To the editor:
Following the May 13 Greensboro Select Board meeting, I need to raise an issue regarding the discussion of the Special Town Meeting agenda item. The way it was handled by the Select Board was neither transparent nor equitable.
On the warned agenda for the meeting, the Special Town Meeting agenda item was listed as “Petition for special town meeting: select possible dates/venues for the meeting.” What actually took place was a far more detailed discussion regarding the articles to be included on the warning.
The warning was to include the two articles that had been requested by way of a signed petition from voting residents. However, the select board chair said that he had requested a third article be drafted and added to the warning at the suggestion of a resident.
The third article was worded to rescind the article to elect town officers by Australian Ballot, which was approved by a majority of the voting residents at the 2025 Town Meeting. Not only had the wording of this article not been shared with the public ahead of the select board meeting, it would appear it had not been shared with all the members of the select board either.
There was a lot of confusion among the select board about this third article, as shown in the meeting recording. Further, one select board member commented that there was no petition supporting the request. Normally, for an article to be added to a special town meeting warning the resident making the request must deliver a petition supported by the signatures of 5% of the voting residents. The select board can choose to include an article without a petition if they consider the article non-controversial.
Members of the select board are elected by the voting residents to represent the interests of the whole community. Surely a select board acting in the best interests of the community, would want to warn any discussion to rescind an approved article that had been included on the 2025 Town Meeting Warning as a result of a resident petition? In addition, shouldn’t a resident requesting to rescind an approved article, be subject to the same, transparent process that the residents who proposed the original Article were required to follow?
I am hopeful that the select board will reflect on the way this issue was handled and remove Article 3 from the proposed special town meeting warning scheduled for 6:30 p.m., on June 18.
Liz Steel, Greensboro
