Wayland’s annual town meeting may be over, but that doesn’t mean people are finished talking about it.

After all, this was a historic town meeting in that it was the first to feature electronic voting, and any time there is that kind of change, there are always opinions in abundance.

Representatives from the Town Meeting Advisory Committee, the Town Meeting Procedures Subcommittee, the Town Meeting Facilities Subcommittee and the Electronic Voting and Implementation Subcommittee (ELVIS) invited the public to express its thoughts and opinions about all aspects of town meeting, particularly electronic voting, during a Thursday night forum.

“This is an open forum. We’re here to listen,” said Dennis Berry, chair of the Town Meeting Advisory Committee and Town Meeting Procedures Subcommittee and newly elected town moderator. “Keep in mind we’d rather listen to you than respond, but if you have a question, by all means.”

Before opening the mic for comments, Anette Lewis, member of the Town Meeting Advisory Committee and Town Meeting Procedures Subcommittee, told the audience that numerous positive comments about electronic voting had been received. In addition, however, several comments had indicated areas for improvement.

In particular, Lewis said, many comments asked for the town meeting moderator to use a crib sheet, or script, when calling for votes so that voters received a clear and consistent message regarding the matter up for a vote and what their “aye” or “nay” vote would actually mean.

Overall, the comments from the forum were in favor of the electronic voting system, and the main reasons fell into three categories: Accuracy of the voting, speed of the count (especially in relation to a standing teller count) and privacy.

Susan Wagner, Wayland resident and reporter for the Town Crier, took to the mic first and said she found electronic voting to be “fabulous.”

“I really, really liked it,” she said, adding that it could have been improved with a screen displaying what an “aye” or “nay” vote meant.

“Having some kind of data display monitor is high up on the list of improvements that have been identified,” responded David Bernstein, chair of ELVIS.

Resident Lynne Dunbrack agreed that electronic voting had been a welcome addition to town meeting, though it was the privacy it offered that led to her appreciation for the addition.

“I loved the electronic voting,” Dunbrack said, “and I particularly loved that it was private voting. I know it kind of flies in the spirit of the old town meeting, but unfortunately we live in a different era.”

That new “era,” Dunbrack said, is one in which bullying and pressure from other voters is all too common.

Resident Ira Sagar agreed that bullying seemed less apparent at this year’s town meeting. “There was a change of feeling in the room,” Sagar said. “There was less rancor, because people felt it was a fair process. If there was any tension, it was in the debate, not in the vote.

“I think it [electronic voting] fundamentally improves our democracy in Wayland.”

Linda Segal concurred, saying electronic voting contributed “a different tone and tenor” to the meeting.

The general sentiment was one of approval for the electronic voting system, but the approval seemed to be tempered with slight tweaks and improvements.

Among the suggestions were a data screen, decreasing the amount of time people had to vote; clearer wording from the moderator; even a hybrid style in which voice votes were used for non-contentious articles (recognition of town employees and such) and electronic voting for the articles likely to elicit close votes.

And at least a few residents expressed the feeling that electronic voting either wasn’t worth the cost or was too far a departure from the long-standing (and long-functioning) public voting tradition of New England town meeting.

“It’s not that I feel I need to know anybody’s vote,” Larry Krakauer explained after noting that he would appreciate an electronic voting system capable of recording a roll call vote. “It is a tradition of hundreds of years, I believe. It’s kind of a long tradition to me. This is almost a religious issue among people.”

Jeff Dieffenbach, a resident who could not attend the public forum, submitted a letter to area news outlets and relevant town officials in lieu of his attendance. In his letter, Dieffenbach expressed similar concerns to those of Krakauer, writing “In my opinion, one benefit of public voting is the instant feedback that it offers – we learn from each other, and have the opportunity to adjust our vote in real time if we so choose. Arguably, we end up with better decisions as a result. If Wayland chooses to give up this benefit, so be it, but it should do so thoughtfully.”

In his letter, Dieffenbach advocated for a hybrid voting system in which electronic voting is used only after voice and standing votes prove inconclusive.

In terms of the cost, much remains unknown since this was simply a pilot year designed “partially to educate us as a town and partially to educate the supplier,” Bernstein said.

Early in discussions for the electronic voting pilot, Bernstein said he received a rough ballpark figure of $175,000 to purchase the equipment as a capital acquisition. He added, however, that he didn’t think anyone was advocating Wayland purchase the equipment. Rather, renting the needed items and possibly working with another town to share the cost of the rental was likely a better option.

“A lot of bells and whistles were added into the system to accommodate New England town meeting,” added Alan Reiss, member of ELVIS and the Town Meeting Advisory Committee. He explained that the supplier of this year’s trial had put in a lot of work and adjustments to make its equipment feasible for a town meeting-style situation.

Most of the discussion during the public forum centered on electronic voting, but later in the evening the mic opened to a wide range of thoughts and reflections on this year’s town meeting.

Ranging from the uncomfortable chairs to the desire for public officials to readily respond when questions are posed on the town meeting floor, residents quickly moved beyond electronic voting to other aspects of town meeting.

“One of the things that I find frustrating about this – in fact, it enrages me – is when I see citizens of the town asking questions of selectmen and being totally ignored,” said resident Karl Klapper, adding later that he would advocate for a discussion to begin well before town meeting so that residents could be better informed when they arrived.

“I keep in mind it is a political forum, we’re not in court,” said Berry, regarding the concern that officials answer every question posed on the town meeting floor. “A question is to inform a vote.”

One last issue that seemed to have some support from the people in attendance at the forum was an overarching vote expressing the town’s expectations for next year’s budget. Tom Sciacca said he thought it could further assuage some voters’ concerns if they had the opportunity to voice their expectations for next year’s budget at the previous year’s town meeting.

The forum served as a voicing ground for issues related to town meeting and as an opportunity to inform decisions regarding future town meeting procedures. No decisions were made at the forum and future discussions among committee members will still occur.