meeting is arguably the purest form of democracy and has worked fine for us for over 200 years. Let’s keep it going and try to fix this, please.
Billy Salter
Elm Street
