How is Representative Town Meeting (RTM) better than the “normal” open Town Meeting that every other Vermont town uses?
Taken on its own merits in a vacuum, RTM is a fine concept. But we don’t live in a vacuum; we live in the state of Vermont. If there were 30 people running for 14 seats, and there were platforms and discussions and a system of accountability between representative and those being represented, then it would be great – but we have 14 people running for 30 seats and it’s not clear who’s representing what. If there were so many people attending Town Meeting that it was impractical to allow everyone to participate in a Robert’s Rules style meeting, then I can see where RTM would be a good alternative – but space doesn’t seem to be an issue.
We’re the one and only place in Vermont that does this, so there’s no body of institutional knowledge and issues (and even routine actions) frequently require legal reviews. We’re the one and only place in Vermont that does this, so people who move here don’t have a vote until they a) first recognize the fact that they can’t vote in an open Town Meeting and b) go through the hassle of becoming TM Reps (a very low bar these days, but a bar nonetheless). We’re the one and only place in Vermont that does this; sometimes different isn’t better.
Chris did some excellent research in how RTM came to Brattleboro and wrote an outstanding two-part origin story: Part 1, Origins and Adoption, and Part 2, Reaction and Repeal (spoiler: the repeal didn’t last).
I took away two main reasons for switching to RTM. One: there wasn’t a space big enough to hold the meeting attendees. Two: too few people were voting, and that allowed a group of people interested in an issue to vote in or out something that wasn’t in line with the will of the rest of the townspeople. Aside from those two reasons contradicting each other (!), I don’t believe the first issue is a problem with the gym at the high school, and I don’t think RTM addresses the second issue, if it is one, at all. A key part of democracy and voting is simply showing up – if not many people vote on something, then the outcome obviously isn’t important to the rest. RTM’s message for ordinary residents is that unless you’re a TM Rep, don’t even bother showing up. If the TM Reps want more people to get involved, first they should get rid of the system that actively discourages people from doing so. According to the piece Chris wrote, the Reformer told readers “Brattleboro would have a more stable system of governing, and their interests as voters would be better represented by the inquisitive and civic-minded citizens they vote to attend for them.” Brattleboro has had RTM for over 50 years, and I don’t believe it’s more stable than open Town Meetings or that voters are any better represented.
I don’t think an open Town Meeting would look much different from the current RTM – a few more people would show up, some would have been to info meetings and some wouldn’t, some would understand the complex issues and some wouldn’t. The differences are that it wouldn’t deliberately exclude any legally registered voters of the town, and (knowing that not everyone could make it to the meeting) some issues would be set for town-wide ballot instead of floor discussions. Granted, open Town Meeting has a host of issues – but those are issues that are common across Vermont and Vermonters understand them and either accept them or work around them.
— Additional Info added on December 30 —
Clearly people are interested in how other places do it (including me). So – below is a list of the ten municipalities with the highest populations in Vermont (per Department of Health 2013 estimates) and what I’ve gleaned about their systems from their charters and websites.
- City of Burlington – 42,284 – mayor and councilors from 8 wards (up from 7 as of March 2015); annual City Meeting (Section 3-6 of their charter, when called for by city council or petition?)
- Town of Essex – 20,526 – five member selectboard; annual Town Meeting evening in early March for any business not on Australian ballot
- City of South Burlington – 18,612 – five member city council; annual City Meeting on date council establishes
- Colchester – 17,299 – five member selectboard; annual Town Meeting first Tuesday in March, but business which may be decided without Australian ballot takes place the evening before
- City of Rutland – 16,126 – mayor and 11 aldermen; special meeting when petitioned
- Town of Bennington – 15,519 – seven member selectboard; default Town Meeting
- Town of Brattleboro – 11,798 – five member selectboard; Representative Town Meeting of up to 140 elected voters
- Town of Milton – 10,572 – five member selectboard; open Town Meeting first Tuesday in March
- Town of Hartford – 9,812 – seven member selectboard; Australian ballot on first Tuesday in March, annual Town Meeting on fourth Saturday after election day to consider non-ballot items (and budgets, if those fail the election-day vote)
- Town of Springfield – 9,257 – five member selectboard; annual Town Meeting evening before first Tuesday in March for non-ballot issues
I didn’t look up their forms of governance, but here’s the population of the cities that aren’t in the top 10: Barre – 8,927, Montpelier – 7,755, Winooski – 7,239, St. Albans – 6,976, Newport – 4,520, and Vergennes – 2,588.
For reference, the default rule for Town Meeting (Vermont Statutes Online, Title 17 Chapter 55 Section 2640) is: “A meeting of the legal voters of each town shall be held annually on the first Tuesday of March for the election of officers and the transaction of other business…”
— End of additional info —
I am not a fan of Representative Town Meeting. Perhaps I am not seeing RTM’s benefits; the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. So, ranting aside, a serious question – given the alternative of having an open Town Meeting like other Vermont towns, how is Representative Town Meeting better?
Burlington
What do they do up there?
Cities are Definitely Different
There are nine cities in Vermont: Barre, Burlington, Montpelier, Newport, Rutland, St. Albans, South Burlington, Vergennes, and Winooski. Each has its own charter (link to Vermont Statutes Online below) but I believe they all have mayors (yet still have provisions for special meetings of their legal voters). More to the point, at least from my perspective as a lifelong Vermonter, everyone knows those places are cities, not towns, which indicates that their governing system is different. RTM might be more appropriate if we lived in the Republic of Brattleboro (anyone else remember Bernie Sanders’ early days in Burlington?).
Vermont Statutes Online, Title 24 Appendix: Municipal Charters
I’m not saying a mayoral system might not be better for Brattleboro then either open or Representative Town Meeting; I’m just asking how RTM is better than what the rest of Vermont towns do.
Burlington's system of government
It looks like Burlington has a mayor and a city council. There are seven wards and each ward has two councilors.
Some people have recommended that we have elected leadership here in Brattleboro with a mayor and council. That is what Rutland does, as well. I believe this means no town meeting per se.
