WESTMINSTER WEST-In response to two letters published in the Dec. 10 issue ["Yes, towns can reject petitions for useless and frivolous Town Meeting articles" and "All we are asking is that Town Meetings stick to town business"]:
Imagine a Town Meeting, in a parallel universe, where after all the town business has been discussed and articles have been voted on, the meeting addresses an article that was added to the agenda as a result of a petition signed by 10% of the town's registered voters. Suppose the article in question is "Should the voters of the Town of XYZ declare their support to the International Flat Earth Research Society?"
A lively discussion ensues.
Not whether there should be a discussion or not, since 10% of voters have petitioned for the discussion to take place. But on the merits of the resolution.
It would be followed by a raised-hand vote on a nonbinding, symbolic declaration.
Supporters of the International Flat Earth Research Society have had a chance to air their point of view, and detractors have had their opportunity to have their say.
My question to Erica Walch and Cristine White: Why such intense opposition to what boils down to a harmless freedom-of-speech issue?
Town business has already been dealt with at the meeting.
This nonbinding and symbolic resolution, placed at the very end of the agenda, would result in only a public statement ("We, the voters of XYZ, declare our support of the International Flat Earth Research Society"), should it be approved by a majority of those present. It would not flatten the Earth.
Who gets to decide if a petition is "useless and frivolous"?
What are you so afraid of?
Josh Lurie
Westminster West
This letter to the editor was submitted to The Commons.
This piece, published in print in the Voices section or as a column in the news sections, represents the opinion of the writer. In the newspaper and on this website, we strive to ensure that opinions are based on fair expression of established fact. In the spirit of transparency and accountability, The Commons is reviewing and developing more precise policies about editing of opinions and our role and our responsibility and standards in fact-checking our own work and the contributions to the newspaper. In the meantime, we heartily encourage civil and productive responses at voices@commonsnews.org.