Andover Town Meeting vote comes into question

Did a legal opinion read by Town Counsel at the request of the Town Manager taint the vote on our health insurance amendment?

At last Monday's Town Meeting, our amendment to cut $680,000 from the health insurance budget lost by just 9 votes.

The amendment's goal was to salvage the taxpayer savings the Teachers Union torpedoed when they rejected a move to Tufts Health plan against the wishes of many of their fellow employees. This move  would have saved $1 Million in the first year, with $680,000 — the money our amendment tried to restore — going to taxpayers.

The following article appeared in yesterday's Eagle Tribune: Debate on Town Meeting health insurance continues  — Andover resident may call for reconsideration of vote to approve $15.7M health account.
(You may need a digital subscription to view the article.)

The legal opinion, read by Town Counsel Tom Urbelis and written by the town’s labor attorney Phil Collins, stated that Town Meeting had to vote in favor of the $15.7 million health insurance fund or be in violation of state law.

Here are some quotes from the article:

Selectman Mary O'Donoghue: “I didn’t understand where it (the legal ruling) was coming from,” she said. "You can amend an appropriation. We’ve done that before. That doesn’t seem like the right answer.”

Furthermore, she agreed with Landry that it probably swayed some Town Meeting voters.

"When one hears, before one votes, that if you vote against it, you cannot do that because it’s illegal, you say to yourself, ‘Well, maybe I can’t vote against it,’” she said, adding that it was senseless to have an item on the town warrant if you can’t vote on it.

"If we can’t vote against it, does that mean we have to vote for it, or should we be voting on it at all?” she asked.

Chris Vrountas, an attorney who serves as ombudsman at Town Meeting, was also mystified by what transpired.

“I read this guy’s opinion and what it says is that if the town fails to appropriate adequate funds to cover its share of health care costs, then town officials must do certain things,” he said. “They would have to raise funds through taxation or get the money some other way."

“The conclusion that a vote would be null and void and have no effect is not correct,” he added. “It has a lot of effect. It has the effect of forcing the town to raise money by taxation to fund the appropriation.”

Before we take action, what do you think?

Please email us and let us know:

• Was it appropriate to interject this legal opinion into the voting process?
• Did it sway voters against the amendment?

To view video of the entire amendment presentation, click here. The motion starts at the 170:35 minute mark of the video.