(5-11-26 Document #6) FinCom Minutes 3-25-26 (NC)

Word document text

Canton Finance Committee Meeting
Wednesday, March 25th, 2026, 7pm
Virtual Meeting


In Attendance: Emilio Mauro, Nicholas Corkery, John Leonetti, Helen Mancuso, Evan Patton, Reuki Schutt, Kristin Mirliani, Cindy Thomas, and Ronald Wilson
William Scollins – Finance Director
Absent: n/a
CCTV Recording
Recording Secretary: Allison Neff

Chairperson Mauro called the meeting to order at 7:01pm.

PLANNING BOARD & TOWN PLANNER RECOMMENDATIONS
Connor Murphy, Town Planner

Article 34: Accept Stillwater Road as a Town Way 
Article 35: Accept Foundry Lane as a Town Way
Article 36: Accept Dalebrook Court as a Town Way 

Mr. Murphy explained that the roads included in Articles 34, 35, and 36 all stem from the same subdivision. The Planning Board met on this matter on February 4th, 2026, and, in accordance with the subdivision rules and regulations, they prepared a positive recommendation and a report which features correspondence from the Fire Department, Conservation Commission, Department of Public Works, and the Town Treasurer. All the required documentation has been provided to the Town and is in the Planning Board’s office. Mr. Murphy noted that Jessica March of Toll Brothers (the developers of the project) was in attendance at the meeting.

Ms. Mirliani referenced a letter included in the documentation that was regarding utilities, arrears, and taxes. She asked what the role of the Finance Committee is when a road is being considered for acceptance but there are unpaid taxes owed. Mr. Scollins explained that, as part of this process, there is a requirement that outstanding taxes related to properties on this road be acknowledged, but the developer is not responsible for those taxes. As the taxes owed have nothing to do with the road itself or the developer, it is not a reason for the Town to deny acceptance of the road as a Town Way. Mr. Murphy added that, after a subdivision, roads are treated as their own parcel, so they can accrue their own taxes or issues, but that is not the case here. He confirmed that the four outstanding debts noted are not the developer’s but belong to individual property owners.
Ms. Mancuso noted the language in all 3 articles suggesting that the Select Board will pay the needed money to acquire land for easements. She asked for an estimate of the funding amount being referred to, with Mr. Murphy answering that the referenced language is required under Subdivision Control Law, but when a roadway gets transferred to the Town it is accepted as a gift, so there is no cost incurred for the Town.
Ms. Schutt asked if these 3 articles should have an individual motion for each, with Mr. Mauro responding that it depends on whether there is a difference of opinion amongst Committee members. Mr. Scollins recommended making the motions individually.

Mr. Mauro stated that he would be responsible for writing the Finance Committee discussions for the Planning Board articles.

For Articles 37, 38, and 39, Mr. Murphy explained that the project was not ready, and therefore the Planning Board could not issue their report. They recommended that the developer wait until the next Town Meeting, so the 3 proposed street acceptances were withdrawn without prejudice and should be indefinitely postponed at this Town Meeting.

Mr. Mauro asked if developers must put money aside when building roads. Mr. Murphy stated that they may put aside money in case of road issues that must be corrected, adding that the developer is responsible for any improvements as long as the road is a private way, which it is, until being accepted at Town Meeting.

PLANNING BOARD & TOWN PLANNER RECOMMENDATIONS
Connor Murphy, Town Planner 

Article 43: Amend Zoning Bylaw Section 8.1 Accessory Dwelling Units 
Mr. Murphy explained that the changes suggested to Articles 43 and 44 are maintenance due to discrepancies between the adopted text and the regulations promulgated by the Secretary of State in January 2025. Under the Affordable Homes Act the Town had to amend its bylaws related to Accessory Dwelling Units at Special Town Meeting in 2024.
The changes needed are under Section 8.1. Under 8.1.2, the added language is bolded and underlined, and changes made to 8.1.2 are because the Town is not allowed to have a minimum lot size under these regulations, along with minor tweaks to the bylaws regarding dimensional requirements in 8.1.5. In 8.1.4, the words “the principle structure” were added to make the bylaw meet the intent of the regulations.
In 8.1.6, under subsections A and C, the words “for the principle use” and “for primary use” were added respectively to make sure the bylaws meet all parking regulations.
The Planning Board met and discussed these changes, voted to close the public hearing, and sent a public recommendation to make these changes, along with the clerical correction of changing the spelling of “principle” to “principal” wherever it appears in this context.
Mr. Mauro asked for confirmation that the vote taken in 2024 was correct at the time, but did not match what the final State guidelines eventually said when finalized, and this article makes them match. Mr. Murphy responded affirmatively.
Mr. Patton noted a formatting error, with section 8.1.6 being on the same line as 8.1.5. Mr. Murphy explained that they checked with Town Counsel and this formatting error does not need to be corrected as it is not content-related.

