By Scott Smyers
Twenty-eight percent was the total Town Meeting members voted against Article 7 indicating their awareness of the non-transparent, incompetent and deceptive School Committee and Administrators. This number likely underrepresented those who are against the direction of the School Committee. When considering how many people disagreed with the direction of the schools BUT felt bad for teachers possibly being let go, the number is probably more like 38% or higher. Not too bad, but we’re still part of the Acton Losers Club, love it or hate it. I’ve been a proud member for years and will not stop demanding honesty and fairness in our government.
Leading up to Town Meeting, many people, including former select board members, made compelling cases that the School Committee and Administrators are incapable or unwilling to prioritize and manage an $80 Million budget. Unfortunately, 72% of voters chose to allow the same leadership team to continue their tax-payer funded parade of self-proclaimed noble causes. There were major savings they could have made without cutting teachers, but they refused. They will continue to prioritize teaching about racial justice (e.g., blame white people), global environmental catastrophes (e.g., blame white people and capitalism), and teach about sex and gender ideology to younger and younger students. Second to these topics will be some electives like mathematics, science, English, and history.
If you think this is hyperbole, please consider two rising stars on the School Committee with a history of bad judgement. Rebeccah Wilson, current Chair of the Budget Subcommittee, is fully committed to every left wing political movement as exemplified in this expose from 2021 where she condescendingly offers help to a black woman who was unaware she needed to be rescued by a white, suburban lady from Acton. During her presentation at Town Meeting, she explained how they looked at the budget even more than usual this year. Golly, that’s refreshing since they ran out of money! Her presentation was insulting to anyone who understands the most basic budgeting concepts. Next we have Bloomy75 who was a real mask-bully back during Covid and now thinks the school budget should not be restricted in the slightest, ever. There are so many citizens that would support anyone from the current committee who would stand up to the status quo and vote the opposite of the majority. But please, don’t follow the lead of the Chair. He claims to have experience, but look where his leadership has taken us. Over a cliff! If you are a quiet member who is intimidated by the know-it-all bullies on the committee, please take a stand. We need you now more than ever.
On the Town’s side of the budget, Jim Snyder-Grant and David Martin will keep purchasing electric vehicles with tax dollars no matter how many workers are poisoned in the mining process and insist that anti white racism is not racism. Alissa Nichol will support all the newest left-wing political fads and publicly misinterpret anyone who argues with her. There are other members of the Select Board who vote against the grain of liberal tyrants, but we need more to make a difference.
Going back in time a couple weeks, the total vote resulting from the ballot vote for the override on April 30 was very close and had some irregularities. For example, how were there more “blank” votes (people who did not select YES or NO) for the override than the actual margin of votes between the YES and NO votes? Furthermore, some citizens would like to learn more about the accuracy of our current voting system compared to hand counting. Enough citizens from every precinct submitted the appropriate paperwork and the recount is scheduled for the end of May. Although the Town has a history of neglecting ethics and voter registrars, let’s insist the recount is transparent and honest. Our system must make it easy to vote, but difficult to cheat.
On Thursday May 16th, 2024 at 5pm in room 9 of Town Hall, the Board of Registrars met.
Present were the Registrars, folks from the Town Clerk’s office, and members of the public. The recount procedure was discussed and a copy of the following document given to all:
https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/download/getting-on-the-ballot/Election-Recounts.pdf
In short, the recount process is precisely prescribed and has built-in transparency.
The Town Moderator’s handling of this question at Town Meeting was an abomination — but not a surprising one. Once again, she gave voice to those who agreed with her and silenced those who did not. She allowed 7 Yes speakers and only 2 No speakers, with the time broken down about 75/25 between the two groups. Mr. Mullen, the assistant moderator working the upper gym, was just about to call on me — only the 3rd No speaker after four previous Yes speakers — when she cut him off to allow 3 more Yes speakers from the lower gym and auditorium, after which she cut off debate with several more speakers waiting to speak in just the upper gym alone. (I don’t know what the lines looked like in the other rooms.)
Total time for comments was just over 15 minutes. This on the question of the largest tax override in our Town’s history that drew nearly 2600 participants to Town Meeting — probably 2000 of whom had never attended before and never will again. We spent about 4 times that debating what color to paint Town Hall several years ago, an article that was on the order of $100K.