Burlington has a population of 42,400 – mayor and council
South Burlington has a population of 17,900 – council
Rutland has a population of 16,400 – mayor and council
Brattleboro has a population of 12,000 – selectboard and RTM
All of this came from the various Vermont city websites. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Andy
Population Size and Open meeting
Hartford Vermont, (which includes White River Junction and four other villages) has almost 10,000 people. Are they an open meeting town?
I believe so.
Hartford, VT
Yes, they do a traditional Town Meeting. Here is the link to the town’s admin page:
http://www.hartford-vt.org/content/administration/
Five villages/towns: Hartford, West Hartford, White River Jct, Quechee and Wilder.
Town Meeting
The Town of Bennington, which has a population of about 9,000, but is very similar to Brattleboro, has an open town meeting. It is held the Monday night before regular town meeting day.
From the link that Andy Provided for Hartford Vermont
“The Town of Hartford is organized and governed under the traditional Town Meeting form of government of many New England communities. This form of government is thought by many to be the purest and most direct form of democracy remaining in the United States today.
Under this form of government, residents gather each year in March to make their opinions heard and cast their votes on matters of public interest such as the Annual Budget, adoption of local ordinances, and other policy-related matters.
A nonpartisan Board of Selectmen, elected for two and three-year staggered terms, is then charged with managing the affairs of the community. Generally speaking, the Selectmen insure that all of the duties imposed upon the Town and its other officials or staff are performed in a timely and cost-effective manner. More specifically, Selectmen may enact ordinances and rules in areas including, but not limited to, the following:
traffic regulation
nuisances
maintaining public highways
filling vacancies for local officials
animal control
short-term borrowing
managing solid waste
issuance of licenses for various activities (liquor sales, restaurants, junkyards, etc.)
zoning bylaws
public recreation programs
warning of the annual Town Meeting
annual operating budget and supervision of Town expenditures.
Hartford voters have elected to appoint a professional Town Manager to assist the Board of Selectmen with the execution of their duties. Under this form of government, many of the day-to-day responsibilities traditionally charged to the Selectmen are transferred to the person holding this position. The Town Manager is responsible for managing the day-to-day affairs of the Town, administration of the annual budget, supervision of employees, hiring and firing of staff, setting salaries, and enforcing personnel policies. The Town Manager also functions as the Delinquent Tax Collector and as the Director of Personnel and Purchasing. At all times and in all matters, the Manager is subordinate to and takes direction from the Board of Selectmen.”
“The Board meets every other Tuesday night to take action on a wide variety of public business. These meetings are held in the Town Offices and begin at 6:30 pm. Persons wishing to have specific items considered by the Board must submit these materials in writing no later than 12:00 noon on the Wednesday preceding the Selectmen’s scheduled meeting. The public is welcome to attend.
Other matters of interest or concern may be forwarded directly to the Town Manager’s Office for immediate attention.”
What is frustrating to me is . . .
That anyone can say that the voting down of the budget was not clearly precipitated by
a citizen rejection of the fire and police station expansion really bothers me.
It seems intentionally, willfully disregarding the evidence that this was the chief complaint that voters had. Is that debatable? Yes,it is debatable, and that is the problem that needs to be addressed if this a democratically run town.
“We don’t know what the voters really wanted” must be paired with taking every effort to make sure that town’s citizens can express exactly what the want. Otherwise, claiming that the voters’ will is unfathomable is just a screen to create “plausible deniability”, instead of expressing a crucial problem. The crucial problem being of course, that the voters will cannot be clearly expressed.
Is there really any other solution to this fundamental problem OTHER than open meeting?
Why wouldn’t we choose open meeting ? I fail to see any advantage to representational town meeting. It seems like it creates the same disconnect between majority opinion and government that exists at the national level.
Rejection of Project or Total Tax Burden?
I posted earlier in somewhat of a hurry, suggesting that the (proposed but uncollected) Police Fire Project (PFP) $45 contribution was only the straw that broke the camel’s back for a $200,000 homeowner’s total FY15 tax bill of $5,627. Tonight, with 20/20 hindsight, I regret hijacking my own RTM thread to make PFP comments… so I apologize and I’m redacting them.
I completely agree with Rolf. Towns with “normal” annual meetings end up with two general kinds of questions, Australian ballots and floor discussions. The ballot issues are usually very carefully worded so that there is no question whether or not people are voting for or against something specific. Floor discussions are by their nature much more free-flowing, but because of the discussion and debate there is again usually little question where people stand when the amendments are done and the final vote is taken. Pass or fail, RTM initiatives rarely offer this kind of clarity or insight into the will of the community.
Well done, sir
I almost launched into a Police and Fire Department conversation myself. There is a lot to say about the camel and its back. But the mammoth of RTM needs its own time.
Next question, what are the steps for citizens to change from RTM to Open Town Meeting?
Much to consider here
Great questions and comments, everyone… and an important conversation about democracy. What is the best way for us to govern ourselves? And if we choose to reject Town Meeting, what would we like to see replace it?
Glenn made a good point above, that RTM is really quite wonderful in theory, but in practice it appears to fall short. It probably could be made to work better, but that would require representatives to do more of what was originally envisioned of them, and non-reps to have more interaction with their reps throughout the year.
Should we all make an effort to improve RTM? Previous charter changes and adjustments have improved some aspects of the system (petitions with enough signatures must be put on the warning), but have also introduced new hurdles (registering to be a write-in). Further tweaking could be an option.
Should we get a petition going to reject RTM and introduce a mayoral system?
Should we get a petition going to reject RTM and return to a regular Town Meeting?
Should we invent something entirely new and aim to have a secure, online way for all to participate throughout the year?
In any event, any attempt to reject RTM will be seen as a threat by some. It will be interesting who finds it threatening, and to find out why.
Other Vermont Cities and Towns
(I added info to original post since I didn’t want a big chunk of text blocking Chris’s last post – feel free to delete this.)
RTM is Flawed
In general I favor direct democracy over representative democracy, and I favor making decisions in unity (yes, it is possible) over balloting or majority rule. But representative systems are what we have to work with in this country. The decision was taken in Brattleboro to have Representative Town Meeting. Except for one HUGE flaw, I am still willing to give it a try.
