Policy To Restrict Selectman Petropoulos Fails[with video]

The Selectmen reviewed a potential policy that would essentially require a Board member on the losing side of a vote to abide by the majority vote. The policy states, "All members of the Board whether on the prevailing or losing side of the vote, shall abide by the vote. No member of the Board shall attempt to circumvent or undermine a vote taken by the Board outside of a Board meeting." If a member wants a vote to be reconsidered, they are requested to inform the Chairman who will place the matter for reconsideration on the Board's next available agenda.

The discussion of a policy was raised at an earlier meeting and the Board asked Town Manager Mark Haddad to prepare a draft for them to look at.

There was a section of the draft policy that said, "A vote of the Board will be reconsidered only when someone on the prevailing side offers a motion to reconsider based on new evidence or information." Selectman Jack Petropoulos noted that it would be very tough to get someone on the prevailing side to agree to support this.

He also raised the question of how to go about changing decisions made by one board when the composition of the Board changes to include new members who are subsequently elected. Petropoulos asked that if a decision were made on a 3 to 2 vote, "Can it never be brought up again?" Across the country, there are many instances when people on the losing side of an argument find ways to bring it up again.

Selectman Peter Cunningham then suggested striking this sentence requiring the prevailing side from the policy. He said that this policy was meant as an effort to engender the concept of "teamwork" and to present a united front.

Colleague Stuart Schulman said, "I am not thrilled with the policy. It is very restrictive." He added that as a board, they are already well restricted. "Personally, I hope we abandon this policy," suggesting only that he agreed with the spirit of it.

Chairman Josh Degen said he felt that the policy as written didn't "strike a balance. I would like to agree with Stuart," suggesting that this should not be a new policy but rather incorporating the spirit into the existing policies.

Cunningham said he did not want to see members "circumvent or undermine the actions of the Board" citing use of citizens petitions or going directly to the Personnel Board with an issue." I do not agree with these methods. We need to talk together." He said he did not want to read about it in the media, adding that the intent is to "engender teamwork."

Resident Barry Pease asked the Board for time to read comments, speaking out against the proposed policy. In his comments, Pease stressed there are "no reasons to be positive about this policy and three reasons to be negative."

"When I read the stated purpose of the policy in question, I find it difficult to know why this is even necessary. Has anyone here asked that question? Why do we need to consider such a thing in our town?

"We already have the Open Meeting Law which restricts debate outside of posted parameters. Board Members always have the ability to request discussion from the Chair. The Chair has the ability to allow or deny discussion on any topic. So, again, I ask, why are you thinking about adopting such a strange policy?"

"Perhaps the board seeks false validation by not ever knowing that the majority have failed to reach the best decision. Perhaps the board seeks to create fear, and thereby to limit criticism, as if our citizens had elected the weak-willed, as if our Selectmen are not capable of humanity's best attribute - recognizing and learning from mistakes."

"Thus, it baffles me that I can find no rational argument for this proposed policy. Instead, we are forced to understand the 'why not'. I have 3 reasons why not:

1) This policy seems to encourage an atmosphere of groupthink. In an atmosphere where people do not go against the decisions, do not fight for what was right, wrong decisions are never questioned. You need dissent to prevent this, and the best dissent often comes after a decision has been made.

2) This policy seems to stifle dissent. It seems to prevent an elected member from representing other citizens with expertise and guidance. It seems to act like a perversion of our democracy. It seems to treat our selectmen like children, and not valued and respected adults. It seems to stop the Board of Selectmen from recognizing when it's made an error in judgment.

I refute the idea that logic and reason have no place within the Board of Selectmen.

I refute the idea that the members here are less than human.

3) This policy seems to be unenforceable. Massachusetts General Laws, Title 7, Chapter 39, Section 10 clearly states, "The selectmen shall insert in the warrant for the annual meeting all subjects the insertion of which shall be requested of them in writing by 10 or more registered voters of the town." A Member of the Board is, usually, a registered voter. Would you flout our State laws and tell them that they may not be one of the 10 signatories to a warrant article, simply because that warrant article disagrees with a majority decision?

I refute the idea that the members here are less than citizens of Groton."

In closing his comments, Pease said," Thus, I urge the Board of Selectmen to eliminate this flawed policy from consideration, and instead let a policy of reasonableness be your guide. "

The Board then voted unanimously to table the policy indefinitely.