Article 44: Amend Zoning Bylaw Section 11.0 Definitions 
Mr. Murphy explained the text changes here, with the word “principle” inserted before “dwelling” to make sure it is correctly defined. Mr. Patton pointed out more usage of the wrong form of the word “principle” in this Article, which Mr. Scollins agreed to fix.

Article 45: Amend Zoning Map of Canton by Removing CCEOD A 
Article 46: Amend Zoning Map of Canton by Removing CCEOD B 
Article 47: Amend Zoning Map of Canton by Removing CCEOD C
Mr. Murphy explained that Articles 45, 46, and 47 are Zoning Map Amendments. At the 2025 ATM, the Town voted to remove portions of Zoning Bylaw section 9.8 regarding the Canton Center Economic Opportunity District. Articles 45, 46, and 47 seek to remove the now obsolete CCEOD Zones from the Zoning Map, as there is no relative text associated with them. This cleanup of the Zoning Map is helpful to the Town.
Mr. Mauro asked for confirmation that the 3 articles are due to there being 3 zones, with A&B corresponding to the Central Business District and C corresponding to the housing now at the Paul Revere Heritage Site (part of the Canton Junction Overlay District), which Mr. Murphy confirmed.
Mr. Leonetti stated that he abstained from voting on this issue last year due to owning property that falls within Zones A & B, and noted his intention to do the same this year. It was suggested that this abstention was not necessary, given that there’s nothing economic about these articles, but Mr. Leonetti stated his intention to abstain anyway out of an abundance of caution. 

Chairperson Mauro thanked Town Planner Connor Murphy and all of the Planning Board members for everything they do for Town planning. He noted that this planning is a complicated and detailed business that must be carefully managed, so the Planning Board plays a very important role in development and revenue generating. Patricia McDermott (Chairperson of the Planning Board) and Mr. Murphy thanked the Committee. 

VOTE MINUTES 
The minutes of the March 4th Finance Committee meetings were sent out yesterday. Mr. Patton suggested several minor corrections in grammar and spelling, which were made by the recording secretary. 

HISTORICAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION – ARTICLE 21: APPROPRIATION FOR GRIDLEY CEMETERY REPAIR
George Comeau, Historical Commission, Chairperson
Mr. Comeau stated that this request for funding is for the protection and preservation of the Gridley Cemetery. Originally full funding was requested from the Community Preservation for FY27, but in trying to fund other projects this project was trimmed to a $10,000 recommendation. 
Mr. Comeau explained that this small plot of land off Washington Street was dedicated in the early 18th century as a cemetery for smallpox victims. Afterwards, the land came to be owned by Richard Gridley, who was an instrumental part of the American Revolution and a hometown hero to Canton. The Historical Commission hopes to have this project completed in time for the 250th anniversary of the Revolution, as it is an important way to honor this history in Canton. $20,189 is requested to complete funding for this project.
The plot is currently overgrown and severely neglected, with many in Town forgetting it exists. This project will mark it as a historic site, use ground-penetrating radar to survey how many graves are there, determine where those graves are situated, put era-appropriate fence around the property, and install informative signage. The DPW has agreed to handle the very limited maintenance required on this site (which is a Town property). Mr. Comeau confirmed that, with the Historical Commission and DPW being aware of the plot and its importance, it will be maintained going forward. 