The flaw is that perhaps out of mere convenience, it was decided to use the three State legislative districts as Brattleboro’s “wards” or voting precincts, and to elect the Representatives ‘at large’ from them. This results in much less direct representation than, say, if there were maybe 27 districts or wards. I favor 27 because it is divisible by 3 and there could thus be, say, 9 much smaller neighborhood-based voting wards in each of which perhaps 5 representatives would be elected (my rough estimate of an appropriate number given the assumption that we would want to keep the current approximate size of the RTM gatherings).
This way, people would be electing their closer neighbors to represent them, and would necessarily and obviously feel that their representatives were more accountable to them, and vice versa.
There is another reason for RTM which wasn’t mentioned. Whether you have RTM or a traditional Town Meeting, in the population as a whole, there are people who are more, or less, able to represent or to take part in such a gathering. Having a RTM system gives people, the voters, a chance to decide who their most appropriate representatives or spokespeople are. I find after years of serving the Town in various capacities (RTM member since 2011) that getting enough people to step forward for service is sometimes quite problematic, especially in harder economic times. And in any times, it will be more difficult to get working-class people to step forward, for reasons of pure economic exigency.
Of course this whole question begs the idea or observation that systems of representative governance are necessarily elitist. But then, even if we had traditional Town Meeting, there would be some who felt called to serve and some not, and some who have the time (and other discretionary resources) to do so and some not. So having RTM gives Brattleboro residents a chance to ‘opt into’ the governance system, yet in the past few years anyway, we have been challenged to get enough Representatives to make the system work.
I hope people see that having 27 wards instead of 3 would make Brattleboro politics more grass-roots, populist, and essentially democratic.
Fixing the flaws
Representative Town meeting may be flawed, but it is fixable. It began as an attempt to solve the problem of how to govern a larger town and still retain Town Meeting.
One easily fixable flaw is that the reps are elected at large from 3 districts. This makes no sense. Who do the 140-odd reps really represent?
There are clearly recognizable neighborhoods and sub-neighborhoods in Brattleboro. I live in one such, nicknamed “FEET” (Flat-Elliot-Elm Triangle). Reps would actually run for office and be elected to rep a specific constituency. Each neighborhood could elect, say 5 persons, to represent and be responsive to them, holding meetings several times a year (On Neighborhood Meeting days?)
While we’re the only Representative meeting in Vermont, Rep Meetings exist in other states. I worked with a guy who was a Town Rep in Stamford Connecticut. (Actually, Stamford, with a population of 125,000. Is a city with a Mayor and a Board of Representatives.)
Each Rep specifically served one of Stamford’s approximately 50 neighborhoods. In addition, each rep was mandated to serve on at least 5 of the city’s various other boards or committees.
In a Reformer op-ed (Direct democracy and representative government) Attorney Paul Gillies had some things to say about town meeting:
“Among Vermont’s most cherished institutions is Town Meeting. For years it has been under siege from an unlikely source — administrative efficiency. Officials dream of being able to make the right decisions without the interference of the public, but democracy isn’t efficient. It depends on the sharing of power. An “X” in one box or another is a poor substitute for a public debate over an issue. Taking an hour to vote is far more convenient than having to attend a meeting, and turnout is always twice to three times the size of the voters at a town meeting (an argument hard to dismiss).
But if democracy is reduced to casting ballots in elections of officials and the adoption of budgets and bond issues, something important has been lost: the voters’ voice. The power of the electorate has been narrowed into a set of questions, with no opportunity for the voters to participate in the wording of the questions. That’s the great benefit of a town meeting, where by amending the article as warned, the voters can articulate what they want to be done, refining action and defining authority. But town meeting is a system for small towns. It becomes less legitimate when the population grows too large.
Brattleboro, on paper, is the most progressive municipality in Vermont. Its charter, creating Vermont’s only representative town meeting system, was one of the late Robert Gannett’s greatest legacies, as it maturely dealt with the problem of how to govern a larger town and retain Town Meeting. As a counterweight to the ceding of power of the voters to representatives, the charter guarantees powers of initiative, referendum, and recall to the voters.
Gillies then goes on about initiative, referendum, and recall, which are not about town meeting, but which Brattleboro has been making use of.
Back to Town Meeting. I think we ought to consider correcting the flaws in the existing system instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Ideas???
improving the current system
I like the idea of smaller districts. Communication between citizens and reps could be improved making both representation and accountability stronger. Maybe somewhere between 3 and 27!
Someone else on iBrattleboro brought up technology as a tool for greater participation.
I do know that RTM will be facing some big questions come March 2015 – no so far away. Could a forum such as iBrattleboro or Facebook (OMG) be harnessed to increase the input to town meeting reps?
Thanks for your perspectives on the origins of RTM.
Andy
Where is the baby ?
All I see is grey bath water.
In other words, what advantages are there to representative town meeting over open meeting?
Right now, when we look at the statements regarding the fire and police project, we have proof that the will of the general population can be deemed unknowable and then ignored.
What does town rep meeting get us?
Representative Town meeting
Representative Town meeting began as an attempt to solve the problem of how to govern a larger town and still retain Town Meeting.
I think it can be tweaked so that it does so.
The tweak is to increase the two-way communication between the Reps and the voters. The Reps have to directly represent their constituents.
I believe it can be done.
How?
That is the way to correct the current RTM.
How would you accomplish an increase in two-way communication between Reps and voters, given that it hasn’t happened in over 50 years? What’s the missing ingredient?
Of course, the school meeting is an open public meeting for everyone in town, and hardly anyone goes. Should the schools institute a representative system as well? Should current reps for Town Meeting be required to attend the school meeting? Why or why not?
How Are Elected Representatives Better Then Self-Selected Ones?
