A Town Meeting–be it open (OTM) or representative (RTM)–provides a critical opportunity for citizens to check the Selectboard.
Over the past several years, the Selectboard has made decisions that have had a tremendous effect on our community—adopting the Downtown Safety Action Plan, creating a Town emergency medical service, eliminating funding for human services, choosing a new arrangement for solid waste collection, adopting a community conduct ordinance, and allocating federal COVID funds. Not to mention, in the last two years, substantial increases in spending and related tax increases. You may like or dislike some or all of these decisions but, without a Town Meeting, there is little recourse to reverse a Selectboard decision and no avenue for publicly debating it.
With a Town Meeting—and I am comfortable with either one that is open or representative—the budget which encapsulates many of the decisions noted above is subject to a discussion by participants. A discussion in which they can express support or reservations about the budget as a whole or specific lines and one in which they can ask questions. Moreover, and this is vital, a Town Meeting can propose, discuss, and vote on amendments to raise or lower the proposed budget; it also votes to approve or disapprove other articles, all of which can be amended. Although it is true that the intended effect behind a budget amendment is not binding on the Selectboard, that body has traditionally respected the vote of the Meeting. Just because the Meeting can amend the budget—upwards or downwards—it is not the case that it willy nilly tries to rewrite the entire budget. Instead, there have been infrequent and strategic amendments; to mention a few—adding money to push the skatepark over the goal line, boosting the Global Warming Solutions Fund, and financing the hiring of three additional firefighters. In those instances, and others, there was robust debate and, I believe, Meeting members made considered decisions.
“One person, one vote” is a superficially simple appeal. Even so, an Australian ballot, Yes or No, is a blunt instrument in community governance. A sledgehammer, not a scalpel. It limits citizen control, allowing voters only a restricted menu. Either eat whatever the Selectboard serves up or, in rejecting the budget, go hungry. There is no opportunity to offer sensible amendments or to find compromises when there are contending preferences. If the budget or another article is rejected by Australian ballot, there is no clear guidance for the Selectboard as to how to move forward. In the one case in 2025 when RTM rejected the original budget article, there was enough discussion on the floor to allow the Selectboard to develop a revised budget which was passed by RTM, 110 to 4, in a special meeting. Even when there is an affirmative Australian ballot vote, the absence of discussion makes it difficult to assess whether there is grudging or enthusiastic support for Selectboard proposals. Moreover, a Town Meeting requires Selectboard members to explain and justify their decisions, enhancing accountability to the citizens.
I have served as an RTM delegate, and as a member (and periodically chair) of RTM’s Finance Committee. I will vote against rescinding RTM. Allowing for the possibility that RTM may be rescinded, I will happily vote in favor of OTM with the firm conviction that it will engage the citizenry in a thoughtful and effective consideration of Town affairs and will provide a useful and necessary check on the power of the Selectboard. (The Charter Review Commission, after extensive and imaginative study, identified a number of reforms that will make a Town Meeting move more quickly and be more productive.) Because an Australian ballot undercuts public debate, removes any chance to amend articles, and makes it impossible for citizens to work towards compromises that promote community consensus, I will vote no on that question.
