Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness...

Over the last several weeks, a petition drive has been circulated by residents to place an article on the upcoming Special Town Meeting Warrant that would ask voters to support a General Bylaw change allowing Town Meetings – now held on weekdays at 7:00 PM - to be held on Saturdays at 9:00 AM. As our Town Charter (Section 3-6), requires that “Petitions for insertion of articles in the warrant for special town meeting shall be signed by one hundred (100) or more registered voters”, these individuals set forth and obtained 112 signatures, which have all been certified by the Town Clerk. Unfortunately, the wording of their petition was not specific enough to fulfill the requirements of an acceptable Warrant Article in that it requested only “that all future Town Meetings be held during reasonable daylight hours on Saturdays”.

Though certainly the intent of the petition is clear, the Town Moderator – correctly so - pointed out that petition language was too ambiguous, in that it does not address specific language requirements that would sufficiently address a number of the Town’s General Bylaws. As such, the petition would create conflict between a number of the Town’s bylaws related to Town Meetings. There is little doubt that most residents would face similar hurdles in the drafting of petitioned warrant articles as the requirements for such are unfamiliar to those not accustomed to crafting them. The individuals drafting the petition in question naturally presumed that the specific language requirements would be addressed - as appropriate - once the petition was submitted and certified. Unfortunately, without the written approval of all 112 residents who signed, no individual or body has the authority to modify the current petition by trying to determine the intent of 112 residents as it relates to “reasonable daylight hours on Saturdays”.


A number of our general bylaws provide specific requirements mandating Town Meetings to be held at 7:00 PM, with Annual Town Meeting being restricted by both the Town Charter and the General Bylaws to the “first Monday in June or on such date as may from time to time be fixed in the bylaws of the town”. Thus, any warrant article seeking change to the timing of Town Meeting would be incomplete were it not to address the parameters identified in 6 supporting general bylaws. Undoubtedly, there exists a void in terms of readably available information that can guide residents through the process of petitioning for warrant articles and that is now being addressed via an informational handout I am crafting in concert with the Town Moderator. This “brochure” will explain the process of developing petition articles, guiding residents to the Town Charter, General and/or Zoning Bylaws, as well as the Town Moderator himself, who will provide guidance prior to petitioners soliciting signatures. In the short-term however this approach will do nothing to address the issue of the petition already submitted and certified requesting Saturday Town Meetings.

In light of such, and based upon my personal belief that the current timing of Town Meetings creates barriers that restrict/deter attendance by some residents, I introduced two motions to the Board of Selectmen this past Monday allowing for the placement of articles on the Special Town Meeting Warrant that would amend the General Bylaws as it relates to the timing of Town Meetings. These articles will allow voters an opportunity to determine whether or not the Town should move to Saturday Town Meetings. Both articles have been placed, allowing those who undertook the petition process an opportunity to bring their argument before the voters at the upcoming Special Town Meeting, thus salvaging their petition efforts.

Clearly this requested change has both its supporters and non-supporters. Those who favor it – including myself – view this change as important in providing greater opportunity for seniors to participate in the process of legislating their future. Over the last couple of years I have come to believe that the current scheduling of Town Meetings (during evening hours) creates situations whereby stress, anxiety, and in some cases fear, present overwhelming obstacles that deter seniors from leaving their homes and traveling in darkness to and/or from Town Meetings. There is little doubt in my mind that it is simpler for the majority of the populace to adjust schedules to accommodate Saturday Town Meetings – held at most 2 – 3 times a year, than it is for seniors to accommodate the stress and anxiety associated with nighttime travel. As such, I believe the current scheduling of Town Meetings has in fact created a situation whereby a significant number of seniors are unintentionally, though undoubtedly disenfranchised from participating in a process critical to their economic future. So too, I would submit that many voters who work long hours during the weekday, simply don’t have the opportunity to participate in a process that has the most direct impact upon their daily lives.

Arguments offered thus far against a move towards Saturday Town Meetings identify a host of concerns, the vast majority of which involve choices. By that I mean that they hinge primarily on things we have direct control over. It has been suggested that Saturday Town Meetings would interfere with sports activities, weekend chores, and perhaps some family gatherings. Clearly, these concerns provide food for thought, but ultimately, they hinder solely upon choices between attending a child’s game or not, or splitting the parental obligations that particular Saturday, as well as scheduling yard work that Saturday afternoon or even Sunday as opposed to the Saturday morning of Town Meeting. It might even involve a choice in terms hosting a family gathering on a different day or later in the same day. These again are all – in my view – choices, though others might clarify them differently. For example, It has been suggested that these “choices” involve value judgments – as in the importance or significance one places upon family time - and that it is perhaps unfair to categorize these as simple choices.

