The meeting, conducted both in person and via remote access, focused heavily on the implications of routinely calling special town meetings when borrowing articles fail to pass the required two-thirds vote at regular town meetings. Nicastro provided context for the amendment, explaining that the select board had referred it to the Finance Committee for consideration without taking an official position. He cited specific instances, such as a narrowly defeated bonding article for a property on Main Street, to illustrate the challenges posed by holding frequent special town meetings.

Nicastro emphasized that the traditional approach in Chatham involves seeking town meeting approval before presenting a ballot question to voters. He noted that although it is legally permissible to reverse this process, doing so might lead to confusion and inconsistent communication with taxpayers. His proposal aimed to discourage the habit of calling special town meetings routinely, while still allowing exceptions for urgent situations. He stressed that the amendment’s language was aspirational rather than prohibitive, giving town officials the discretion to determine when a special meeting is necessary.

Carrie Mazerolle, presumably a financial advisor, relayed insights from the town’s financial advisers, who viewed the amendment as permissive and legally sound. Town Council also reviewed and confirmed the proposal’s legality, noting its framing as a non-binding policy. However, concerns were raised about the potential implications of establishing a policy that could appear superficially restrictive. Town Manager Jill R. Goldsmith highlighted the importance of compliance with the town’s budget and financial policies, particularly concerning bonding. She pointed out that S&P Global reviews these policies during bonding processes.

The discussion revealed a shared understanding among committee members of the need for prudent financial management while acknowledging the occasional necessity of urgent decision-making. One member expressed a belief that townspeople have the right to petition the selectmen for a special town meeting and that the selectmen already bear the responsibility of deciding whether to grant such requests. This member argued against changing the language of the financial management policies, stating, “I see no need from my point of view to change the language of the financial management policies so I would vote against this.”

Another member echoed the sentiment, emphasizing the importance of maintaining responsiveness to the townspeople. This member remarked, “if anything, as a legislative body, I believe that we should endeavor to be as responsive and nimble as possible,” underscoring the need not to discourage future bodies from addressing community needs. The member also noted, “it’s not a good look when a percentage of our townspeople think that we’re trying to circumvent their will.”

A different perspective was offered by another member who argued that the proposal would not negatively impact the right of voters to petition for a special town meeting, as townspeople could still call for one with sufficient signatures. The member reflected on the selectmen’s role, stating, “they’re supposed to be careful about what they do; that’s to be understood within their job.”

The debate also touched on whether decisions made by one town meeting could bind future meetings, leading to further discussion about the flexibility required for democratic processes. One member suggested that if an issue is not pressing, it might be more prudent to delay its discussion until the annual town meeting for thorough consideration. In contrast, another member asserted that the democratic process’s value lies in its ability to adapt to immediate concerns, regardless of prior decisions.

Ultimately, a motion was presented to support the proposed amendment to the town’s financial and budget policies. The committee voted, resulting in a split decision, with the chair noting the outcome as “six to one” initially before correcting to “six to two.”