GREAT BARRINGTON — People seem to love the iconic and traditional New England town meeting. Indeed, the legislative forum is so beloved that it has been immortalized by Stockbridge’s own Norman Rockwell in the form of an oil painting entitled “Freedom of Speech.” These events can be fun and educational. But when an attendee flagrantly breaks the rules, the open town meeting can be maddening.
At Monday’s Great Barrington annual town meeting at the Monument Mountain Regional High School parking lot, officials belatedly discovered a nonresident who had entered the meeting without permission, identified herself as a resident of the Housatonic section of Great Barrington, and spoke on matters before the meeting at least three times. It is not yet known whether she voted and it may be impossible to determine.
A woman who identified herself as Maureen Quigley of 9 High Street in Housatonic asked to be recognized and spoke about three articles on the warrant: a proposed marijuana zoning bylaw amendment; the town budget; and a proposal to purchase and construct a municipal parking lot.
There is only one problem: Maureen Quigley does not live in the town of Great Barrington because 9 High Street is actually about a quarter of a mile north of the Great Barrington–West Stockbridge line. In identifying herself, Quigley said she lives at 9 High Street, Housatonic, and she is technically correct because residents of that part of West Stockbridge have their mail delivered by the Housatonic post office.
But her residence is outside the boundaries of Great Barrington.
Town meeting rules are clear on the matter. According to Secretary of the Commonwealth Bill Galvin, any member of the public may attend a town meeting. In an open town meeting, only the town’s voters may vote. Non-voters may speak at the discretion of the town moderator or town meeting. In Great Barrington, however, nonresidents may attend the town meeting only at the discretion of the moderator, but Quigley never inquired, elected moderator Michael Wise told The Edge.
“The interesting question is how she got into the meeting,” Wise said in an interview. “They’re not even supposed to get in without my permission.”
So how exactly did she get into the meeting? Town Manager Mark Pruhenski said it appears that Quigley registered at the checkpoint using a name that is similar to that of an actual Great Barringtonian. Pruhenski was reluctant to name the person because she had done nothing wrong. All those attending the meeting must state their name and address.
“It appears that [Quigley] may have been granted entry after using a similar name and a Main Street Great Barrington address at the registration booth — possibly that of a relative and an actual registered voter,” Pruhenski said. “What we do know for certain is that Maureen Quigley is not a resident of Housatonic, she is not a registered voter in Great Barrington, and is not qualified to vote in town elections or in annual town meeting matters.”
A quick check of public records reveals that there is a Michelle A. Quigley whose address is listed as 301 Main Street in Great Barrington. The Edge contacted her and she said she did not attend the town meeting. An Edge Facebook message sent to Maureen Quigley went unanswered. She has since blocked this reporter.
Pruhenski said it is not clear whether Quigley voted on warrant articles or not. An Edge review of the video recording of the meeting by Community Television for the Southern Berkshires was inconclusive.
Quigley spoke on three matters during the course of the nearly four-hour meeting. The second time she spoke, Pruhenski recognized her and alerted Wise, who later told Quigley she lived in West Stockbridge and that she could no longer speak. Quigley responded that her home was “just over the line.” That elicited a few chuckles from members of the audience.
Pruhenski said it would be almost impossible to determine whether Quigley voted. Votes on warrant items are typically conducted by a show of colored cards. Some articles were voted on with a secret ballot but those ballots do not contain the name of the voter.
A count on the total number of votes against the number of voters who checked in at the registration desk would likewise prove inconclusive because not all voters vote on every article and the total number of attendees fluctuates because people come and go during the course of the evening.
Still, if any of the votes on individual articles had been extremely close, the town would have been confronted with a problem. The results could be subject to legal challenges and a special town meeting would likely need to be called to hold a second vote on the articles in question. How much would that cost? Roughly $4,000, not counting the time staff would have to spend on planning and execution.
“Fortunately, none of the votes taken Monday evening were impacted by her votes if she was in fact voting on ATM articles,” Pruhenski said. “There is no such thing as ‘close enough.’ You’re either a registered voter and taxpayer, or you’re not. She is squarely on our radar now and board and committee chairs, as well as our town clerk’s office, will be notified of this situation to prevent this from happening again.”