BYLAW MODERNIZATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
George Comeau, Bylaw Modernization Committee, Chairperson
Mr. Mauro explained to the meeting viewers that this Committee has been tasked with reviewing, updating, and improving the Town’s bylaws. Mr. Comeau added that the Town approved Article 30 at the 2024 Annual Town Meeting, which created the Bylaw Modernization Committee (BMC). That Committee faces a herculean task to codify the existing bylaws and identify places where modernization is needed, or confusion needs to be cleared up. The Committee is well under way in this process, and these articles being discussed this evening are mostly related to the modernization of the bylaws governing Town Meeting.

Article 23: Bylaw Modernization Study Committee Extension 
This Article’s purpose is to extend the work of the BMC, as it is under a sunset clause ending the Committee’s function at the time of Town Meeting. However, the Committee is still faced with over 400 pages of bylaws, including zoning and planning issues, which need 3rd party codification. The BMC is asking Town Meeting to continue their work by extending and reauthorizing the Committee. There is no financial obligation attached to any of the bylaw modernization articles proposed at this Town Meeting, including this one. This request is only for an extension to allow the Committee to continue working, and the article language is identical to the original article (from ATM 2024) with a 2-year extension added.
Mr. Mauro asked if this Article includes another 2-year sunset clause being placed, and Mr. Comeau confirmed that it does.
Mr. Mauro volunteered to write the discussions for the Articles proposed by the BMC. 

Article 24: Amend General Bylaw Article IV Annual Town Meeting – Moderator 
Mr. Mauro explained that this proposition is in regards to Article 4 of the bylaws that regulates the election of the Town Moderator. Mr. Comeau stated that this is likely the most controversial of the articles being brought forward by the BMC. He reminded the Finance Committee and viewers that this is the BMC’s recommendation, which Town Meeting can decide to accept or reject.
Mr. Comeau went on to say that the current bylaws regarding the choice of moderator are very vague, only saying that the town shall elect a moderator at Annual Town Meeting, with no instructions on how that is to be done. Currently, the Moderator is largely chosen by the local Democratic and Republican Town Committees, but that is by tradition, rather than by regulation. All governance at the Town level is nonpartisan, making this the only place partisanship directly comes in. In alternating years each party’s caucus chooses a moderator; the moderator’s authority is derived from the caucuses and then there is a snap election at the beginning of Town Meeting. If the Town Meeting attendees wish to choose another moderator at that time, it would be practically impossible, given that the moderator prepares for weeks ahead of time and works with Town Counsel. If Town Meeting attendees do not agree with the political party that chose the moderator, it effectively disables Town Meeting. 
Mr. Comeau stated that there are no other communities the BMC has found that choose their moderator in this current way. It is a long-standing tradition in Canton, but many attendees probably do not know how the moderator is chosen. This proposal asks voters at the general election to choose the moderator, which is what the majority of other towns do. This bylaw recommendation is meant to clarify the powers of the moderator, establish a deputy moderator, align the moderator duties with MA General Laws, and modernize the structure of choosing a moderator. The BMC believes this will increase civic engagement and enforce neutrality. 
Mr. Comeau added that this proposal is not meant to attack any past chosen moderators, nor is it intended to weaken the respective political parties but rather it is meant to remove any politization of the moderator selection. The majority of Canton voters are unenrolled (over 12,000 of approximately 17,000), making it less logical for the political parties to make the choice. This amendment to the bylaw has impacts beyond the duties of moderator at Town Meeting, as the moderator appoints members to multiple committees, adding to the BMC’s belief that the position should not be beholden to one political party or another.
The Citizens’ Guide to Town Meeting helped guide this proposal to match the best practices done by a majority of other MA towns. There was one dissenting voice on the BMC (Mr. Overland, who represents the Republican Town Committee), and the Committee received no indication that the Democratic Town Committee had any issues with this proposal.
Mr. Mauro noted that it is clear that a moderator elected on the floor at Town Meeting would be problematic, as Mr. Comeau said, given that this person would have no training or familiarity with the articles being considered, even if they have the best of intentions. An additional concern is that votes done incorrectly by a moderator unfamiliar with the procedure would be negated by the Attorney General, requiring a new Town Meeting to be called. Mr. Mauro went on to say that he has seen a want for a more democratic process in making the moderator selection, and, given that Town Meeting is open to all Canton residents that have registered to vote, those same voters would all have a chance to vote on the moderator position. He noted, however, that there may be challenges in training a new moderator in time for Town Meeting if the Town elections continue to take place in April. He asked if the BMC has any mechanism in mind for quick training, to which Mr. Comeau replied that they will look to other communities to see what Canton’s peers are doing. He added that there is an association of moderators (Massachusetts Moderators Association) available to help the BMC understand what tools are available, but it is suspected that persons who run for this position are going to have an extraordinary interest in the position and a good understanding of local government processes. The BMC will continue to do additional research in preparation for this Town Meeting and it will be prepared to answer that question. Mr. Scollins pointed out that there is a pre-planning meeting for Annual Town Meeting or any Special Town Meeting. This year that meeting is scheduled for April 14, which is a week after this year’s election. Given that the Town Leadership, Town Counsel, and Moderator work together at that meeting to choreograph how Town Meeting will proceed, this already syncs up well in terms of timing. Chairperson Mauro, who attends the planning meeting that Mr. Scollins is referring to, noted that people interested in being moderators generally have some experience, and this meeting would help get newly elected moderators up to speed quickly, if Article 24 is approved.

