On October 16, 1815 a committee that considered the question of reforming Boston town government reported to the town meeting and advanced sustained arguments against the open town meeting in large towns.
"It is impossible that all the individuals of which they are composed should be well acquainted with the principles on which depend the prosperous conduct of the moneyed concerns of a corporation and with those other subjects of internal regulation by which the prosperity of the city is increased and by which it is best enabled to encourage and protect the industry of its own. If all the inhabitants of such towns assembled it is obvious that business cannot be well transacted by so numerous a body, viable as it always must be to be swayed by local views, party feelings, or the interest of designing men: if the meetings be, as it most frequently will be, but thinly attended, those present must act as a representatives of the whole; and it is very seldom that men of the best intelligence and most capable of conducting public business will leave their important private concerns to attend to affairs in which they have only a general interest; and therefore unavoidably happens that the affairs of a large town are conducted by a very small number of persons, who represent an act for the whole, but who are not chosen by them, who do not possess their confidence and act under no, or very slight, responsibility.".

Not unlike the problems experienced in Massachusetts towns of more than 6,000 population and challenging issues in governance.

• To Sharon Charter Commissioners: December 18, 2008
  From: George Bailey
  
  Gordon Gladstone, a long time volunteer in Sharon Town Government sent to the Charter Commission : Wednesday, December 17, 2008 9:02 AM
  
  'The following is an excerpt from an obviously very wise Mass judge rendered during a court case involving zoning:
  
  "It is common knowledge that nowhere is there a freer expression of individual views than at a town meeting on matters in which the town has an in­terest. Much may be said that may not be germaine[sic] to the question before the meeting, but experience has taught that the good judgement[sic] and common sense of the voters can be safely relied upon to reach a correct decision." (Caires v. Hingham. 323 Mass. 589,596).'

Gordon's quote comes from an authoritative source – a decision of our Supreme Judicial Court. But context is everything. It's a 60 year old (1946) case involving the then 5 year old Hingham zoning by-law and a challenge by an early generation of NIMBYs to a change in the zoning at an area of Hingham known as Nantasket Junction, a freight siding on the then quite active Greenbush line.

The question revolved about a newly created business zone that benefitted two landowners, and was opposed by the Planning Board and some abutters. The SJC decided that “A vote at a town meeting amending the town's zoning by-law was not invalidated by the mere fact that one who would benefit personally by the amendment was active in initiating it and in advocating it by newspaper advertisements and pamphlets and by addressing the town meeting.”

The SJC also wanted to lay to rest any question that “A report made by a town's planning board as to a proposed amendment of its zoning by-law ......, is advisory only and is not binding upon the voters at the town meeting ...”

The SJC went on “It cannot be said that the judgment of those having an intimate knowledge of all the essential factors involved, that the amendment was in the public interest, is entirely lacking in any rational basis. Due regard must be accorded to the collective judgment of those familiar with the locality and the circumstances prevailing in the town.” Hardly an endorsement of the wisdom of the meeting!

The population of Hingham at the time of the by law was about 8000, with perhaps 4800 voters. The SJC does not address the representative character of the vote but we could guess that a turnout similar to that of the Sharon meetings of that time could have meant that several thousand had assembled, rather than the 2% or 3% experienced here recently.

Someday the SJC may address the validity of town meetings where :

• complex amendments are introduced at the meeting,
• where moneys are voted without voter access to the full town budget, revenues and expenses,
• where claims are made that cannot be refuted because the sources were outside the meeting,
• or where voters, worn down by lengthy arguments, vote to expedite the meeting at the expense of adequate debate, and where most voters find the obstacles presented by the system onerous and cannot attend.
  
  Until that time comes, Charter Commissions must consider these questions and propose improvements.
  
  George Bailey