Embattled vote for grant should stand as a win for democracy
It’s painful to see such partisan acrimony and misinformation infect the normally nonpartisan Greenwich Representative Town Meeting. The venom with which a segment of the RTM membership continues to attack proposed election-related grant agreements is detrimental to the town.
The grants, welcomed by the Republican and Democratic registrars of voters, would not only benefit the Greenwich electorate with updated election infrastructure and training for election workers, but would encourage professional, nonpartisan conduct of the free, fair, and secure elections that are fundamental to the nation’s democracy. Designated by the U.S. Alliance for Election Excellence as one of 10 Centers for Election Excellence, Greenwich would be a national leader in professional election administration and would engage with election officials throughout the country in updating skills and sharing best practices.
On Jan. 17, the RTM voted to accept a $500,000 grant for the registrars from the nonpartisan, nonprofit Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL). Although none of that night’s previous votes had been called into question, opponents of this grant disputed the grant vote count. The resulting confusion caused an abrupt adjournment of the meeting. Consideration of a second grant for $9,600 was postponed until the RTM’s March meeting. This second grant is for membership in the U.S Alliance for Election Excellence, a CTCL program launched last April at the “TED2022: A New Era” conference in Vancouver. This is a 5-year $80 million program with funding through the Audacious Project. Its purpose is to envision, support, and celebrate excellence in U.S. election administration.
The meeting adjourned with an understanding that the moderator, town clerk, town IT department, and Meridia (electronic voting platform provider) conduct an analysis. This was done. No technical problems were found in the voting system. On Jan. 19, in keeping with RTM rules and Robert’s Rules of Order, RTM moderator Alexis Voulgaris informed RTM members that, after this careful investigation, she has determined that the vote tally as announced at the Jan. 17 meeting stands as the final vote.
That should have been the end of it. The RTM voted. An analysis determined proper working of the voting system. The vote, as originally announced, was final. The grant agreement awaited the first selectman’s signature.
But on Jan. 20, First Selectman Fred Camillo informed RTM members that he was not ready to sign the agreement.
“I am fully aware of the issues surrounding the vote on Item 10 during the RTM’s meeting this past Tuesday and it is my understanding that there is a procedural mechanism by which the vote can be challenged by RTM membership,” Camillo said in his statement. “Therefore, I will not sign the grant agreement until this has been fully dealt with by the members of the RTM.”
Camillo, thereby, not only encourages the vote deniers in their ongoing persistence in refusing to accept the vote results but weighs in on their side by not accepting the moderator’s final vote announcement. A petition asking Camillo to sign the agreement is currently in circulation.
And what is this procedural mechanism for challenging the vote?
RTM rules and Robert’s Rules are crystal clear that a final vote
And what is this procedural mechanism for challenging the vote? RTM rules and Robert’s Rules are crystal clear that a final vote cannot be undone. There can be no revote. The vote deniers seem to recognize that attempting a redo is futile.
cannot be undone. There can be no revote. The vote deniers seem to recognize that attempting a redo is futile. Instead, District 11 member Michael Spilo has drafted a motion to rescind the vote. He brought this proposal to the Labor Contracts Committee, a special committee which he chairs, and obtained a favorable vote, putting a motion to rescind on the RTM March Call. The Legislative and Rules Committee could find this not in legal order.
I’m told any vote can be rescinded at any time, even years later, and done repeatedly if the motion fails. There’s no revote involved. If this motion passes, the original acceptance of the grant disappears, as if it had never been.
Members of the RTM, regardless of their position on the grant, should reject any proposal to rescind. This would set a terrible precedent, undermining the credibility of every RTM vote going forward. The damage could be irreparable.
All this because MAGA voter suppression talking points and misinformation were introduced with scare tactics that demonized CTCL. If anything, the final vote should stand as a victory for democracy.