Responding to comments to my post about RTM on Sept 17th:
Since last read comments remain most in mind I shall respond first to the statement that you “could buy the argument that RTM members were more informed if about 140 attended Selectboard meetings.” First, it isn’t clear if you are saying that all 140 should attend all 25 or so meetings each year or some members attend some. The next obvious question is: how many SB meetings should be required of voters choosing to attend an Open mtg? How would we ascertain this in either case? But we should put this aside because it gets into enactment details before we have a goal to act upon. There is a deeper implied issue. Should there be any qualifications at all?
We have answered that with a yes. One has to be a registered voter. Well, not exactly. The State answered that with a yes and we follow the law. For arguments sake let’s say we agree with state law and would do the same. Why to we require town meeting members to be registered voters? The only reason I can think of is that we believe that if someone went to the trouble to register they have an interest in town affairs. But this really isn’t true. It may be that they only have an interest in state and national affairs and town affairs are simply there is they catch their eye. In fact it appears that there should be no qualification for voting at town meeting other than being at least a 16 year old resident. That is, is there any reason to assume that a registered voter would make a better decision than any resident 16 or older? I see none.
Unless one argues that registering to vote, an act that takes effort, does suggest the likelihood of better decision-making. If so, why? If one argues that registering to vote shows a higher interest then would it not follow that going to the trouble to get elected as a representative, and the responsibility one feels to the neighbors that chose them will improve decisions to an even better degree? The town thought so 65 years ago. To enhance the quality even further it was decided to expand the Town Report and issue one to every representative.
Many more qualifications could be added such as attending every town meeting one was elected to attend or lose ones seat for some period of time.
In other words, instead of degrading qualifications and quality we seek ways of improving it.
This brings us back to the ideas of democracy itself. Is it served best by the belief that any opinion is as good as any other or are we looking for the most well informed decisions?
Imagine this: every other Tuesday the Selectboard discusses the items on its agenda. At the end of each discussion every person, present or online, votes on the decision. Perhaps we don’t need any town meeting at all! Why not vote on the budget or a bond or any item at all at the bi-weekly SB meetings? We could reduce the SB duties to just signing off on the bills and hiring the Town Manager. The TM would produce a biweekly agenda, attendees at the meeting would speak to them as they wish and everyone at the meeting would vote. If these ideas seem preposterous try and explain why? A lot to learn in that exercise.