I agree with the premise that a Representative Town Meeting (RTM) might be a good democratic alternative between a very large meeting of all legal voters and a very small council meeting – I think it certainly could work, and of course the town has survived it for over 50 years. However, it has meant Brattleboro is the only Vermont town without an open meeting. My two cents on how it could work better: a) call Brattleboro a city (since they have unique forms of government) and rename it Representative Meeting (RM) so there’s no confusion; and b) align districts and voters so there is a clear understanding that those elected represent a specific set of people – that might be by increasing the number of wards or decreasing the number of reps, or probably some combination of both. While we’re at it, specify whether those elected are supposed to be delegates, voting the will of their constituents, or trustees, voting for what they believe are the best interests of their constituents (not always the same thing) and DO have them go to school meetings.
However, I fundamentally disagree with the notion that RTM was somehow necessary or appropriate for a town the size of Brattleboro (was there really a problem to solve – and if so, does RTM solve it?). This town has not grown suddenly or remarkably over the last 80 years – from the Department of Health census data linked above, these are the population figures for Brattleboro over the decades: 1930 – 9,816, 1940 – 10,983, 1950 – 11,522, 1960 – 11,734, 1970 – 12,239, 1980 – 11,886, 1990 – 12,241, 2000 – 12,005, 2010 – 12,046, and 2013 – 11,798. Essex and Colchester have much larger populations than Brattleboro and maintain an annual meeting. The Town of Milton, MA (where Robert Gannett was from) has (and had in 1960) a population of around 27,000. The population of Stamford CT is over 126,000.
My question remains: how is RTM better? The only answer anyone has posted is that potentially people who would not otherwise be able to attend TM can be heard through their representatives. I think that would be a good answer if it worked that way, but I don’t believe that it does. I believe instead that it has slowly but surely discouraged “normal” voters from paying attention to and participating in local government. If I can’t vote on the town budget, how much attention should I pay to it? Why should I go to information meetings on it? Why should I heed calls to work on committees when I’m not invited to RTM to vote on the work with the cool kids? Certainly a number of people do these things anyway, and I don’t believe there would suddenly be thousands of people at school board meetings or open Town Meetings if RTM went away tomorrow, but RTM discourages public engagement instead of encouraging it.
If Brattleboro suddenly had a default Town Meeting this March, what would change? All the current TM Representatives would still be able to attend, speak, and vote – as would the rest of the legal voters. Instead of the back-and-forth of an RTM vote, followed by public vote, followed by discussions of why neither one of them really represented what the majority of voters wanted, questions could be queued up, asked, and answered once (while still allowing for initiatives, referendums, and recalls). Open Town Meetings do indeed have a host of problems – they’re the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried (including RTM, apologies to Churchill).
I Don't Think So
You said:
“My question remains: how is RTM better? The only answer anyone has posted is that potentially people who would not otherwise be able to attend TM can be heard through their representatives. I think that would be a good answer if it worked that way, but I don’t believe that it does. I believe instead that it has slowly but surely discouraged “normal” voters from paying attention to and participating in local government. If I can’t vote on the town budget, how much attention should I pay to it? Why should I go to information meetings on it? Why should I heed calls to work on committees when I’m not invited to RTM to vote on the work with the cool kids? Certainly a number of people do these things anyway, and I don’t believe there would suddenly be thousands of people at school board meetings or open Town Meetings if RTM went away tomorrow, but RTM discourages public engagement instead of encouraging it.”
Consider yourself invited … yet again. I have previously posted on this site that the RTM Finance Committee needs members … right now I am the only one, and I cannot ‘be’ a committee by myself. There are also places for you to sit at RTM in March, and you will be recognized if you wish to comment there. We are not “cool kids” and I resent the inference. I wish things were different and I have previously written here that RTM is flawed, and why. The more people repeat the saw “RTM discourages public engagement”, the less I believe it. Why? Because you’re not jumping all over each other to run for Town Representative. Neither are you calling myself or Lawrin Crispe, Town Moderator, to volunteer to help the Finance Committee give a report to Representative Town Meeting in March.
Questions
How has public engagement been encouraged by the representative form of Town Meeting?
What is the good reason for not having a regular Town Meeting?
And again, assuming it is better with representatives, should the schools adopt a representative form of Town School Meeting?
Dung polishing
I’ll refrain from the vulgarities, but no matter how much you polish representative town meeting, it will never be Town Meeting.
Thank You, But...
I personally will never participate in RTM (at least as long as Brattleboro is a town) because, while it is clearly legal and the system that we have, I think it is simply wrong and I wont be a part of it. In fact I started to join the Finance Committee until right before the first meeting I realized that it’s a committee of the RTM, not a town committee, and I backed out (sorry). I am happy to help the town, and I would like to think I do so in some small ways, but I will not have anything to do with RTM …and since I can’t even participate in the most basic level of Town Meeting, I don’t feel that I can participate by running for the school board or selectboard (or being in RTM committees).
The catch-22 is that the only (realistic) way to get rid of RTM is to have the TM Reps decide to do so. Enough voters could get together, but most voters who get interested probably accept the invitation and either become TM reps or get disillusioned by the process. In 2010-11 the town went through a charter review where I think they looked at RTM, but I believe all the members of that commission were TM Reps and I don’t know that rescinding it has been seriously considered. I think the reality is that there just aren’t many more people interested in town politics. While Essex has a Town Meeting, they apparently only have about 250 people who attend, which is roughly the same ratio as 150 for Brattleboro. So – most of the people who really want to participate, are probably already participating; RTM just makes it a little harder on them and in the process discourages people from wanting to participate. As much as I rail against RTM, I honestly don’t think that an open Town Meeting in Brattleboro would look very much different at all, at least for the first few years.
This is a very personal issue for me and I recognize that I am unreasonably obstinate about it (and probably in a very small minority of people who even care). However, I also see it as a completely black and white issue – discussions of how to “fix it” miss the point – this isn’t how Vermont towns work. Legal voters of Vermont towns have open town meetings… except here, where 50 years ago the residents decided to deprive future legal voters of that right. I retired to Brattleboro essentially because it was as close to as much family as I could get and still stay in Vermont (I thought). I love being a Vermonter, and to me Town Meeting – even if you choose not to attend – is at the core of that experience and the building block for getting integrated into the community. I am, of course, just one person, and I have no illusions that if only I were able to participate in an open Town Meeting, I would be able to solve all of our problems. However, as long as the town of Brattleboro has RTM, I’m one person who won’t be helping to solve them (except for kibbitzing from the outside).
