WILMINGTON- Emotions were running high at Wednesday evening’s selectboard meeting, as board members hashed out an official stance on the question of whether or not the town should vote by Australian ballot on future questions regarding the removal of the pergola.

The question, petitioned by 151 Wilmington voters, is scheduled for a public vote at a special Town Meeting at 7 pm on Tuesday, November 10, in the Twin Valley High School gymnasium.

Board members were split on the issue at hand. Board members Susan Haughwout and Jim Burke said the board shouldn’t weigh in on the matter at all. “My opinion is the voice of the people is their vote,” Burke said. “And the job of selectperson, as a leader, is just to sit and hear the voice of the people. There’s no need to take a position on it. I would wait for their answer.”

Haughwout said that, in the past, the board has declined to take a position on similar issues. She recalled a similar question regarding the use of Australian ballot for public decisions on issues of any proposed Route 9 bypass. “The selectboard at that time didn’t take a position on the Australian ballot,” she said. “So I don’t feel comfortable discriminating. We’ve allowed it before, and I don’t think we should take a position on this.”

But board members Bruce Mullen, Tom Consolino, and selectboard chair Meg Streeter disagreed. “We’ve talked in the past about wanting to show more leadership for the town,” said Mullen, who was participating in the meeting by phone. “This is the time to do that.” Consolino agreed.

Streeter said she thought it was important for the board to take a stance on how issues are decided in the town. “I really love Town Meeting, and I think that’s the opportunity for the public to talk about how they’re feeling about what town government is doing,” she said. “There is a place for voting by Australian ballot but, to me, this topic isn’t one where people would have the opportunity to hear all the facts. I feel we should take a position because that’s why we’re here.”

Mullen agreed, saying he believes there are a number of issues regarding the pergola that should be hashed out on the floor of Town Meeting prior to a vote. “There are a lot of issues that haven’t been discussed, and we’d lose out on the chance to talk about them,” he said.

Kelley Kahler, one of the organizers of an earlier petition asking the board to remove the pergola, said the board shouldn’t take any position on the use of Australian ballot. “You’re the selectboard,” he said. “You’re representing all the people in the town. This is an issue with various opinions on both sides. (The Australian ballot) is an opportunity to let everyone weigh in on the matter in an inclusive way, without anyone looking over their shoulder at the voting booth.”

Kahler’s remarks were followed by thunderous applause from several people at the meeting.

Skip Morrow, who presented the petition on the Australian ballot to the board earlier this month, said it is not the board’s duty to “try to make other people’s minds up for them.” He said there would be plenty of time to discuss any issues before an Australian ballot could be held on Town Meeting day. “Do we really need to take time at our March Town Meeting to discuss this and take away from all the other business that needs to take place?”

But Andy Schindel urged the board to take a position, reminding board members that they had made the decisions concerning the pergola. Franklin Reeve urged the board not to take a position, and to let the democratic process unfold. “The board should simply reaffirm its own decision to hold a meeting on the 10th,” he said.

In a three to one vote, the board voted to take a position on the Australian ballot. Haughwout abstained from the vote, saying that “as an election official, I have no interest in taking a position on this.”

Haughwout’s discomfort with the board’s action appeared to grow as the discussion turned to what position the board would take regarding the issue.

Streeter, Mullen, and Consolino, the three who voted in favor of taking a position on the question, agreed that the board’s position should be to oppose the use of the Australian ballot. All three said the issue of removing the pergola should be subject to a discussion before a vote. Streeter noted that a paper ballot could be used to tally votes at town meeting.

Kahler and Morrow reiterated their opinions that, by taking a stance against the use of Australian ballot, the board was taking a stance in favor of disenfranchising voters who aren’t able to be at Town Meeting. Haughwout noted that, in addition to the nine or more hours that the polls would be open for an Australian ballot, voters would also have 20 days in which they could submit absentee ballots.

But Alice Greenspan urged the board to take a stand in favor of the traditional Town Meeting format. “I understand the reason for the Australian ballot, but this is an emotional issue,” she said. “I think it should be aired in public. I think we should have the opportunity to hear what people have to say.”

Kahler said there has been, and would be, plenty of opportunities to discuss the issue in public. “Look around the room; there are two newspapers here,” he said. “We’ve discussed it for at least half a year. There will be a pre-town meeting where things are aired. There’s no lack of information here. If there’s any ignorance out there, it’s a chosen ignorance.”

Kahler accused the board of politicizing the issue to achieve their own goal, and disenfranchising voters in the process. “I disagree,” replied Streeter. “We’re not talking about disenfranchising people. We can disagree about the best way to discuss and decide issues.”

Schindel argued that, contrary to the arguments of others, the Australian ballot was less democratic, because it doesn’t allow a full discussion on the issue. He said the petitioners hadn’t participated in the process that produced the pergola. “The Australian ballot puts in doubt all of the due process safeguards for citizens,” he said. “The issues have been discussed by town boards and committees, and at each step along the way, citizens have had the opportunity to make their voices heard. What could be more democratic than our open meeting system? It’s a perversion to have people who chose not to participate in the process get a second bite at the apple.”

In another three to one vote, board members voted to oppose the use of Australian ballot. But instead of abstaining, this time Haughwout declined to offer any action. “As a defender of all voter rights, I’m refusing to participate,” she said.

“Are you suggesting that those of us who voted otherwise…” Streeter began.

“This is really about me and not about other members of the board,” Haughwout said. “My mission in life is to provide everyone with their opportunity to vote.”

“I think you have to abstain or recuse,” suggested Streeter.

“I’m just not participating,” said Haughwout.