Submitted by Ruth Sherman, Old Greenwich
To the Editor,
I observed the meeting of the RTM on Tuesday, January 17. In a depressingly familiar series of events, what appeared to be the outcome of a legitimate and fairly conducted vote has been disputed by some members, who have claimed, without evidence, that the voting machinery failed and demanded a re-vote. The item at issue, #10, concerns whether the Town should accept a $500K grant from the Center for Tech & Civic Life (CTCL) to improve our voting system.
Here are a few things I witnessed during the meeting:
- Several votes were taken prior to the vote on item #10 and not a single one was disputed by any person.
- There was more than an hour of debate prior to the vote being taken on item #10 during which many members made statements for or against accepting the grant.
- Someone moved to end debate and go directly to a vote, which was approved by another vote – and not disputed – after which the moderator directed voting on the actual item to commence.
- The vote took place, the results of the vote were announced, and those in favor of accepting the grant won.
- The body then moved on to the next item, #11, and debate on that item began.
- Some time later, people who were apparently on the losing side of the vote on item #10 approached the moderator insisting that something must have gone awry with the voting system and demanding a re-vote.
The Moderator ultimately referred the issue to the Town attorney, who was present during the proceedings. The voting system company subsequently researched the voting mechanism and found no flaws or malfunctions. The Moderator determined the vote was final. Nevertheless, opponents of the grant refuse to accept these findings. Instead, they continue to sow doubt in our Town officials and our voting system, and are circulating a false and dangerous narrative.
We’ve seen this movie before and I am deeply concerned. In a democracy, when we don’t like the results of a vote, we try to do better the next time for a better chance to win, not complain that it must have been that the voting machines failed and demand a do-over.
I understand that for the vote in favor of item #10 to be fully executed, First Selectman Fred Camillo is required to sign the grant agreement. He has so far refused to do so while simultaneously stating his full confidence in all participants. I don’t think he can have it both ways. I urge him to take appropriate action, sign off on a legitimately and fairly conducted vote, and put an end to this drama.
Ruth Sherman, Old Greenwich