That said – and since I have committed to not being part of the solution by joining RTM in order to destroy it! – the new year is gearing up and there are other things for the town to worry about. I sincerely thank you and all the hundreds of other people who have participated in RTM and have used it, as the system that we have, to keep the town going. I believe even those of us who don’t like RTM appreciate the effort that the TM Reps put in – I certainly do. I’m just never going to join you, because while I respect your work you’re part of a system that – by design! – keeps me and all the other non-rep legal voters from, to paraphrase Maus: for any reason or issue waking up on the first Tuesday of March, going to Town Meeting, sounding off, making a motion, offering budget cuts or increases for debate, and casting a vote. I’ve been a Vermonter all my life – I shouldn’t have to jump all over anyone to attend Town Meeting.
Thank you, but . . .
Glenn,
It is not true that the only way to revise RTM is through RTM. There are two ways, one by petition, in which case amendments are discussed at public hearings and are later voted without changes. One charter amendment is in this process now, that will impose term limits on the RTM. Public hearings will be the 20th and 29th, and the vote will be March 3. Other charter changes in three separate votes are also on the ballot. All these were prosecuted by Brattleboro Common Sense without involving the RTM.
In 2011 representative town meeting (RTM) voted to restrict traditional rights of free speech: the right to call for official votes, and the referendum power.
RESTORE YOUR RIGHTS to call for votes on resolutions and laws, provide
TERM LIMITS for RTM,
A STRONGER REFERENDUM to override excessive spending by the RTM,
PAID VOTING LEAVE so that low-wage earners can afford to vote, and
UNIFIED ELECTIONS in November to save money and enhance voter turnout.
See BrattleboroCommonSense.org
I also would never be a part
I also would never be a part of RTM because I don’t believe it is an effective and fair way to govern. It doesn’t really matter who are members- it still is a very few people attempting to represent thousands of other people with little or no public input.I may be wrong but I know several RTM members and across the board they have said that they seldom feel they have adequate information or input from the people they represent to cast their votes wisely. I’m sure that it often comes down to personal feelings about the items they are voting on.With no general forum to hear from the voters how can they do anything, really, but vote what they believe is right? That’s not representation. We have enough short sightedness in other areas of our government. Shouldn’t we try to think about instituting a more democratic, less confusing system?
If one believes that open meeting is better for Brattleboro . .
would it make sense to join RTM to help that become a reality ?
Or is there a better course of action ?
If one believes that open meeting is better fro Brattleboro . .
I like to think the Do-it-yourself ethic applies to democracy, but we don’t need to radically change RTM. The only thing wrong with RTM is that the wrong people are in it. The only thing — the biggest thing wrong with our town. So, Brattleboro Common Sense is promoting the
. . . . . . . . . . . PRO-DEMOCRACY AMENDMENTS. . . . . . . . . .
These will advance voter participation and voter turnout. Vote yes on three articles March 3, and GET INVOLVED before then.
Why should we keep it ?
I have not read one good explanation yet, of why Brattleboro should have RTM.
In fact, no seems to be trying.
I have on the other hand now read, many times, quotes of selectboard members saying that there is no way to tell what the citizens of the town wanted done with the police and fire project.
If the will of the citizens of town is unknowable with RTM,
then that system has SERIOUS disadvantages.
What are the advantages?
and yet...
As it appears in close reading of this post, RTM is ineffective in serving the population at large. It may further execution of the charter, but doesn’t seem to be offering broad spectrum citizen buy-in or support.
I recently read a study that says Congress is no longer functional as a democratic construct, and is now under oligarchical control. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/princeton-experts-say-us-no-longer-democracy
If these statements are true, is it also true “the people” know about this dysfunction, and still tolerate it? Or, do communities and constituencies feel unable to envision sweeping change, and stick with the devil that is known out of fear or habit?
Is it also true "the people" still tolerate it?
I think “the people” is one of the greatest myths in modern times. Second only to religion, of course.
PFP public opinion
Brattleboro Common Sense (BCS) did a survey on precisely that subject in April (2014). It showed a very strong correlation between opposition to the budget and opposition to the PFP. I just sent the info to the selectpersons.
If town government wanted to know what the people think, they could have floated a resolution or honored the petition for a referendum in November 2102. The thing is, they didn’t really want to confirm what they believed. Last May around the budget referendum time people were asking BCS about petitioning for a town wide vote on the PFP, but this couldn’t happen because the RTM had changed the charter to restrict such petitions.
Brattleboro's 'one and only' system of government
I cannot say with certainty what the advantages of RTM are. It is the system we have until their is a successful movement to change it. There was a back and forth in the early days of RTM between a traditional all-comers town meeting and the RTM. I do know that the folks who run for RTM make a commitment of time and energy to the town. Obviously, everyone has the right to participate in town governance. I see strong attendance by reps at town and school budget informational meetings prior to RTM. Because people have run for this position and feel a responsibility they make a commitment to stay the entire day and be immersed in all town issues.
Criticism of RTM on this site is certainly appropriate and an important part of civic process. Kurt Daims says that the RTM is not the problem, it is the particular group of people who serve on the RTM. I would love to hear more details on this. Others have every right to question the rising taxes and the issue around dealing with town infrastructure (for example the police/fire project).
I have no problem with trying other systems in Brattleboro – town meeting, mayor and council – or keeping RTM with with some of the tweaks mentioned on this site. However, the intractable issues we face as a community will not go away with a new system. We need to tackle the fundamental problems of funding our town with our unique location, diverse population, and current economic realities. We also can’t ignore the need to modernize our police and fire stations.
I see a lot of criticism here of the RTM process, but in fact, the referendum process derailed last year’s budget and postponed dealing with the police and fire issues. I think that both the RTM and the select board heard the message that we needed to stop and think before proceeding. The referendum process also derailed a two year discussion and approval of PAYT by RTM. Now PAYT is back as a state mandate.
Maybe someone here could say what outcomes they believe would take place if we replaced RTM.
