By Michael Coughlin Jr.
At its monthly meeting in October, the Community Alliance of Mission Hill (CAMH) held a vote in which a narrow majority of voters deemed eligible by the organization opposed Tipsy’s Market’s proposal to upgrade its existing beer and wine license to include spirits.
“At last month’s meeting, we had many folks speak in support,” said Kristen Scanlon, an attorney who presented the proposal to CAMH.
She also mentioned that Tipsy’s would commit to not selling nips or singles if they were granted the license upgrade and responded to a concern raised during September’s meeting when this proposal was first presented.
Some attendees questioned the support that Tipsy’s received from Fenway High School. At the September meeting, Scanlon said they had received support from the school and read the support letter aloud.
However, attendees argued that the letter did not specifically support the license upgrade but supported Tipsy’s as an entity.
In addressing these concerns at the latest meeting, Scanlon said, “Harry [Patel, one of the owners] did have a follow-up conversation with them regarding the language of their letter. At this time, they’re not inclined to change the language.”
“They’re generally supportive of the business, but they’re not opposing the application to upgrade the license.”
Scanlon also noted that Tipsy’s had received a letter of support from Mission Hill Main Streets regarding the license upgrade.
Following Scanlon’s brief proposal recap, some attendees asked questions about the percentage of groceries versus alcohol in store, others spoke in support, and some wanted the vote to be called to save time.
Eventually, another resident requested that the proposal go to a vote, which prompted an even more extensive discussion and debate about voter verification.
An emailed document from CAMH leadership about the results and circumstances of the vote reads, “The meeting held on 10/16/24 had an online attendance that exceeded the usual levels by at least 2-3-fold, where most attendees appeared to be new to CAMH.”
“Eligibility to vote of new online attendees, unknown to documented CAMH members, could obviously not be immediately verified,” it added.
As part of CAMH by-laws, an individual must live in the neighborhood and have attended a prior meeting to vote on a proposal. New members must be verified with “official documentation of MH residency that includes name, current date, and address” and “recorded participation in at least one prior CAMH meeting over the past year.”
This issue caused a debate in which attendees suggested delaying the vote to verify voters’ eligibility. However, the abovementioned document indicated that the applicants did not favor postponing the vote because it would delay them from bringing the proposal to the Licensing Board.
After a lengthy discussion that included multiple viewpoints, CAMH leadership devised a solution to have the vote as scheduled, with a twist.
Those who attended the meeting in person voted as usual. However, those who attended on Zoom had to email their vote to the CAMH email with proof of residency.
“Only some of the Zoom attendees opted to vote via Email. Messages received by the deadline were tabulated and thoroughly evaluated by three board members with differing opinions on the proposal. If in doubt, all evidence to suggest current MH residency was counted in the submitter’s favor,” read the document.
“However, there was also clear evidence that many had submitted votes despite not participating in a CAMH meeting prior to 10/16/24, leading to mandatory disqualification of corresponding votes consistent with eligibility criterion.”
Ultimately, the final vote was 12-11 in opposition, with one voter abstaining. For more information about CAMH, visit https://www.camh.boston/. According to its website, the next CAMH meeting is scheduled for November 20.