HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-11-30 Bylaw Committee Minutes0� •OFR q'
O
Town of Reading
a Meeting Minutes
a: mmxa°�t�
Board - Committee - Commission - Council:
Bylaw Committee
Date: 2021-11-30
Building: Reading Town Hall
Address: 16 Lowell Street
Purpose: Discussion of the Bylaws
Committee's research into e -voting
Attendees: Members - Present:
Jeff Struble
Jason Clarke
Jesse Arnold
Kern Perry
Liz Sullivan
Members - Not Present:
Others Present:
1II11T3WA1:113l:W
Location: Berger Room
Session: Open Session
Version:
Laura Gemme, Alan Foulds, Cadance THomases
TOWNECED
LERK
READING, MA.
2022 APR 13 PM 3: 08
Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Jesse Arnold
Topics of Discussion:
How are other towns in Massachusetts handling electronic voting?
Jeff Struble:
• Swampscott
o Has standards of manual voting — show of hands, standing, roll call, secret
ballot.
• Burlington
o No evidence of electronic voting
• Holbrook
o No evidence of electronic voting
• Lee
o No evidence of electronic voting
• Fairhaven
o No evidence of electronic voting
• Milford
o No evidence of electronic voting. But in 2017 did survey electronic town
meeting but doesn't seem to have gotten anywhere
• Natick
o In 2014-15 Natick made an ad hoc committee which created a great report
on electronic voting (see attached).
o Natick discussed a need to ensure safety and reliability of votes
Page 1 1
o They changed bylaws to say how to do electronic voting, and what to do if
electronic voting isn't available
o Alan Foulds mentioned that he contacted Natick moderator who said
electronic voting worked very well.
Jason Clarke:
• Danvers
o No evidence of electronic voting
• Chelmsford
o Uses clickers, projects on screen live, records the votes and the votes are
publicly available.
• Plymouth
o Had been using electronic voting for several years. They use clickers and
have used an electronic platform in covid times. See attachment for an
example of how their votes are recorded and preserved.
• Lexington
o Lexington sent a copy of their bylaws (see attached), which are made to
anticipate a lot of situations and how to handle them. Use OTI (option
technologies inc) and clickers — votes posted on the website
• Norwood
o No evidence of electronic voting
• Ludlow
o No evidence of electronic voting
Jesse Arnold:
• Falmouth:
o No evidence of electronic voting
• Walpole:
o No evidence of electronic voting
• S. Hadley:
o Pre Covid meetings were show of hands, but their Moderator died
suddenly and they have a new moderator who is finding their feet and
wants to shift to electronic voting.
o During Covid they have had 2 Town Meetings at a local drive in — first was
using paddles for a show of hands, the second they tried to do electronic
clickers which didn't work so they are now creating a committee to explore
electronic voting.
• Dedham:
o Dedham is currently exploring a shift to electronic voting. A link to their
11/15/21 Committee report can be found here:
https://www.canva.com/design/DAEutvyz2ul/view?utm content=DAEutvvz
2ul&utm campaign=desionshare&utm medium=embeds&utm source=lin
k#1
• Belmont:
o Uses physical device for electronic voting called Response Card
o Belmont's Report on Electronic Voting (circa 2013) https://www.belmont-
to Electronic Voting can be found here
tally voted.votes.votina&searchld=8146468152798168
Brookline:
Page 1 2
o Has extensive guidance on electronic voting.
o Procedures for Electronic Voting
htts://www.brooklinema.qov/DocumentcenterNiew/21868/Town-
Meeting-Handbook--2021-Edition?bid Id):
Kerri Perry:
• Saugus
o No evidence of electronic voting
• Billerica
o No evidence of electronic voting
• Milton
o Doesn't talk about electronic voting. The town was looking at cost for
devices renting or buying OTI or Merida.
• Auburn
o Uses hand held devices which seems like a change in Covid
• Adams
o No evidence of electronic voting
• Wellesley
o Had an a voting committee which recommended changing bylaws. It
looks like the cost to implement this was about $15,000.
• Winchester
o Didn't have details of voting in bylaws, but has a guide —most votes are
voice votes or standing votes
Liz Sullivan:
• Arlington
o Has electronic voting and adjusted the bylaws to include it.
o Arlington has a guide to using electronic voting, see
o Votes are recorded and if 30 request it then the votes by name are
displayed.
o The results of votes are available to the public.
• Dartmouth
o No evidence of electronic voting
• Montague
o The bylaws don't include electronic voting but thy seem to be using it with
zoom
• Needham
o No evidence of electronic voting
• Shrewsbury
o Investigated electronic voting via committee pre covid but didn't pursue it.
• Stoughton
o No evidence of electronic voting
• Winchester
uses electronic voting, but haven't updated bylaws
Based on Lexington's electronic voting.
For more information see Article 4
httos://www.winchester. us/DocumentCenterNiew/6162/Motion-Book-4-15-
Page 1 3
The Committee discussed the need for clearly defined rules, and a back up plan if
technology isn't working correctly.
The Committee had a general discussion of how to preserve the ability to change one's
vote while voting before the final vote is cast.
The Committee questioned whether every electronic vote a roll call vote, does this
conflict with MGL and can names be displayed with the electronic voting results without
calling for a roll call vote?
The Committee discussed whether we can split out electronic votes on important
matters vs incidental motions?
Cadence Thomases commented that transparency in voting helps rebuild trust in the
electorate. We don't know who the people are behind the screens. The way to be the
least political is to make all votes transparent — we shouldn't judge what votes are
"important" when different votes are important to different people.
We noted that the Rules Committee will need to discuss how much discretion should
the moderator have for smaller motions?
No new business
Jason Clarke made a motion to adjourn, which was seconded by Liz Sullivan. The vote
to adjourn was unanimous and the meeting adjourned at 9:44.
Page 1 4