SB2: May 2008 Archives
The Laconia Daily Sun May 23rd, 2008
Letter to the Editor:
The Moultonboro Selectmen recently decided to hold their meetings on the second and fourth Thursday’s during the month of June rather than weekly. Selectman Ed Charest was quoted as saying that the agendas are usually lighter in the summer months, so it makes sense to have fewer meetings.
He further stated that, ‘It could be a good thing. My reading folder is so thick each week. I hate coming here and making decisions with material I haven’t even had time to think about’, as quoted in the Meredith News.
I have to wonder just what he is implying buy such a statement. Is he saying that he is not fully informed when he is voting on how the town spends it's tax dollars? One might conclude that he may be following the votes of his fellow selectmen and not voting being fully informed himself of this issues set before the committee.
This is not unlike the tendency to follow the flow as it may be for many folks at Town Meeting. The idea of not voting along with the majority is intimidating to people at Town Meetings, that’s why SB2 is so important.
Linda Punturieri
Moultonboro, NH
The Citizen May 20th, 2008
Editor, The Citizen: The selectmen just don't get it. At the May 15th selectmen's meeting they refused to read into the minutes a letter to them that was asked to be "read not summarized" in their usual manner. It was then barely summarized, after some rather condescending comments by the chair. It is a sad note when a taxpayer cannot have a note read into the minutes of a selectmen's meeting because it is in disagreement with them.
The letter that caused her disdain was one that challenged the issue of closing all town facilities for Town Meeting Day. On the surface, closing these facilities to allow all town employees to go to Town Meeting would seem a noble effort, at the very least. However, let's take a deeper look at this inane endeavor. If the town proceeds with this false nobility, as they have firmly stated, they will close all facilities "except emergency services". Well where does that leave those that would use the waste management facility? "Go another day" was their firm take. What if the working stiff only has that one day to go? Those non-citizen taxpayers that are forking over the lion's share of our taxes may have something to say when they are refused access to that facility before they want to return to their residences south of here.
How will they manage the "fairness to all employees" issues? Those that will be working are being paid… are those that are taking the forced day off being paid? If not is this to replace their regular day off; or do they just lose that day's pay? If they are getting the day off to go to Town Meeting, will there be a roll call of those employees to assure that this farce is successful? If they are getting paid and they are expected to go to the meeting could this be perceived as collusion for a supportive vote?
Let's jump to the private sector. How do we handle those would-be voters that work on Saturdays for businesses in the area? In this Orwellian World would we expect to see those employees get that day off by edict of the Moultonborough Fiefdom town fathers? Or should all businesses in town be ordered closed for that day? Rather strong you may say. Well the comment was made, seconded and reaffirmed (in a letter answering the protesting citizen) that "town meeting is a part of this town and everyone should be in attendance". We know what they think of those retirees that are enjoying the warmer climes in the south when Town Meeting is being called to order. "Those people that spend months away in the winter don't care what happens in Moultonborough". (Note to Moultonborough retirees: be sure to get your "permission slip" from the selectmen before you head south)
This is not about the good town employees who I think should be able to vote on all town issues. No, this is about all registered voters that should be allowed the same right. The selectmen can't have it both ways. Maintaining the "functionally obsolete" town meeting form of voting but disenfranchising all except town employees (and not all of them… remember "emergency services") is duplicitous, disingenuous and discriminatory. This "noble" effort is no more than a ploy to sidestep the real issue. SB2 is the only fair way to serve all voters and be nonprejudiced to those that are otherwise unable to comply with the demand of the selectmen that we "be in attendance".
Rick Heath
Moultonborough
The Citizen May 10th, 2008
Editor, The Citizen: I would like to commend Paul Dascoulias for his letter to the editor, of May 7th, addressing the intimidation experienced at Sanbornton's town meeting. I understand his plight as it is similar to what some towns encounter if they do not have the SB2 form of government.
As a matter of interest, petitions were circulated, which RSA 40 allows, in Moultonborough for secret ballots for seven warrants, most were $100,000 or more, for the Town Meeting this past March. Some people blamed the resulting voting delay on citizens that backed the SB2 plan for Moultonborough. The real fact is that citizens from both sides of the SB2 issue signed the same petitions for the privacy of the vote and it had nothing to do with intentionally delaying the meeting. It is puzzling to me what all the fuss is about when it comes to voting by secret ballot. We vote by secret ballot in the local, state and national elections.
The beauty of SB2 is the 30 day "cooling" off period between the deliberative session and the actual ballot, giving the voters the opportunity to think about, research and speak with others about the intent and ramifications of each warrant article and especially any amendments. There is no pressure to make an immediate decision or be swayed by a clever on the spot argument that may present only one side of the issue. The polls are open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. giving everyone a chance to participate and allows for absentee ballots for those unable to be present on ballot day. It's a fact that more citizens participate in the process when they are able to vote at the polls vs. a town meeting.