Mr. Leonetti stated that this is an example of people trying to fix things that are not broken, asking if there is any evidence of a situation at a Canton Town Meeting in recent years where a moderator’s election under the first article was challenged, or if it is truly a plausibly possible situation. Mr. Comeau answered that an applicable situation arose a few years ago, adding that if the voters wish to continue with the tradition, it can be added to the bylaws, but the BMC looked to the hundreds of other communities and their examples of not injecting that kind of partisanship into Town Meeting before making this recommendation. Mr. Leonetti asked for confirmation that the situation has come up only once, to which Mr. Comeau responded that it created confusion and controversy at that Town Meeting. He clarified that this particular example is not the reason behind the BMC’s recommendation for this Article, but rather that the BMC was asked to suggest ways to modernize the bylaws and, as currently written, there is no instruction included on how a moderator is chosen. Mr. Leonetti asked about the timing of the one problematic instance, and several Committee members suggested it was in November 2023.

Ms. Thomas stated that she supports this recommendation, as it creates a more equitable and open process. Right now, the process is small groups working their individual networks to make these decisions. The caucuses are usually small, meaning only a few people are often making the decision about the moderator, but the moderator makes important decisions for the whole town when appointing residents to committees. This recommendation would implement a process that is more open and provides more opportunities for members of the community who want to input to provide it, as opposed to the current process that feels very closed. She went on to say that past Town Moderators have done an excellent job, noting that sometimes an unenrolled person has been chosen, but stated that many people who come to Town Meeting don’t know how the moderator is chosen. In response to Mr. Leonetti’s point, Ms. Thomas stated that even if this situation has not happened yet, it could, and it would create a mess. She added that this recommendation should not be implemented because of a problem but rather because it is a better practice.

Mr. Mauro noted that, beyond the potential of the current system resulting in a problem at Town Meeting, the fact that it is possible for there to be a built-in problem is not helpful to the Town Meeting process. This may reflect a window that should be closed if it is not a functional way to choose a moderator. He stated his belief that the concern in 2023 that has been exemplified stemmed from the desire of some attendees to choose an independent moderator, with those attendees feeling this party-based process essentially disenfranchises unenrolled citizens, giving them no voice. As there is no feasible way to present a 3rd option for moderator from amongst unenrolled voters, an open election would broaden the voice of Canton residents. He added that a merit of this recommendation, aside from eliminating the possibility of a messy situation, is that it provides a broader, more open way to select a town moderator. He clarified that the three moderators he has worked with all did excellent jobs, and they are not a reason for supporting this recommendation, but rather the desire for this better process, in his opinion, are the reason.

Mr. Comeau stated his desire for fairness and wanting to air both sides of the argument, noting that the Republican Town Committee recently looked amongst their ranks and found an unenrolled person to serve as moderator who did an excellent job, and that Committee deserves recognition for that effort. He pointed out that the process to choose this person was via a recommendation from a previous Republican Committee chosen moderator, and this traditional process does mean there are many people who do not have the opportunity to contribute to the moderator selection because they are not known to those people who are making the suggestions and decisions.

