Library Board Pushes Forward With Policy Eliminating Majority Rule

The Hanover Library Board of Trustees voted on April 7 to eliminate majority rule for bylaw changes, approving a controversial amendment that requires unanimous agreement for future changes to the board’s governing document. The decision, made without public input or legal review, has sparked confusion, criticism, and a formal complaint under the state’s Open Meeting Law.

The change passed 2–1, with Chair Tammy Tedeschi and member Jeanne Cianciola voting in favor and member Pimhatai Koslowsky opposed. The vote followed a proposal by Select Board Chair Vanessa O’Connor to increase the size of the Library Board of Trustees. The new bylaw rule would make it harder for any expanded board to implement reforms.

Tedeschi framed the move as a way to promote unity among board members and for them to get policies “exactly the way we want.” But the proposed change drew immediate pushback from Koslowsky.

“I feel like debate is good,” said Koslowsky. “One person shouldn’t be able to say “no” if the rest of the majority thinks that the change is good.”

“I guess I disagree with that,” said Tedeschi. “The ironic thing is, right now if two of us agreed, we could overrule you,” Tedeschi later added.

During discussion, Koslowsky repeatedly asked for the town’s council to review the proposed change but was rebuffed by Tedeschi and Cianciola.

Select Board member Greg Satterwhite was in attendance and asked early in the meeting whether comments would be allowed on specific agenda items. Tedeschi replied, “Well depending on what it is, if we have an answer we can go ahead and thank you.” Later in the meeting, when Satterwhite asked to speak again, Tedeschi said public comment would be allowed “only if [she] felt like it.”

The board did not distribute copies of the proposed changes in advance. During the meeting, Library Director Virginia Johnson is seen handing out copies of the proposed bylaw change. It was unclear if she drafted the changes or was simply distributing them; however, even Koslowsky seemed confused. She asked if Johnson was proposing the amendments being discussed. Johnson answered that she cannot propose bylaw changes.

The meeting agenda posted on the town’s website listed only “Proposed amendment changes to Board of Trustee Bylaws,” without specifying what those changes were. According to guidance from the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, “The list of topics must be sufficiently specific to reasonably inform the public of the issues to be discussed at the meeting.”

Tedeschi noted that this was the second month in which the board had considered bylaw changes. However, the only item listed for the March board meeting was “Discussion of Annual Town Meeting Article to Increase the number of Trustees of the John Curtis Free Library.”

At the close of the April 7 meeting, tensions flared. “It is just bizarre that you would do a majority to change something to a unanimous without any open discussion,” Satterwhite said. “I just think this is a travesty.”

“You should get some Robert's rules for how to run your meetings because this was ridiculous,” said resident Michelle Davidson.

Typically, you cannot make two unrelated policy changes with one motion under Robert's Rules of Order. Based on the standards of parliamentary procedure set forth in the rules, a main motion should address one specific issue or proposal. In this case, the board voted on multiple policy changes with one motion.

Following the meeting, an Open Meeting Law complaint was filed against the board. On April 14, the board met in executive session to discuss the matter.

South Shore Times has filed a public records request with the Town of Hanover. This story is ongoing.