SB2 encourages more voter participation, isn't that what democracy is all about?
Jim Leiterman
Moultonborough
The Citizen May 10th, 2008
Editor, The Citizen: As Sanbornton voters goes to their town meeting next week, participants should be aware that the right for secret ballots for any articles voted on during the town meeting is prescribed by State Law: "RSA40. Government of Town Meeting. At any meeting of a town with a population of more than 500, 5 voters who are present may make a request in writing prior to a vote by voice vote or division vote that the vote be taken by secret written ballot. Upon receiving such a request, the moderator shall conduct the vote by secret "yes-no" ballot."
While some in attendance may feel this is a delaying tactic, it is not. It is a means to allow a fair vote without intimidation... and it is the law. It should be noted that only the moderator (or designee such as town clerk) has the authority to verify the minimum 5 petitioners, not the audience. Per "40:6 Penalty for Default of presiding officer. Any moderator or other officer presiding who shall willfully neglect or refuse to follow the procedures for voting established in RSA 40 or who shall willfully violate or neglect to enforce any rule of proceeding which shall have been established by vote of the town or otherwise, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."
As a proponent of SB2 and therefore full voter participation in government, I support Sanbornton's efforts to get SB2 passed on this years ballot.
Paul Punturieri
Moultonborough
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
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, .......
The Citizen May 7th, 2008
Editor, The Citizen: Sanbornton voters will go to the polls on the 13th of May and assemble for Town Meeting on Wednesday the 14th at 7PM. It looks like, with the proposed budget, taxes will increase significantly. As all who've attended know, Town Meeting, especially in Sanbornton, can be contentious and manipulated by a majority of the few voters that attend. Last year we started the meeting with about 165 of the 2,000 registered voters in town present – very poor attendance.
One of the problems with Town Meeting is intimidation. Any time a vote is due on increasing police or fire budgets, for example, many who oppose the increase are afraid for numerous reasons to raise their hands. Last year several ballot votes were requested on such issues. Ballot votes are permitted under the law when requested in writing by 5 voters in attendance and allow people to vote their consciences in secret and without fear of intimidation. A number of people at last year's meeting were outraged and incensed that, although due process, these ballot votes were in their minds slowing down the meeting. In fact, the meeting was totally turned on end by people yelling that they wanted to know who signed the requests for ballot votes as if to say: "How dare they?" Once names of ballot vote requestors were made known some even proceeded to verbally assault them. Their effort to intimidate failed.
This year there will again be ballot votes requested. These votes will be requested by five voters who will be in attendance for the duration of the meeting. Anyone attending the Sanbornton Town Meeting should be prepared for such. This is not an effort to slow the meeting down, but to allow people to make their decisions on sensitive issues privately, just like they do in the voting booth on Election Day.
We could eliminate all this. If we voted in Senate Bill 2 (SB2), The Official Ballot Referendum, we would have Town Meeting (the Deliberative Session) just like we do now with the moderator working through the warrant. Discussion and amendments would occur, just like now. Voting would take place a couple of weeks later by ballot in the privacy of a booth. This would allow time to mull over/ discuss issues and eliminate having to vote while there are still unanswered questions. It would also remove the intimidation factor.
Peter Dascoulias
Sanbornton
A letter writer from Sanbornton wrote a letter published in Friday’s edition of your paper regarding SB2 and asking voters to turn it down. The “facts” stated in the letter are completely erroneous. She said that voters in Sanbornton have a “chance to affirm our town meeting form of government by rejecting SB2.” False. SB2 is a form of Town Meeting that separates discussion from voting. That’s all. She goes on to state that “SB-2 includes the idea of holding debate and amending warrant articles on one night and then voting on these warrant articles a week or two later.” False. All warrant articles are discussed and amended during the Deliberative Session. Voting on those articles takes place 30 days later during Election Day. Voters now have 30 days to review and understand articles. During Town Meetings, the amendments are coming at the participants in such a manner that may be confusing and not well understood. Voters need to make a rapid decision without time to review the issues. She also stated that “Officials from other towns tell of having articles amended beyond recognition the first night resulting in an uninformed electorate voting on those articles at the later second meeting.”. False again. There have been few incidents of this occurring. In fact the opposite is true. The sky is not falling due to SB2. The reality is that no school districts and only three (3) towns have rescinded SB2. Of those towns, two (2) were tiny with budgets less than $500,000. Lastly, many votes are disenfranchised by Town Meetings as they cannot get there due to work, illness or even military service. Under SB2 their votes count. A vote for SB2 is a vote for more inclusive participation in local government. The only change under SB2 is when and how you vote. Everything else remains the same.
Paul Punturieri
Moultonborough
