Reasonable steps to clarity on the RTM

January’s Greenwich Representative Town Meeting agitated grievances that our town legislature has become too partisan. Unfortunately, we tend to recognize this quandary nearly exclusively on the opposite side of the aisle.

Interpreting the recent vote on the Center for Technology and Civic Life (CTCL) grant (Item 10) and the concerns and actions that followed as entirely partisan is off beam. The Labor Contracts Committee’s (LCC) recent proposals to address voting procedures and to consider rescinding Item 10 at our next RTM meeting are reasonable steps toward clarity on a number of issues.

As a member of the Legislative and Rules Committee I voted “aye” on Item 10. My vote was based on a number of elements though I felt it deserved further discussion within the full RTM.

My committee vote was based on: the confidence our two voter registrars expressed that their vetting and our town processes could deter any potential partisan influence from CTCL, their perspective that the organization has remained nonpartisan (despite being heavily staffed and led by what Dr. William Doyle, director of Center for Technology and Civic Life in Irving, Texas, described as “nominally non-partisan – but demonstrably ideological” folks), and, (most importantly), based on amendments that the committee made to help mitigate concerns about the grant. That last reason was particularly important: the amendments added additional safety measures to reduce the concerns I shared with many grant opponents – it was critical to advance this amended version to the full RTM.

This was the first vote under our new electronic system to pass with an exceptionally close margin. It’s not surprising that the vote was keenly scrutinized, as opposed to votes on an item like the evening’s consent calendar, which passed 195-3, with zero abstentions.

As part of the approximate half who voted or intended to vote against the item, I remained concerned about the precedent accepting it would set, about CTCL’s pattern of target areas and, at a minimum, the appearance of partisanship the distribution of past donations summons, e.g., its spending per capita in states such as Texas.

The concerns over the vote result are largely rooted in a specific weakness: the way they’re displayed in the auditorium. This issue can be addressed easily.

Our legislature is the fifth largest in the United States: two small screens, plus a large one that is difficult to sift through collided with human error and limited mechanisms to diminish it. Though the final result was unclear at our January meeting, the moderator, town clerk, and Meridia (the electronic voting platform provider) reviewed the results and feel confident the vote should stand.

The split here now is over the way the votes are displayed and whether improvements could diminish or eliminate questions about voter intention relative to voter error.

LCC Chairman Mike Spilo has made a strong case that this delta should be narrowed to strengthen confidence in the new electronic voting system. As a member of this committee I agree with this position and voted in favor of advancing a number of ideas to the full RTM in March to diminish misunderstandings before the voting process on an item is closed. I also voted in favor of a motion to rescind the vote on Item 10: while the item can be presented again, it is my opinion that in this specific, exceptional instance it’s not an unreasonable question for our full body to consider.

These two proposals could attenuate the speculation and misunderstanding that takes root in the cynicism that partisanship has cultivated.

Our first selectman’s decision to allow the RTM to consider its position on the item in March is common sense. In the end, the outcome of the vote might be entirely the same: but allowing these concerns to be addressed dignifies the deliberative and democratic nature of our body.

Some attorneys feel it isn’t within the LCC’s scope to advance these motions; others feel that it is in the purview of any committee to address concerns with processes that marshal the full body’s deliberation on items the committee moves. The full RTM will be able to make that judgment in March.

It would be useful to exercise a less punitive interpretation and perspective of others’ points of view and to recognize the diversity of views that converge to sustain common votes on one side of an issue or the other. Failure to do this cultivates the partisanship we are all having a difficult time curtailing.

Democracy is a curious process. At the federal level, House members are allowed to state when they’ve cast a vote erroneously and to explain why they intended to vote differently; Senate members can actually correct their vote … but only if it doesn’t impact the original result.

Change can be difficult and will always summon attention to new details.

Ed Lopez is chairman of District 3 on the Greenwich Representative Town Meeting. He served as national chairman of Republicans for Johnson-Weld in 2016 and as national vice chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus from 2011 to 2015. He is a member of the advisory boards at Libertarians for National Popular Vote and at American Unity PAC. He serves in the U.S.s Army National Guard.