Andy
Forms of Government
But, we don’t support a form of government because we hope for specific political outcomes, right? Because Democracy is not about ensuring any specific event will happen. Democracy is about ensuring the largest number of people CAN have a say in how their government is run.
The proof that RTM does not do that as well as open meeting seems plainly evident.
I keep harping on this point, but, the fact that will of citizens has been repeatedly described in print as unknowable by proponents of the PFP, shows that the current system is not working democratically. I personally think that anyone who states that the will of the majority is not knowable, is civically obligated to follow up with an effort to make communication of town citizens as direct as possible.
As an aside, if the referendum had been allowed to go forward, maybe we would not have had this train wreck. To mix my metaphors, it seems like another train wreck is brewing. The current system seems broken not just from a philosophical point of view, but practically. Either a mayor or open meeting would be better. I personally strongly favor open meeting.
Forms of Government
Alright already. RTM is messed up. Now what should be done ? There are radical solutions like abolishing RTM. It is also possible that RTM might work better with different people in it. That leads to the somewhat less radical amendment for term limits on the RTM. A fundamental problem affecting many issues is low voter participation. The Pro-Democracy Amendments promoted by BCS address both the RTM problem and the voter participation problem, and since term limits are less radical reform they should be tried before abolishing RTM. They are already in process (hearings Jan 20 and 29, vote March 3).
Different faces; same problem
I don’t believe that the problems with RTM would be fixed by having new people in it. We’re still left with the same,unfair model: a few people representing a very large number of people who have little or no input into how their representatives vote. Town meetings -while certainly a more time consuming effort- allow everyone who wants a say to have a say. We wouldn’t have Selectboard members now determining that the vote against the last budget wasn’t REALLY a vote against the PFP if we had town meeting. They -and we -would known emphatically that it was , in fact ,a vote against a ridiculously over priced project.
I grew up in a town with town meetings and things got done and everyone knew exactly what was getting done; at what cost and why. Not the case in this town.
Not so clear cut in my mind
Yes, the form of government is important. The elephant in the room seems to be the town’s budget, tax and infrastructure problems. I am not so sure that we can ignore the condition of our police and fire stations. I hear people saying they support these projects in a way we can afford. That is the rub. I am coming around to the 1% local option sales tax even though I have consistently voted against it because of the downtown business community’s opposition. Numerous destination towns in Vermont have this option tax in place. We would be the first to do so along the CT River…
I think that homeowner’s and renters (who pay property tax in the form of rent) would appreciate the relief from gaining a penny on the dollar from folks who shop in our community (and drive on our roads and depend on our services). I can already hear the merchant opposition. But how do people on this site feel about the 1% local option sales tax? There are many exclusions (groceries and clothes, for example). We are a regional market town, arts community and desirable destination. Can we help the town infrastructure with this revenue source? I’m asking as a town rep.
Andy
No thanks to 1% tax
No, again, to the 1% Local Option Tax. It adds to the perception that Brattleboro is a place to avoid for shopping. We already have draconian and weird parking fees and fines working against us. Becoming the only town bordering NH to adopt this tax would be the opposite of helpful.
The list of many exclusions contains things like cars, airplanes and box cars for railroads. The tax will remain on many items normal people buy on a regular basis.
1% adds up, and is enough to trigger changes in shopping behavior for necessary items. Those people who have the audacity to use our roads and our services for their shopping can decide to go elsewhere quite easily. We provide those services, in part, to attract people into town to shop. No other town charges us for visiting them they way Brattleboro would like to charge its visitors.
Adding a 1% extra tax on everything, in addition to making people spend a small fortune on garbage bags starting this summer, in addition to rising water and sewer rates, in addition to the bond payments for Police and Fire facilities… it’s too much.
If one wants a good local option tax, again I suggest doing as the states that legalize and tax marijuana are doing. Many localities are getting 12% local option taxes on marijuana – a high-priced, non-necessary (OK, some will argue with that) item that would have a ripple effect of new businesses, new products to sell, innovations, and tourist traffic. The revenue would dwarf any 1% tax, and no local business would have another straw added to their proverbial camel’s back.
No 1% tax until after we try the other, more lucrative and less punishing one.
So, as a rep, I’d hope you work to get us this other tax by working to legalize marijuana asap, and reject the 1% reminder to shop elsewhere.
Vermont towns with local option taxes
You write that “no other town charges us for visiting them they way Brattleboro would like to charge its visitors.”
Here are the towns in Vermont that do just that by having a 1% local option sales tax (with exclusions):
Burlington, Dover, Killington, Manchester, Middlebury, Rutland Town, South Burlington, St. Albans Town (as of 7/1/14), Stratton, Williston, Winhall, Wilmington
Brattleboro would be the only town along the NH border to do this which is a problem that the state legislature should look into. I have voted against this tax and spoken against it at RTM based upon feedback from business people in my district who oppose any increase to the current state levied sales tax of 6%. I am only pondering this question here on this thread because it is real issue that may yet come before RTM this March.
Getting feedback for making decisions is a big issue. We have the technology to make this feedback possible.
The tax burden is a huge issue and we have to work with current choices even as conditions are changing.
Andy
Vermont towns with local option taxes
You write that “no other town charges us for visiting them they way Brattleboro would like to charge its visitors.”
Here are the towns in Vermont that do just that by having a 1% local option sales tax (with exclusions):
Burlington, Dover, Killington, Manchester, Middlebury, Rutland Town, South Burlington, St. Albans Town (as of 7/1/14), Stratton, Williston, Winhall, Wilmington
Brattleboro would be the only town along the NH border to do this which is a problem that the state legislature should look into. I have voted against this tax and spoken against it at RTM based upon feedback from business people in my district who oppose any increase to the current state levied sales tax of 6%. I am only pondering this question here on this thread because it is real issue that may yet come before RTM this March.
Getting feedback for making decisions is a big issue. We have the technology to make this feedback possible.
The tax burden is a huge issue and we have to work with current choices even as conditions are changing.
Andy
Elephants, revenues, radical notions and the West River Railroad
The PFP is objectionable even though it does not represents a huge cost per 100,000 of property value a year.
