A recent question was swiftly and unilaterally closed by a moderator using a special power.
(I'm in favor of our moderators using that special power when it's really necessary. I'm not going to ask moderators to stop doing that! I understand that in a low-traffic site, it's helpful for a moderator to be able to close a question quickly and single-handedly, when it's an open-and-shut case.)
When the reopen votes started coming in, I think one of our four moderators should have reopened the question and then cast a normal vote to close. At that point, a more measured and democratic process could ensue, with people voting to keep it open or voting to close it.
Once in a while, it's not an open and shut case, and I'd like to see moderators make more of a distinction, please.
Anyone who agrees is invited to upvote, and anyone who disagrees is invited to downvote. (If you think things are more complicated, please feel free to post an answer with a different point of view.)
Related question, for the moderators: do you feel your moderating team has the right amount of manpower? I wouldn't want you to burn out. (What would we do without you here?) I can see the moderators working hard to do the necessary housekeeping here. I'm just wondering if you would like to recruit one or two reinforcements (additional moderator or moderators). There are a bunch of regular participants who check the site frequently, have shown excellent judgment and tact, would wield the special moderator powers wisely, and could help with moderating duties if you want to widen your moderating committee. (I personally don't visit regularly enough but there are some strong participants who do.)