Succumbing to the argue of “value judgments”, were one to do so, would then force the question of exactly how much value we place upon our personal involvement and that of others in the political decision-making that impacts our overall quality of life. The choice to prioritize a sporting event or yard work at a level higher than ensuring decision-making access to a greater number of residents - whose futures are now determined by others – seems not to value the participation of those who built this community – our seniors. Though the vast majority of us can choose to make scheduling arrangements that would accommodate our attendance at a Saturday Town Meeting, there is little doubt that the stress, anxiety, and fear, which manifest for seniors as they contemplate attendance at a nighttime meeting and commuting home in darkness is not something that one can simply choose to reschedule or ignore.

It has also been suggested that changing Town Meeting to Saturdays should be so done via a Charter change, which would require a super-majority at Town Meeting for approval, followed by a vote at the ballot box. The argument here is that since a higher percentage of voters (approximately 25% per figures maintained by the Town Clerk) attend annual elections, it would allow more registered voters to decide the issue. On its face, this argument initially resonates in terms of the numbers of voters who would decide this issue as attendance at Town Meetings is 4%-5% and it would appear more meaningful for it to be done at the ballot box. Closer scrutiny however suggests a great deal of inequity in this approach as a full 20% – 21% of those voters who attend annual elections, DO NOT attend Town Meetings. Thus, a position that argues for the additional 20% of those voters who cast votes at the ballot box determining when the 4% - 5% of the voters who do attend Town Meeting should schedule or hold same, seems rather inequitable. Beyond this argument, the Sturbridge Town Charter definitively allows for Town Meeting to “be held on the first Monday of June or on such date as may from time to time be fixed in the bylaws of the town”. Clearly, the scheduling of Town Meeting via General Bylaw changes is allowed by our Town’s Constitution.

Perhaps the most disturbing argument offered – though one maintained outside of public discussion – is that shared with me by at least two public officials and a resident or two, which deals with an increase in attendance by Sturbridge seniors. Very simply stated, it has been offered that perhaps we are better suited by not having seniors vote at Town Meeting as they may tend to borrow less and spend less money thus jeopardizing some of the things we might want. Yes, despite having accrued well over $50 million dollars in debt over the last 5 years – that of course in addition to what we previously accrued and are still paying for – we have some who would prefer that seniors didn’t have the opportunity to vote at Town Meeting as they might not be inclined to support things we WANT. I am not sure what it is that We Might Want, whoever that We is, but I do know that what WE as a community and a country will always NEED is a commitment towards ensuring that all voices have the opportunity to equitably participate in the affairs that dictate their lives and that wherever barriers exist, we should work to reduce them.

As a constitutional conservative and a Lincoln Republican, I believe in our Declaration of Independence which serves as the very foundation upon which our U.S. Constitution is based. As a veteran and someone who has served my country for 32 years under an oath to “protect and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic” I am drawn quite often, as was Abraham Lincoln - considered by many historians as our nation’s greatest president - to two simple lines in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”.

Certainly, I am no Abraham Lincoln, but I, just as he was, am a devout believer in our Constitution and the document that gave birth to it. I am also a strict constructionist and do not take liberties with the Constitution, our Town Charter, or our bylaws for that matter. Thus, I am left to wonder as I reflect upon the promises of our Declaration of Independence, how can one truly maintain the unalienable right to life if one does not have the opportunity to participate in the most basic decisions in ones community? How can one truly enjoy or maintain liberty, if one does not have the opportunity to participate in the legislative gathering of voters at Town Meeting? And how can someone truly pursue happiness, if every financial decision that impacts their life is made by others?

Some might argue this to be an excessive position and not nearly as significant as I and others believe it to be. Surely, I agree that for those not faced with the anxiety/stress of nighttime travel, nor the fear of being on the road in darkness this appears hyperbolic; it is after all always difficult to empathize with a situation one does not or has not intimately experienced. That said and  despite any assertions to the contrary, the inescapable fact remains that many seniors simply don’t have a choice when it comes to attending nighttime meetings and as such have lost their ability to participate in the most basic level of government. Equally, I am confident - despite any assertions to the contrary - that the vast majority of non-senior voter attendance at a Saturday Town Meeting would be one of making choices and maybe even a sacrifice or two, but such is a minor inconvenience juxtaposed against the anxiety and/or fear that keeps many seniors from attending evening meetings. Maybe it does after all, come down to values and how much we value the input of those who built our country and this community.