Why so little time to hear all views? Because the Town Moderator made it her personal mission to ensure that the vote was taken before parents had to pick their children up from the District-sponsored free babysitting. (How is the District catering to their core constituency not an ethics violation?) She stuck to her schedule, despite a late start, technical issues, the need to shuffle people between the cafeteria (where clickers didn’t work) & the upper gym and even a late-arriving bus with people who never got to vote because she refused to wait for them. NOTHING was going to stop her from getting this vote completed by people who have never bothered to become engaged in the slightest aspect of town governance prior to April 30, 2024 but would deliver her the outcome she desired.
Why wasn’t this a surprise? Because she’s done it before. At the 2023 Town Meeting, she allowed 8 Yes speakers to advocate for allowing 16- and 17-year olds to vote in local elections, but only 3 No speakers. Of the 8 Yes speakers, 2 or 3 were high school students, who were there at the suggestion OF THE TOWN MODERATOR. And as was the case last week, there were still Yes speakers waiting at microphones who lost their opportunity to speak when the question was called (by the same person who always does it). She is not required to stop debate — she chooses to do so.
The Town Moderator is supposed to run the meeting — not script it. It doesn’t matter if the outcome is a foregone conclusion. Town Meeting is essentially our own little Congress. We are citizen legislators, and we ought to be able to get our comments on the record. Otherwise, there is no record available for those of us on the correct side of this issue to go back and say “told you so”, which we almost certainly will be doing sooner than anyone wants to believe.
The ideal way to run a town meeting is to be uninvolved in town politics and to favor neither side. The Moderator’s goal should be to ensure that the voters have or get enough information to be able to make an informed decision. When the agenda and format is stacked to help the Town boards, extra care should be given to dissenting voices since they represent the other side.
As a partisan, Moderator Berry is far from ideal.
A few points from someone who was in the main auditorium:
1. Whether or not to wait for the people on the bus to arrive was a no-win situation. There were speakers on both sides of that issue. I hope the town considers how to improve the shuttle if the need arises again, but that isn’t about the moderator.
2. I am not surprised the pro/con speakers broke down 75/25 because that is pretty close to the final vote percentage.
3. As far as I can tell, the moderator only had voice communication with the other rooms, so I don’t think we can criticize her for not calling on the “no” mic in the other room. Perhaps that communication is an area of improvement for the future, but she wasn’t going to be able to do it this year.
4. The question was called from a “no” mic. I can’t recall if there were people waiting at the other “no” mic, but she wasn’t going to get many more “no” speakers without the question being called.
5. Ultimately, the moderator didn’t end debate; Town Meeting voted to end debate. I understand the frustration of not getting to make your case, but I suspect most people knew how they were voting when they walked in and more debate wasn’t going to change that.
6. The moderator ran unopposed in April. If folks don’t like the job she is doing, they are free to run next year.
The motion to call the question can come from any mic. The person just went to the one she was sitting nearest.
The moderator is not required to hold the vote to stop debate when someone moves to do so. This is within her discretion.
There were assistant moderators in all rooms. She heard the one in the upper gym try to call on another speaker before cutting him off to take more from the auditorium. She knew the upper and lower gyms were packed and should have allowed more speakers from each room, as well as the cafeteria.
As noted above, this entire question was pushed by all of our boards, two teachers’ unions and the local progressive organization. Attendance at TM was stacked in their favor, and she knew that. The fact is that the Town Meeting outcome in no way represented the breakdown of views across the community, and she knew that, too.
This is her modus operandi. She needs to be replaced by someone who can ensure that all sides are heard from, not just those with whom she agrees, even if it’s the majority.
I do feel foolish for saying this but we have the leaders we want – we voted them into office. If a majority chooses to agree with the elected officials suggest we have to stop bemoaning realiy and getting on with our very complicated and busy lives.
If “some citizens would like to learn more about the accuracy of our current voting system compared to hand counting,” they can turn to the April 15, 2011 recount of a School Committee election that was won by 2 votes. The hand recount, requested by Dennis Bruce, confirmed the original results.
Thanks for the excellent comment Alissa. Do you know if there is any requirement (town, state) that automatically requires a re-count if the margin is less than a stated number/percentage? I recall seeing something like this in an election in the past few years (not Acton). Seems like it would be a good idea so people don’t have to prepare petitions.
I’m not aware of any such requirement. I do recall another close election where no petition was submitted for a recount. Diane Baum won a School Committee seat by one vote. My sense is that hand counting might be more prone to error. Seems like a very monotonous, mindless, and tiring task. Staff will be meticulous though in their work next week.