To the editor Laconia Daily Sun May 8th, 2008
On a cold, dark and windy March evening a small group of citizens assembles to participate in what some have called “the purest form of Democracy,” the Town Meeting. The assembly of citizens in small New England towns is upheld by many as “tradition.” Some would even call it a “sacred tradition.” Tradition it is; but, like having to go out and hunt for the Thanksgiving turkey, most things, to include traditions, change. Numerous letters and editorials have pointed out that the days when the majority of citizens in town
assembled to discuss the past and the next year’s goings on and then enjoyed a pot luck supper are long gone. Today we routinely fi nd that a small minority of the few thousand citizens in a town show up for the annual Town Meeting. Ten percent, or less, is a good estimate. Are they informed? The presumption of the “traditionalists”seems to be that they are, or will be, once they hear the arguments for and against the various issues to be brought before them at the town meeting. The belief of the “reformists,” or those who support Senate Bill 2, is that there is no way that anyone should be asked to listen to both sides of a debate and make a decision when someone who feels that the “tide” is fl owing in their favor yells: “Call the question.” “Wait a minute, I still have a question,” many say as they look to the left and right confused and concerned. “I don’t understand ...” “Sorry, it doesn’t matter whether you understand or not, .......
TOP
cast your vote,” comes the answer. To have to vote without fully understanding the issue is a “diffi cult pill to swallow” when you’ve been discussing an amendment to an amendment to a
complicated warrant article. It’s frustrating. But, those who are skilled in the game of the Town Meeting know how to play it. They know when to “hold ‘em” and when to “fold ‘em”, forget what is best for the majority. To its credit, Senate Bill 2 provides for time between the debate and the vote. Why aren’t the majority of voters at Town Meeting? There are many reasons: some are serving in the military; some are at home with young children; some have to be up very early to commute to work; some are at work; some are disabled; some are too old to want to sit for fi ve to six hours in a meeting; some are vacationing; some go south for the winter; some are sick. Any and all of these are good reasons for not being able to attend. Changing the date or time of the meeting is not going to negate most of them. They will still stand. Senate Bill 2 would allow all of these people to vote. A past editorial noted that there are tradeoffs with Senate Bill 2: “For instance, SB-2 essentially shuts the resident out of the budget forming process, and they can only take action on the bottom line.” That’s not an accurate statement. The budget forming process can be infl uenced by the public in many places. First of all, we elect persons to serve on the Budget Committee. Secondly, all of the Budget Committee meetings are public, with public comment frequently allowed. Thirdly, once the Budget Committee and selectmen have developed their budgets, there is a public budget hearing where input is taken. Finally, individual warrant articles that could add to the operating budget can be amended at the deliberative session. These are all areas where residents can infl uence the budget process, even with Senate Bill 2. The editorial went on to say that the deliberative session is “easily the weakest link in the process” because the majority of members present could change, perhaps with “ridiculous amendments,” any of the articles on the warrant. Isn’t that just like town meeting? You bet it is. In citing a “worst case [SB- 2] scenario,” the editorial describes a “small group of like-minded people” with an agenda showing up at the deliberative session and significantly changing the articles on the warrant to radically impact the way the town operates. The amended warrant would then replace the existing warrant, causing the work of the Budget Committee and selectmen to be lost and not allowing the voters in March to take advantage of the work done by the people they elected into offi ce. Bingo! That is exactly what’s happened at Sanbornton’s Town Meeting over the past several years. In fact in the past, hundreds of hours of work done by the selectmen and Budget Committee to put together a budget that would provide for the needs of the town and limit the burden on the taxpayers went out the window when a couple of “ridiculous amendments” were made to augment the budgets of the police department and the library. The additional costs cited in the library amendment were already included in the budget brought before the meeting by the selectmen and the Budget Committee, but were voted in and doubly funded because people (yes, even at Town Meeting) didn’t understand what they were voting on. Actually, they did understand. The meeting at that point was hijacked by a special interest group. Unfortunately, a vote had to be taken on the spot.The special interest group knew it. To vote against the library and the police department by show of hands in a public forum is like voting against motherhood and apple pie. Even if people disagree, they don’t want it to be known in public for fear of retribution. “Gee, if I don’t vote in favor of a higher raise for the police than for everyone else, will they respond as quickly in an emergency?” “Will they single me out for a speeding ticket?” “What will my neighbors think if I don’t vote in favor of the library — that I’m against learning?” Oh no, there’s no voter intimidation at Town Meeting... There most certainly is, but such intimidation would be eliminated with Senate Bill 2 which provides for voting in the privacy of a booth. Senate Bill 2 would work very well in cooperative
school districts too. That’s because typically there is no facility that allows a majority of voters from two or three towns to get together to discuss school issues, even if they want to. And, the same reasons for non-attendance at town meetings apply to school district meetings Senate Bill 2 has resulted in record voter turnout in Gilford and has been said to be the best thing voters have done to protect themselves against ever-increasing municipal budgets. Belmont just voted it in. Educating the public on what SB-2 is all about has been tough. Perhaps one of the factors that has hurt passage of Senate Bill 2 the most is its title. People hear “Senate Bill 2” and immediately think bureaucraticbunk. In my view, a title like “The Voters’ Rights Bill” might have been more appropriate. Slowly but surely voters are beginning to understand SB-2 and what it means to their communities; and that’s a good thing, for the strength of a democracy lies in voter participation.
Peter Dascoulias
Sanbornton
Leave a comment