It is fiscally objectionable because we are severely strapped, and EVERY expense must be put under a microscope. The Grand List will not be sufficient to support the needs of the town budget, especially if you consider education a vital part of what the town does. We know this, thanks to the excellent work done by the finance committee.
The other problem with the current funding of the current plan of the PFP, is that even though it IS a small amount of increase to an annual family budget, the PFP is only one of many potential essential needs being added to family budgets. It’s not the straw that broke the back of the camel, the back was already broken. Every gram of that straw has to be essential, because we are already at the point where kilograms have to come off.
The need for microscopic assessment of expenditures can be seen when we look at things such as the apparently relatively low rate of pay pay that police officers are getting here in Brattleboro. From conversations I have had with some of them, they are among the least well paid in the state, and are frequently loosing members because they can’t retain them. It would be great to get numbers on this from an official source, but that is what I have been told by a member of our police force.
The problem with loosing police officers on a regular basis is that you end up short staffed. This makes preventative policing harder to implement with potentially fatal and town damaging results. Specifically, a police officer told me that the department has early morning beat patrols down Elliot Street, and Flat and Main Street, in an effort to prevent the violence that keeps happening there at those hours. Sometimes, we are reduced in the numbers of officers, and one officer is trying to cover an impossible large section of town. When a man stabs another man on Elliot Street, you can be pretty sure he didn’t see a police officer nearby. (Also, when a man stabs another man on our streets, there is not only a potential loss of life, and suffering, the whole town is effected, in many ways, including fiscally.It does not say good things about our town as a destination or a place to work and live, when this keeps happening.)
Wanting a microscopic analysis of the the fixing of the PFP not the same as IGNORING the needs of the police and fire station. The stairs MUST be fixed. That is a safety and legal and liability issue. What struck many voters about the PFP was that it seemed to go far, far beyond the stated reasons for its need. Combine this with the fact that some people cannot afford their tax bill as it is, and asking for ANY increase on ANYTHING that at least SEEMED like an optional and excessive expenditure in a time of weak financial outlook for the town, and you get a strong reaction against the PFP.
As for the 1% increase, town revenues have to go up. Short term at least, it seems prudent to me.
Long term,(but starting immediately) the Grand List is where we need to look for revenue. The work done to get the Yogurt Company here was effort well spent. In fact, I would posit that dedicating resources to expanding the Grand List, is an actual need, one for which the PFP should be competing for dollars, and energy.
Finally, in Vermont, if radical is a pejorative word, the radical notion is to suspend open meeting and replace it with “closed” meeting, aka RTM. Doing so was a radical departure from Vermonts norm. It was a mistake, it isn’t working, we are having train wrecks on the tracks, and it really has to be addressed or else we are going to continue to keep derailing important projects, like the PFP. Something needs to be done, both for the PFP, and governance in general. We have hard years coming up, and this system of government has broken down. The PFP budget fiasco is proof of that. And the train is lurching, yet again. 3/5 of the selectboard are shovelling coal into the firebox as fast as they can, ignoring the groans coming from the rails they are riding over.
Not working vs working hard
When I say that RTM is not working, I mean that we are having a uniquely inefficient decision making process.
I don’t mean that the members of RTM are not working hard. Their hard work is appreciated and respected.
Good response
Thanks for the clear cut response. I appreciate that clarity that reflects the situation we all face.
As an ‘arts town’ promoting an ‘arts economy’ are we finding creative ways to make that part of Brattleboro’s identity work for us? A lot of tickets get sold in this town…
Andy
Is this true ?
Kurt Wrote
“Last May around the budget referendum time people were asking BCS about petitioning for a town wide vote on the PFP, but this couldn’t happen because the RTM had changed the charter to restrict such petitions.”
Did I miss this ?
RTM changes to the charter actually resulted in restricting town wide votes on topics such as the PFP ?
If true it would prove that RTM has resulted in not just a less accurate way for people to voice their concerns, but less democracy.
If anyone else knows this to be inaccurate, please explain.
Am I really losing it?
Am I really losing it? Weren’t there petitions circulated and a town wide vote that ended up with the RTM approved budget losing the vote?
Am I really losing it?
You’re not losing it, Carrottop. A referendum petition on the BUDGET was circulated. There was no petition about the PFP. People were asking for Brattleboro Common Sense to circulate a petition about the PFP specifically. That would have difficult because of charter amendments that took effect in 2012.
Someone help us out here
Did RTM meeting really change the charter to limit in someway any type of petition ?
If so, what motion was made ?
What was the vote ?
cricketnado
a dearthening silence fills the airwaves
Write-ins
I don’t recall limiting of petitions. (We have live blogs of RTM going back a number of years now, for those who want to relive the fun.)
I do recall and curse the change that took away our ability to vote for whomever we felt would serve us best.
The new rules say the only write-in votes counted must be for registered write-in candidates. This, to me, takes away the entire purpose of writing someone in – to vote for someone who isn’t already running.
Limiting choices to registered candidates might help elect people who want to serve, but it denies us the basic liberty of protesting, on the record, those who are running. I want to vote for whomever I want to vote for, not just those who become official write-in candidates.
The very first year, in front of the Town Clerk, I told someone I planned to write them in, and asked that they register with the town clerk to it would count. They chose not to, and denied my vote from being counted. That gives the power of my vote to someone else.
restriction of petitions and free speech
Sure enough, Chris. It’s even possible that many reps at the 2011 meeting didn’t understand what they were voting for. Gartenstein acknowledged it at tonight’s hearing: articles come to the ballot by petition only one day per year. Petition rights will be restored if the Pro-Democracy Amendments are approved on March 3.
