Town Meeting Members voted to keep participation open to any Swampscott resident, rejecting a proposed article that would have required write-in candidates to receive at least five votes to be elected. 

Town Moderator Michael McClung and the town clerk proposed Article No. 22 in hopes of reducing the number of Town Meeting Members elected without their knowledge. The article would have required write-in candidates to receive at least five votes to become an elected member. 

“There are some precincts which one or two write-in votes make them eligible for Town Meeting membership,” said Select Board Chair Katie Phelan. “Those potential Town Meeting Members do not always know they’re being written in, and therefore do not always want to participate in the democratic process that we all are participating in tonight.”

Town Meeting Members voted down the article on Tuesday night.

Several Town Meeting Members questioned whether the proposed article was fair. John Giantis, who also serves on the School Committee, said he did not “understand the rationale for this.”

“If someone gets a couple write-in votes and wants to serve, why can’t they serve?” Giantis asked. “I’m not sure why we need to establish a minimum threshold of five in a small town like this. It just struck me as really odd that we would do that.”

Joe Callahan, a Town Meeting Member from Precinct 1, said he has been “elected a couple of times by one vote.”

“I don’t think that the rest of the people who are in my precinct should deny any person who doesn’t get enough votes to serve,” Callahan said. “It just doesn’t make sense to me.”

The town counsel advised that there’s “no real specific standard” for minimum vote requirements for write-ins across the state. 

Laura Jackson, a Town Meeting Member for about 25 years, argued that if anyone is unable to receive five write-in votes, they may not truly represent their precinct. 

“If you want to run for Town Meeting, you can take out the papers before the deadline,” Jackson said. “If you don’t make that deadline, if you don’t know five people who could write you in, I’m not sure you’re representing your precinct.”

Dave Santino said he didn’t know five people in town when he moved to the area three years ago.

“We should be making it easier for people to be involved and not harder,” Santino said. 

Lara Goodman added that the article would have made the Town Meeting “more exclusive.”

On Monday, McClung told the Swampscott Tides about a town member in the “often underrepresented” Precinct 1 would write-in all of her neighbors. They would get elected but wouldn’t know. 

“If the town clerk or I don’t have a phone number or an email address, they’ll be sent a warrant to where they live,” McClung said. 

At Tuesday’s meeting, McClung said he has had to “chase down numerous people with one write-in vote who are astonished to learn they have been elected.”

In the April election, Precinct 5 saw only 15 candidates for the 18 Town Meeting member spots. Kristin Doerrer received 16 write-in votes. Irma Zarinsky earned five, and Paula Pearce received four. Joseph Ippolito Jr. also received three votes to serve until 2027.

The confusion around residents unknowingly being elected may have contributed to the absence of 92 elected officials at Monday night’s Town Meeting. 

No standing vote was taken on Tuesday, leaving the number of absentees for the second night of Town Meeting unclear. 

If there is a seat open, a resident that would like to become a Town Meeting Member is able to be elected at their precinct’s caucus by a majority.