Ms. Mirliani agreed with Ms. Thomas, stating this is exactly what the BMC was created to do: look for what other communities do that Canton does not, implement best practices, and fix holes. The moderator choosing process not being detailed in the bylaws is a large hole that could make Town Meeting a disaster, therefore it does not matter if it is likely, or if it has happened in the past; it is something that should be implemented as best practice.

Mr. Patton asked if the intention of this change is to always have the moderator election in odd numbered years, given the current effort to move the Town’s elections to the fall. Mr. Comeau replied that the moderator position is a 2-year term, and 1- or 2-year terms are most common in the majority of towns in the Commonwealth. If this article is adopted, the moderator chosen for this year will serve until one is elected in 2027. Mr. Comeau went on to explain that there is also the matter of what happens if something should prevent a moderator from serving before the end of their term, leading to this bylaw change also including an implementation of the selection of a deputy moderator, appointed by the moderator and confirmed by a vote at Town Meeting, who would have the powers and duties of moderator until a successor is elected, should the elected moderator be unable to serve. Mr. Patton asked if there was any guidance for a situation in which the moderator and deputy moderator were both incapacitated, with Mr. Comeau answering that he did not know the answer and would find out.

Mr. Leonetti explained to the Committee that this new issue is unsettling, as there is a system in place that functions well and ensures the moderator is appointed by a body that knows how to select a moderator. If this becomes a politicized issue subject to open elections it could go in many directions and the possible bias could have significant impacts. For example, there were four open seats on the Finance Committee last year, and a moderator who is hand-picking appointments for a significant number of seats with bias would be detrimental to the Town and too far from what the moderators have successfully been doing thus far. He went on to state that he understands the desire for a more democratic process, but he believes there are far-reaching implications related to political persuasion and bias, with the power to appoint committee members being of greater concern than the moderator duties at Town Meeting. Mr. Mauro noted that the moderator appoints 3 Finance Committee members per year, each serving a 3-year cycle. He pointed out that, currently, because the moderator has alternated between being selected by the Democratic Committee and Republican Committee, there is a different moderator every other year; if this article passes it would theoretically be possible to have the same moderator for multiple years running, which could reflect on committee appointments for multiple terms. On the other hand, this could also be seen as more democratic, as it reflects the will of the voters at large. He also pointed out that there is no term limit involved in this language, so a particularly biased moderator could make appointments based on that bias, though they would be checked every 2 years with another election. Mr. Mauro stated his words were not said in support or opposition, but rather because it is important to note how acceptance of this article might change the process.

Ms. Mirliani stated her belief that it is important that an election not be avoided only because some may not like the results of it, adding that we should not eliminate a democratic process because we are afraid to lose. This article puts power in the hands of the community, which she believes is a good idea.

Ms. Thomas noted that Mr. Leonetti’s comments assume that the current situation is not politicized and she disagrees, as the current practice has seen plenty of politicized positions, and a number of moderators have historically rotated through and been moderator multiple times, even if their terms were not served consecutively. Moderators who have served several times do provide stability, but there are still problems with that. She went on to say that there have been appointment decisions made under the current process that were controversial, so it is inaccurate to think the current process is not politicized. Mr. Leonetti rebutted that he has not claimed an absence of bias, but the political process is usually an election for one seat on one board or committee. He stated that the reality is that in the last cycle the moderator had the power to appoint 4 members to this Committee along with several members to the Capital Planning Committee, giving the moderator indirect control over many millions of dollars of Town funds. His concerns are not about winning or losing an election, but rather the function of how many appointments are made and the appointment powers that control so many committees. Ms. Mirliani responded that Mr. Leonetti’s concerns seemed to be regarding the power of the moderator to make appointments, rather than the selection of moderator, because the points he has made do not explain why it is better to have a small group choosing the moderator. Mr. Leonetti reiterated his belief that this article is attempting to fix something that is not broken, adding that, while there may be a gap or bias in the process in this imperfect democracy, the moderators he has seen have been balanced and chosen for being responsible. An open election to put someone in this position, with this appointment power, is very concerning and needs to be thought about carefully.

