Weston Town Charter is Not Being Adhered To Re: Referendum Vote

May 13, 2024

I am writing to ask that everyone vote NO on the Board of Finance proposed Capital Budget.
I refute the Town attorney‘s interpretation of the Town Charter and conclusion that a tie vote in the budget referendum results in the budget being returned to the Board of Finance. As an attorney, it is clear to me that the town’s analysis of the charter ignores the unambiguous charter provisions governing a tie vote in a referendum. These provisions require that the exact version of the capital budget that was voted on on May 4th be presented to residents for another vote without any modifications from the Board of Finance.
Regardless of party affiliation or feelings about the capital budget itself, every town resident should be deeply concerned that the Board of Finance and Board of Selectmen are violating the charter to engineer their preferred outcome on the budget. Even if we disagree about specific issues, we simply must follow the rules and the democratic process created in the town charter.
Section 7.5 of the Charter, titled Breaking a Tie, states that “when any regular or special town election, primary election or referendum conducted pursuant to the provisions of the charter results in a tie, an adjourned election shall be conducted…”(emphasis added).
Significantly, the budget referendum is the only referendum that is “conducted pursuant to the provisions of the charter” and it is clear that Section 7.5 applies in the event of a tie in the budget referendum.
The town attorney argues that Section 7.5 is meant to apply only to Section 3.4, which deals with referendum in the context of “Special” Town Meetings. However, this argument ignores the fact that Section 3.4 has its own rules for dealing with a tie vote that is laid out in Section 3.5 and directly contradict the rule created in Section 7.5. As a result, it is clear that Section 7.5 isn’t meant to apply to the “questions” the town attorney refers to in Section 3.4.
In particular, Section 3 says that anything other than a majority vote of “yes” on a question is deemed a rejection (meaning a majority vote of no or a tie counts as a rejection). Because this rule directly contradicts the rule in Section 7.5, Section 7.5 cannot apply to Section 3.4.
Notably, the tie-breaking rule in Section 3.5 is the exact rule the town attorney claims applies to the budget referendum, but the section of the Charter describing the budget referendum process doesn’t include this rule.
The fact that the drafters of the charter knew how to create that rule in Section 3 but did not create it for the budget referendum makes it clear that they did not want this rule to apply and that section 7.5 applies to a tie vote in the budget referendum.
Section 9.6 states “Each component of the proposed Annual Town Budget set forth above shall be approved if a majority of Qualified Voters who vote approve that component.” The town attorney argues that a tie is not an approval and is therefore a rejection under Section 9.7.
However, Section 9.7 does not support this position. Section 9.7(a) simply states “If one or more components of the proposed Annual Town Budget are not approved pursuant to Section 9.6, the component(s) of proposed Budget that have not been approved shall be reconsidered by the Board of Finance. It DOES NOT mention what to do in the event of a tie, BECAUSE that issue was discussed and decided by Section 7.5.
Also of significance, in 2012 the Town Charter was amended. The Charter Revision Commission reviewed the Charter section by section and all changes were reviewed by the town attorney at the time.
Section 7.5 was in the Charter at the time that these changes were made (although it was listed as Section 6.5). If the changes to Sections 9.6 and 9.7 intended to reject the application of Section 7.5 from the Town Budget Referendum process, it would have done so. However, it did not and therefore the provisions for breaking a tie under Section 7.5 apply and the vote should have gone directly to an adjourned election and not back to the Board of Finance to make changes.
I therefore ask everyone to vote NO on the Capital Budget and urge the Board of Finance to return the budget to what it was after the Annual Town Budget meeting.

Sincerely,

Annalise F. Cottone