Below is a summarized version of night three of Town Meeting (Articles 8-11 & Instructional Motions), organized by timestamps and speakers, focusing on key points raised during the discussion in Reading, Massachusetts. This summary condenses the discussion into major themes, speaker contributions, and decisions, avoiding excessive detail while retaining the essence of the conversation. Timestamps correspond to the video linked at the bottom.
- 🔹 Opening & Announcements
- 🔹 Article 9 – Charter Section 8.11.2 (Recall Petition Threshold)
- 🔹 Article 8 – Charter Amendments (Due Process for Removals)
- 🔹 Article 9 – Final Vote
- 🔹 Article 10 – Town Forest Funding
- 🔹 Article 11 – Snow & Ice Removal Bylaw (Downtown Smart Growth District)
- 🔹 Article 2 – Instructional Motions
- ✅ Key Outcomes
🗓️ Town Meeting Summary
Date: November 17, 2025
Duration: ~3 hours 11 minutes
Format: In-person (RMHS Performing Arts Center)
Chair: Alan Foulds
Members Present: Town Meeting Members, Select Board, Finance Committee, Bylaw Committee
Staff Present: Town Manager, Town Counsel, Town Clerk, DPW Director
Main Topics: Charter amendments (recall petition threshold, due process for removals), Town Forest funding, snow removal bylaw, instructional motions on tax foreclosure cases
🔹 Opening & Announcements
🕒 7:26–9:28
- Quorum confirmed; pledge of allegiance recited.
- Moderator outlined plan: finish Article 9 (recall petition), then return to Article 8, followed by Articles 10 & 11, and instructional motions under Article 2.
🔹 Article 9 – Charter Section 8.11.2 (Recall Petition Threshold)
🕒 9:39–56:41
Background:
- Current threshold: 10% of registered voters (~2,100 signatures).
- Proposal: Increase to 20% (~4,200 signatures) and extend collection period from 21 to 30 days.
Discussion Highlights:
- Arguments for 20%:
- Recalls are disruptive, costly, and should be reserved for serious misconduct (fraud, corruption).
- Higher bar prevents politically motivated recalls and aligns with peer communities (11 of 17 MA towns use 20%).
- Data: 2020 recall failed despite 9,700 voters participating; 10% threshold deemed too low.
- Arguments against 20%:
- Doubling threshold limits accountability and disenfranchises marginalized groups.
- Burden falls on residents with fewer resources; could make recalls “nearly impossible.”
- Recalls are rare; cost concerns overstated compared to cost of unchecked misconduct.
- Former Select Board member described harassment and personal harm during 2020 recall, urging higher threshold.
- Amendment to retain 10%: Failed (121–14 to end debate; amendment defeated by majority).
Action:
- Motion to raise threshold to 20% carried (majority vote).
- Article 9 laid on table pending Article 8 vote.
🔹 Article 8 – Charter Amendments (Due Process for Removals)
🕒 1:00:24–1:22:25
Purpose:
- Close loophole in removal process for board/committee members when appointing authority delegates appointment.
- Add due process protections: written notice, grounds for removal, 10-day prep period, hearing rights.
Discussion:
- Triggered by Kilham School Building Committee case where Select Board replaced member without charter protections.
- Debate over whether situation was unique or systemic; Town Counsel confirmed current charter lacks coverage for delegated appointments.
Action:
- Motion carried (101–45; required two-thirds).
🔹 Article 9 – Final Vote
🕒 1:22:33–1:22:57
- Article 9 (including 20% recall threshold) approved by majority vote.
🔹 Article 10 – Town Forest Funding
🕒 1:25:35–1:51:04
Request: $50,000 from free cash for invasive species management and replanting.
Presentation:
- Town Forest = 300-acre asset; invasive plants (buckthorn, knotweed, tree of heaven) threaten biodiversity.
- Prior red pine removal created open areas vulnerable to invasives.
- Volunteer efforts ongoing; professional removal needed for herbicide application and heavy equipment.
Discussion: - Questions on long-term funding strategy; DPW confirmed future recurring requests likely.
- Debate on whether $50K is sufficient vs. “band-aid” approach; consensus to support phased plan.
FINCOM Vote: 8–0 recommend.
Action: Motion carried.
🔹 Article 11 – Snow & Ice Removal Bylaw (Downtown Smart Growth District)
🕒 1:51:26–2:55:19
Proposal:
- Require property owners in downtown overlay district to clear sidewalks within 4 daylight hours after storm; maintain 42-inch path; clear handicap ramps; enforce via SeeClickFix and DPW fines ($100–$300).
Discussion Highlights: - Support: Public safety, ADA access, precedent in other towns; DPW to provide salt barrels; enforcement aimed at serial violators.
- Opposition: Burden on small businesses; DPW plowing creates barriers; vague timelines; enforcement concerns; zoning map includes residential streets.
- Amendment to exempt single-, two-, and three-family homes failed.
Action: Motion did not carry (61–68).
🔹 Article 2 – Instructional Motions
🕒 2:57:00–3:38:37
Motion 1: Direct Select Board to drop appeal and return excess equity from tax foreclosures (Davenport & Milley cases).
- Background: Town retained surplus after foreclosure sales; federal court ruled practice unconstitutional under Takings Clause; cases under appeal.
- Debate:
- Support: Moral obligation; avoid further legal costs; uphold fairness.
- Opposition: Active litigation; town meeting lacks authority; risk of influencing case.
- Motion to indefinitely postpone carried.
Other motions: Not reached; meeting lost quorum and adjourned to Thursday.
✅ Key Outcomes
- Approved:
- Charter amendments (due process for removals).
- Recall petition threshold raised to 20%.
- $50K for Town Forest invasive species management.
- Rejected:
- Snow & ice removal bylaw for downtown district.
- Deferred:
- Instructional motions on foreclosure cases; meeting adjourned due to loss of quorum.