Ms. Thomas acknowledged the differing opinions of the Committee members, stating that this is positive as discourse is healthy. She asked if the Committee was taking a vote on this article or what else the next steps might be. Mr. Mauro concurred that there was likely to be a permanent division of opinions on this article but that the Committee would vote on it after members had no further questions about it.

Mr. Patton responded to Mr. Leonetti, noting that in any 2 year cycle a moderator is guaranteed to appoint 6 members of the Finance Committee (as 3 are up each year for appointment), but if the Town believes that there has been some sort of quid pro quo or other inappropriate decisions made by the moderator this new system would allow someone else to be elected in 2 years who will also then have 6 seats to appoint. He stated that while there may be a pendulum effect, it will not change the dynamics of the process significantly.

Mr. Comeau told the Finance Committee that this had been a good debate and very helpful for the BMC, but this change is about trusting the electorate. He added that the Committees mentioned in the arguments all make recommendations to Town Meeting, but the voters at Town Meeting are still making the final decisions about funding and projects, leaving the power vested in the electorate. The electorate is trusted with many decisions for boards and committees whose members are elected, including the School Committee, Planning Board, Town Clerk, and others. This thinking was common amongst all the communities who elect their moderators; the BMC did not find a single other community who selects a moderator in the manner Canton has been doing it. Mr. Leonetti agreed that Town Meeting makes the decisions technically, but with an average of only a few hundred people in attendance, it is still a small group making the decisions for everyone else. He encouraged Committee members and viewers to ask how often Town Meeting votes against the recommendations from the Committees, noting that it is rare, even if technically possible, because the Town places so much trust in the boards and committees making the recommendations.

Mr. Mauro volunteered to write the majority discussion for this article, with Mr. Wilson volunteering to write the minority discussion in conjunction with Mr. Leonetti and Mr. Corkery.

Article 25: Amend General Bylaw Article IV Annual Town Meeting – Voting 
Mr. Mauro explained that this article is in regard to the allowing of electronic voting. Mr. Comeau expounded on this, stating that the article is straightforward and short, and there is no money attached to it. The article adds language to allow, if available, electronic vote counting and recording systems for Town Meeting if available, at the discretion of the Moderator. Currently electronic voting is not allowed, as it is not included in the bylaw. The BMC expects that the technology already used by many other towns will be available to Canton, and their use would allow Town Meeting to move faster. Mr. Mauro noted that this was proposed a couple of years ago, but the article was withdrawn until further consideration could be made regarding how the electronic voting process would work. Currently the voting process is done with cards and clickers for manually counting votes; this article would allow electronic devices to be used instead, at the option of the moderator. 

Mr. Mauro questioned the possible costs, noting that the Town would have to purchase devices, which might be a capital request, and may require upgrades to the connectivity capabilities in the High School auditorium. Ms. Thomas pointed out that the cost concerns do not matter for this recommendation, as the bylaw only allows the mechanism. Mr. Comeau stated that the BMC worked with the Town Clerk on this issue, and his sense is that the Clerk would make the choices about the technology in consultation with the MIS department. This bylaw change allows the use of electronic voting devices, but it does not define what specific technology is used. Mr. Mauro stated that it is good to have the ability to use the technology, pointing out the Special Town Meeting in 2023 as an example of when it would have been useful, as the attending voters were spread across multiple rooms in great number and the manual count was very difficult and time-consuming. He stated that, while he personally supports this article, he also wants to point out the potential downrange costs but he believes using this technology would allow meetings to be streamlined significantly.

Mr. Patton referenced Mr. Comeau’s statement that the Committee worked with the Town Clerk, asking if there was any draft language written regarding an article requesting funding for an electronic voting system. Mr. Comeau responded in the negative while noting that the Town Clerk has conversed with other Towns’ Clerks and has ideas Right now, all parties agree it is prudent to ensure Canton has the ability to use the technology. Ms. Thomas stated that, while Canton isn’t in a position to implement this yet, there are multiple towns in the Commonwealth that use electronic voting for every vote, and this makes their Town Meetings much more productive and efficient. She shared her hope that, if this bylaw change passes, it will come into effect soon, noting that a better process will likely help more residents show up for Town Meetings. Mr. Mauro pointed out that the article language says, “moderator will determine”, which would allow for the voting technology to be used for all votes taken if the moderator so chooses.

