HANOVER — The Selectboard turned down an advisory article to adopt a voter-approved anti-apartheid pledge with regard to Israel and Palestine Monday, citing procedural concerns.
The article passed, 59-35, following an hour and a half debate at the end of Town Meeting on May 12.
The Selectboard opted to discuss the issue at its next regular meeting, which was held Monday. The staff recommendation, read aloud by Town Manager Rob Houseman, was to take no action. The recommendation pointed to procedural concerns, particularly that the vote may not reflect a desire of the broader community.
With approximately 8,000 voters on the checklist as of town meeting day, just over 1% of the town voted on the proposed article, which was discussed during other business at the end of Town Meeting. The vote was held about 11:30 p.m.
Houseman also noted that it was not warned in advance.
“Many voters may not have anticipated the issue would be debated at Town Meeting,” said Houseman at the Monday meeting.
Some residents at Monday’s meeting worried about implications of the pledge, which calls on towns to “join others in working to end all support to Israel’s apartheid regime, settler colonialism, and military occupation.”
“There’s a great deal of antisemitism that’s on the rise in this country, and this is an extremely simple-minded pledge that’s false in all its essentials,” resident Michael Taxman said in a comment at Monday’s Selectboard meeting.
After 20 minutes of discussion on Monday, the Selectboard unanimously agreed not to take action on the advisory article.
The Palestine Solidarity Coalition of Dartmouth Students, an organization dedicated to activism and demonstration in favor of Palestinian rights, began spreading awareness about the pledge in March through educational events, bulletin board posting and canvassing in town, said Roan Wade, a student involved with the Coalition.
Upper Valley for Palestine and the Vermont Coalition for Palestinian Liberation, grassroots organizations with similar goals, also organized the effort.
Campaign leaders did not present the 25 signatures required to have it placed on the ballot by the early April deadline for petitioned warrant articles.
“Ultimately, the day of the meeting, it still passed. But it is up to the community and Hanover residents to now implement it. And that’s what we intend to do,” Wade said Wednesday by phone.
Several community members in attendance at Monday’s meeting commented on the article, though the speakers were divided on an appropriate outcome.
In the first public comment, resident Dan Rockmore spoke in favor of no action on the article.
“No action recognizes the importance of process and the seriousness of debate at Town Meeting by the town as a whole, especially on issues like this,” said Rockmore.
Resident Donald Kollisch, however, noted in a subsequent comment that while the article was brought forward late into the evening and not warned ahead of it, the process itself was legal.
“This was a motion that was legally brought, legally voted upon, and should be taken as such by the board,” said Kollisch.
At Monday’s meeting, Wade pushed back on the notion that the community was not aware of the issue in consideration of campaign efforts over the past two months. They also noted that the dozens of people debating the issue at Town Meeting spoke to the level of importance.
Hanover resident Xeriah Knyght, a member of Upper Valley for Palestine who presented the pledge at Hanover Town Meeting, said that while the article is non-binding, she hoped the Selectboard would move forward with adopting it.
“We need to start to think about the human rights impact of the decisions that our towns make, and that’s really what this is all about,” said Tim O’Hara, a Wilder resident who previously lived in Hanover.
Thetford passed a similar pledge last year at Town Meeting by voice vote, and the Vermont Coalition for Palestinian Liberation stated in a news release that it was the first municipality in the nation to do so.
Hartford narrowly passed the same pledge on March 3 by ballot, 659 to 641.
The Vermont Friends of Israel shared in a Tuesday statement that it supports the Selectboard’s decision, referring to the article as a “one-sided” pledge singling out Israel.
“A small, late-night, non-binding town meeting vote should not be treated as a broad community mandate, especially on a divisive foreign-policy pledge that risks isolating Jewish residents and inflaming local tensions,” Mark Treinkman, the organization’s president, said by email.
Selectboard Member Athos Rassias expressed his opinion that residents choosing to leave during the discussion is not necessarily relevant because the town had a duty to hold the conversation that night. He, however, supported no further action by the board.
Wade and other involved community members intend to reintroduce the article next year ahead of the petition deadline, they said.
