“And after due consideration I therefore move that  thee will reconsider the previous motion to reconsider the reconsideration of ye Article XXIV...”

Call me a heretic if you will, but it is time to end our long-standing Town Meeting policy of “reconsideration.”

“Reconsideration,” for those who do not frequent these outings, is the time-honored process of having an article brought up for a vote a second time in the same session of a Town Meeting. As a hypothetical case, pretend there is a move to rezone Route 106 from residential to commercial. The rezoning article is presented at Town Meeting; and, voters in attendance overwhelmingly reject the notion. Our beautiful Main Street remains safe, protected from commercial development.

Or so we think. Town Meeting, however, is rarely as simple as that. Suppose that those who defeated the hypothetical rezoning change had gone home after the vote was taken, satisfied that their work was complete and that justice had been done. These otherwise civic-minded citizens may have felt there was no need to listen to the additional articles of that session (or return to any continued sessions, because Town Meeting rarely starts and ends on the same day).

However, consider next that these individuals, basking in their victory while doing yard work, shopping or watching television, are unaware that a telephone campaign by “the other side-” those troublesome individuals who wanted to turn Route 106 and Main Street into Kingston’s newest fast-food alley – have amassed 300 voters sympathetic to their cause, all of whom attend the next session of the Town Meeting.

What happens next (again, in this hypothetical situation) is perfectly legal. “Madame Moderator, I move to reconsider Article 34 (rezoning Main Street to commercial). A “yes” vote to reconsider leads to a discussion, and this time the majority agrees to rezone Main Street. And, in a moment, the “we won’t rezone” vote is reversed and the next sound you hear on that once pristine street might be “Would you like fries with that?”

Under this parliamentary procedure, an article may be reconsidered only once (in my view, that’s once more than ought to be allowed). For the Main Street residents who initially fought the rezoning, it becomes a case of “if you snooze, you lose.”

Please remember, this is only a hypothetical case. To the best of my knowledge, there is no move afoot to rezone Main Street. Nor it is likely that any such effort would ever succeed (with the obvious disclaimer that, hey, this is Kingston and anything can happen here).

Reconsideration has changed the outcome of actual Town Meeting votes a number of times. Call me old-fashioned, but it seems that voting on an article once should be enough. This concept of reconsideration muddies waters that are already murky enough. After all, we only get to vote for a President once. Ditto for Governor, State Representative and even our local elected officials.

Why should Town Meeting be different? The principle of reconsideration applies to almost anything brought up at a Town Meeting – from buying new police cruisers to rezoning a piece of property. Often, but not always, “reconsideration” is a move undertaken by a proponent and usually happens immediately, to prevent what I described (an opposition campaign) from having a second chance. If you just got an overwhelmingly favorable vote on an article, the way to “seal the deal” is move to reconsider right away while the votes are still in the hall to vote it down.

It’s a chance for someone who didn’t like the first vote to try once more, or a chance for someone who does like the first vote to keep someone who doesn’t from spoiling the party.

Former Town Moderator Larry Winokur once described Town Meeting as the purest form of Democracy. I agree, but I respectfully submit that our purest form of Democracy comes with a series of imperfections: the lack of a quorum, individuals who use “move the question” as a way to silence opponents during discussion, and then reconsideration. Reconsideration is the icing on that cake of imperfections.

This maneuver wastes time that could be spent advancing the rest of the articles on a warrant. It may have been created with good intent, for the occasional citizen who made an honest mistake in a vote and wants to correct the record. I doubt that Mr. Roberts (was that his name?) from Roberts’ Rules of Order ever envisioned it becoming the manipulative, time-wasting tool that it has. We may not be able to fix everything about Town Meeting, but this is one part of our process that has outlived its usefulness and should go.

Upon consideration, the idea of “reconsideration” is one whose time has come and gone. One vote per town meeting is enough. Let’s put an end to this needless parliamentary antic and get on with the serious business of the town.