Because the media are not perfect, there are three misconceptions that persist about the amendments and I would like to clear them up in these last days before the election.
First, the charter clearly shows how the representative town meeting (RTM) restricted the rights to call for votes. Anyone can check this our on the town web site: See brattleboro.org, click “Charter, ordinances” > “charter”.
The RTM did uselessly lower a signature requirement but at the same time authorized
themselves to vote first and block the petitioned article from the ballot. Their revision (charter article III 2 B)
says:
> The selectboard or school directors, upon receipt of such petition, shall place the article on the
warning for the next REPRESENTATIVE town or town
school district meeting.
> A binding initiative article PASSED BY THE REPRESENTATIVE town meeting shall be acted upon by all
voters of the town . . .
Here is an example of how the RTM revisions have discouraged free speech. After the budget referendum last May (2014) the selectboard was revising the budget, some people wanted a petition on the police-fire project – either way for or against . Because of other revisions by the RTM it couldn’t get on the ballot until this March (2015).
Second, about term limits for RTM. Term limits in this case are not about creating openings. For years I have been encouraging people to join the RTM. They never say “It’s hard to get elected.” Many say they want to abolish RTM altogether. And others don’t want to join that group of people. Term limits are about creating turnover so. that new people WANT to join.
Third, the town grand juror is a local DA and will enforce town ordinances and resolutions without putting extra load on the police department. The office is only obsolete if you want no local control over how law is enforced.
For those who want to look closer the Pro-Democracy Amendments are a fair slate of election reforms designed to restore our free-speech rights and enhance voter participation.
