May 08, 2008 03:01 pm Editor, Townsman: At the recent Town Meeting, the League of Women Voters discerned a lack of the usual healthy debate that has characterized Andover's Town Meeting in the past. We are especially concerned about the frequent use of "moving the question" to cut off debate on Thursday evening. We don't think it is too far-fetched to suggest that, unless checked, moving the question could become a tool too easily abused by any presenter. Once a presenter has put forward his or her best case, an ally could move the question in an attempt to stifle the voice of the opposition. Town Meeting, however, does not have to endorse this tactic. The FinCom report states that moving the question requires approval by two-thirds of Town Meeting voters, and therefore Town Meeting attendees can override the call to end discussion. We suggest that Town Meeting voters oppose motions to move the question until at least two, and preferably four or five, speakers on each side of the issue have had an opportunity to express their ideas. Important and sometimes overlooked perspectives are often given by individuals waiting patiently in line at the microphone. Many of us have changed our votes on a particular article based on a compelling argument from the floor. We are not objecting to any use of moving the question; we understand that motions to move the question often reflect a desire to keep Town Meeting moving. In fact, the League's motion for time limits on Town Meeting speakers is intended to keep Town Meeting moving while still allowing the audience to hear many viewpoints. Time limits help voters hear from more speakers in a compressed amount of time. If Town Meeting has to choose between making thoughtful decisions and avoiding another night of Town Meeting, we believe the choice should be to make thoughtful decisions. Stefani Traina Goldshein 6 Roulston Circle President League of Women Voters of Andover/North Andover
—
Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.