Article 26: Amend General Bylaw Article IV Annual Town Meeting – Reconsideration
Mr. Comeau explained that this recommendation is a direct result of studying reconsiderations that have happened in the past and the possibility of having a never-ending town meeting. Currently there is a loophole in the bylaws that requires interpretation on what happens when someone asks for the reconsideration of a vote and how that reconsideration is moved to the next meeting, and possibly the next, and so on. The BMC looked at many communities and put together language that does not remove the right to reconsideration, as it is important to have that ability, but sets out parameters under which the Moderator can accept a reconsideration request. After a debate has closed and a motion has passed or failed, if the Moderator feels new information has come to light that was not shared/available at the time of the original debate, then the Moderator can call for a reconsideration. The Town Meeting attendees have the ability to override the Moderator’s dismissal of a request for reconsideration with a majority vote. When a reconsideration is being made, it will be deferred until near the end of Town Meeting, after most everything else is satisfied, ensuring other important Town Meeting matters are stacked at the start of the next meeting. Under the bylaws as they are written today the Moderator needed guidance on how to handle a recent controversial reconsideration, and reconsiderations are always complex, so this article puts rules in place for the criteria on reconsideration (and provides an avenue to override that Town Moderator’s decision), and how it is completed.
Mr. Patton noted that the recent reconsideration vote mentioned by Mr. Comeau was a budget item, and asked how this article would be implemented, given that deferring the reconsideration until after other Town Meeting matters are completed would be after the budget ball is decided. Mr. Scollins stated that the budget ball is supposed to be the final article acted on, and therefore an article being reconsidered that has financial implications would be placed in front of the budget ball. Mr. Comeau agreed, stating that this was the intent on how this article was written, but acknowledging that Mr. Patton may be correct that the wording does not match the intent. Mr. Comeau will check to make sure it is written to match the BMC’s intention and bring the wording before Town Counsel again for approval. Mr. Mauro concurred that any financial item votes need to occur before the budget ball, and he suggested the Committee may wish to wait on voting their recommendation of this article until the new language is seen. Answering a question from Mr. Comeau, Mr. Scollins stated the goal of all motions being submitted by March 27th. Mr. Comeau agreed to look into this matter tomorrow and try to get an answer before the 27th. He asserted that the rest of the language of the article is solid, and only a minor additional clarification is needed stating that a budget-related reconsideration will be brought up prior to the budget ball. Mr. Mauro reiterated his suggestion to defer the vote to the March 30th meeting rather than vote based on speculations of the final wording, adding that this suggestion is not intended as a position for or against the article, but in the interests of accuracy. The Finance Committee members agreed to add this topic to the March 30th meeting agenda.

Chairperson Mauro thanked Mr. Comeau, Mr. Scollins, and the rest of the BMC for their work on modernizing the bylaws. He noted that, even if not everyone agrees with every recommendation proposed, it is important to be discussing these matters and improving the bylaws as appropriate.
Mr. Comeau thanked the Finance Committee for the consideration and debate.

NEXT MEETINGS
The next Finance Committee meeting is scheduled for Monday, March 30th. Mr. Scollins stated that he will post the agenda as soon as possible.
Mr. Leonetti, speaking as the Finance Committee liaison to the Police Department, asked Mr. Scollins to confirm that Chief Daniels did not express a need to meet with the Finance Committee again for any further requests, and Mr. Scollins confirmed this.

ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:05pm.

Minutes reviewed by: Nicholas Corkery
Respectfully submitted,

Emilio E. Mauro, Jr.
Chair, Canton Finance Committee

REFERENCED DOCUMENTS:
FINCOM March 25th, 2026, Agenda
Articles 34-36 Street Acceptances PB Report Canton Reserve
Yorkshire Estates Withdrawal Letter
Planning Board Articles 43-47
PB Report Canton Reserve
Bylaw Modernization Study Committee Articles 23-26
FINCOM March 4th, 2026, Minutes - Draft