Photo by Mary Comisky, The Northfield News Voters attending town meeting were forced to a secret ballot on at least two issues by a dedicated tiny group of voters who challenged even the vote on the moderator. The vote took nearly an hour and caused the meeting to stretch from 10 a.m. to nearly 2:30 p.m. Here the voters are lined up to vote for moderator. Larry Drown set the tone at the Town Meeting last Tuesday by forcing a secret ballot on the vote for moderator.

Then after his candidate lost, Mr. Drown disappeared from the meeting leaving the mantle in the hands of Scott Manning to request a secret ballot on the next issue up for vote.

It was not until Richard Cleveland made a motion to raise the number of voters required to request a secret ballot from 7 to 25 that the meeting gained some rhythm.

Still, the meeting lasted from 10 a.m. until approximately 2:30 p.m. before all of the items before the voters had been discussed and voted upon.

There were a number of items in the Warning this year that required debate and serious consideration of the voters. In many ways, if passed, these items would change the way Northfield does business and that was the reason the meeting drew a fairly substantial turnout and caused a number of interested citizens to voice their opinion on the various matters up for vote.

Perhaps the most contentious was article 6 which was a revote of an issue which had been on the ballot at a special town meeting last November 18, 2008 and had passed at that time by a vote of 20 to 14.

Article 6 would authorize the selectboard to assess the combined town and village highway tax against the entire town grand list and create a new line item expenditure in the town highway budget entitled "maintenance of village highways."

At the outset of the discussion, the moderator ruled that in order for the article to come up for discussion and vote, the people had to decide whether the voters wanted to reconsider the vote of November 18, 2008. When it was not certain whether the Ayes or Nays had it, a division was called for and the voters were required to stand and be counted. By this time, Mr. Cleveland's motion to raise a request for a secret ballot from 7 to 25 voters had already passed and the required 25 could not be found to put the demand.

Once the standees were counted, the voters decided to reconsider the vote from last year and then proceeded to reinstate it by voting for the authorization by a vote of 109 to 68.

This vote caused some discussion when the town highway budget came up for vote in Article 8 on the Warning.

Linda Barrows was shocked that the combined town and village highway budget was already in the article when the authorization to merge them had just passed minutes before.

After being reminded that the budget was developed after the vote of November 18, 2008, Ms. Barrows seemed resigned to the merged budget and then noted that the merged budget was approximately $500,000 more then the budget last year and complained that this large increase was going to make property taxes on town residents go up.

Town manager, Nanci Allard explained that the increase was a result of the merged amount, that village property had not been previously assessed for the town highway budget and that when the village properties were added to the merged amount, there was no tax increase.

The highway budget was then passed by a voice vote.

Previously, Article 7, the general fund expenditure for the year passed with only limited discussion by a voice vote.

The next major discussion erupted over Article 9 which would, if passed, have required all public questions to be decided by Australian ballot.

Scott Manning opined that when his group drafted the article, he hadn't intended to have all questions decided by secret ballot and only really wanted the budget questions submitted to Australian ballot.

The moderator explained that state law requires a specific wording to have budget questions submitted to Australian ballot and that this article, even if passed, would not accomplish that. It would only accomplish having all other questions submitted to Australian ballot while budget matters would still go to open town meeting.

Upon discovering this, Mr. Manning moved to table the article and end discussion. This would avert a vote. However, as the moderator explained, effectively, tabling the matter was the same as voting down the article.

The final article which drew considerable contention and major discussion was Article 10 which requested that the percentage of voters required to petition for reconsideration of a matter already voted be raised from 5 per cent to 10 per cent.

Anne Donahue asked the town clerk what the difference would be in the number of voters whose signature would be required it the measure passed. The clerk responded that it would be raised form approximately 160 signatures being required to about 320.

Kathleen Lott proposed an amendment which would raise the number from 5 per cent to 7 per cent. This was promptly defeated.

Deborah Wick, the chair of the school board, stated that the increase was very desperately needed to avoid revote after revote as occurred recently when the school budget had to be re-voted time and again even though the voters continually approved it.

Scott Manning voiced his opposition to the article stating that 5 per cent of the voters was just about the number present at the town meeting that day, opining that if those at the meeting could vote to implement the budget, then the same number should be able to request a revote.

Charles Morse, a member of the selectboard, reminded Mr. Manning that in the instance of the school budget, that had been by Australian ballot and the plurality that voted for it was greater then the 5 per cent needed to cause a revote.

Mr. Manning did not seem satisfied by the answer but the voters did. The article passed by a standing vote of 88 to 39.

The voters then had to consider whether DeWitt Clinton Masonic Lodge should obtain an exemption for property taxes to the extent of 40% of the appraised value of the temple property.

Richard Matheson said that this issue had been on the ballot last year and had been defeated in a vote by Australian ballot. It was again on the ballot this year to be voted in town meeting.

Various members of the lodge commented on the good things that the lodge does for the community and it was noted by John Cruickshank that the exemption had been in place for many years and, in fact, for several years after the temple was built in 1955, it had been exempt from property taxes entirely. Mr. Cruickshank stated that it was only after the lodge began renting its dining room to Grace Church a few years ago that the town sought to put the building back on the tax roles. At that time, it was agreed that the building would go on the roles but an exemption would be given of 40 per cent. He pointed out that the lodge no longer rents its dining room but property taxes are continuing to be levied.

Scott Manning requested an amendment which would require the lodge to come back for its exemption each year and not every three years. This amendment was defeated.

Following the discussion, the article was passed by a voice vote.