Here is what the Brattleboro Town Charter Article III, titled “Powers of the People” says regarding petitioned articles.
advisory articles (also called resolutions)
pre-2012
a. If the date of the next town or town school district meeting falls within sixty (60) days after receipt of the petition, and if the petition is presented within sufficient time to be legally warned for the meeting, it shall be included as an article on the warning for that meeting. Otherwise, a special town or town school district meeting shall be called within sixty (60) days after receipt of the petition.
and as of 2012, as revised by the representative town meeting (RTM)
1. The selectboard or the school directors, upon receipt of such petition, requesting an article to reflect public sentiment to be voted upon by all the voters of the town, shall place the article on the warning for the next general town meeting; otherwise the selectboard or the school directors shall place it on the warning for the next annual representative town meeting. Neither body shall deny the petition or refuse to place it on the warning on grounds that the body considers the matters raised in the petition frivolous or not to be the business of the town.
binding articles (also called ordinances, and laws)
Pre 2012`
b. The selectboard or school directors, upon receipt of such petition, shall place the article on the Warning for the next Town or Town School District Meeting.
and as of 2012, as revised by RTM
1. 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.
2. If the date of the next representative town or town school district meeting falls within sixty (60) days after receipt of the petition, and if the petition is presented within sufficient time to be legally warned for the meeting, it shall be included as an article on the warning for that meeting. Otherwise, a special representative town or town school district meeting shall be called within sixty (60) days after receipt of the petition.
3. A binding initiative article passed by the representative town meeting shall be acted upon by all voters of the town by Australian ballot, no later than the next town-wide election or via a called special general town or town school district meeting within sixty (60) days following passage of the binding initiative, whichever comes first.
The RTM has taken away these traditional powers of the people. In the case of the advisory articles, placing the article on the ballot for general town meeting means once a year – not any time of year — , and the ballot for the annual representative town meeting means the people don’t get to vote on it. In the case of binding articles, the people can vote on it only if it is first passed by the RTM. Anyway, this is more like “More Powers of the RTM” than “Powers of the People”, under which it is listed.
Charter revisions-a deafening or a dearth?
The last charter revision process was a multi-year process that resulted in a lengthy process of debate over a large number of changes to the town charter. A number of recommendations that were presented to the RTM for consideration were passed and others were not passed. I attended these discussions and votes and many of the issues discussed pertained to participation, democracy, access, diversity and the power of citizens to challenge decisions.
http://www.brattleboro.org/vertical/Sites/%7BFABA8FB3-EBD9-4E2C-91F9-C74DE6CECDFD%7D/uploads/Warning1_for_Public_Hearings_on_Petitions.pdf
The above link will take you to the place on the Brattleboro Town website that explains the exact word changes that Kurt Daims and his group would like to see adopted this March. One of the issues raised by Kurt pertains to the power to challenge and overturn decisions made by the Selectboard and by the RTM by referendum.
One of the revisions we did approve in the last round of charter revisions took away the selectboard’s ability to disregard a legally presented petition for a referendum or article on the town meeting ballot.
I know that Kurt Daims is passionate about ‘restoring democracy’ but I submit that their is a range of reasonable opinion about the numbers of signatures that should be required to put referenda and articles on the town ballot. Likewise, term limits and the legal age for voting are all reasonable topics for disagreement and/or compromise.
I would not characterize the last charter revision process as anti-democratic. Pros and cons were discussed and debated in detail and those discussions are part of the public record. The system actually worked last year when town reps were petitioned by citizens and 50 town reps agreed that there was enough dissatisfaction with the budget just approved by RTM that a public vote should happen. I am not sure that the bar needs to be set much lower than that!
Andy
I would posit that the only body who should decide
I would posit that the only body that should decide how easily town citizens at large should have access to petition, is the town citizens themselves in a direct vote on the question.
I do greatly appreciate that charter revisions took away the selectboard’s ability to disregard a legally presented petition for a referendum or article on the town meeting ballot.
But raising the bar for non RTM members to submit a petition, seems to me to not be an appropriate action for RTM to implement.
It really does create a hierarchy, when one level of empowered citizens, decrease the access to power of the lesser powered citizens. If town citizens willingly gave up that access, fine and good. You could make a case to the citizen’s of the town that they should have a higher bar to overcome, and let them vote on ceding some of their access to power. That would be a legitimate path, to my way of looking at things.
It’s also highly unlikely, that given the choice, they would ever do so, right?
This really is problematic.
I do agree that reasonable people and decent people can disagree. And, boy do we ever, apparently.
Peace,
Rolf
The actual charter revisions from February, 2011
It took me a bit of time to find the Reformer article on the February 2011 approved charter revisions:
http://www.reformer.com/localnews/ci_17314398
The revisions related to non-binding referenda, citizen initiated ordinances and referenda challenging RTM decisions were as follows:
* Non-binding referenda can no longer be rejected by the Selectboard if they are legal and conform the charter’s required number of signatures, etc.
* Number of signatures required to place an ordinance before the voters was REDUCED from 20% of registered voters to 10%.
* INCREASED the number of days for filing a petition for a referendum from 5 days after the initial action to 10 days.
* Increased the number of signatures required to initiate a referendum from 250 to 5% of the registered voters (roughly 450).
I would not characterize these changes as an un-democratic power grab. The prevailing debate that day was very concerned with NOT infringing on the rights of citizens to participate in the process. I suppose someone could argue that increasing the number of signatures needed from 250 to 5% is draconian. Recent history shows that challenging decisions by the RTM is fairly easy by a group of active and concerned citizens.
As long as RTM is the law of the town then I would say the RTM did a very conscientious job in debating and tweaking the town charter in 2011. Those revisions are certainly revisable – as we are seeing this month at two public hearings to consider changing them. I hope there is a good turnout of concerned citizens.
If I have misunderstood any of this, please correct me.
Andy
The actual charter revisions from February, 2011
Andy, everyone, the referendum isn’t the only part that was changed. RTM also severely limited the rights to petition. The right to call for votes by petition is now limited to one day a year. On other days the RTM can censor the petitioned article. The authority to censor the people was taken from the selectboard — and given to the RTM in more potent form.
Everything you listed sounds great, and, thanks.
Andy,
All the changes that you listed seem excellent, and empowering of town citizens. Thanks for listing those, and thanks for your work on RTM.
Kurt, can you help me by providing documentation of the following change you reported on?
“The right to call for votes by petition is now limited to one day a year.”
Andy, do you also understand that to be true?
Thanks for helping get up to date on this.
And thanks for keeping this civil. I think that I am not the only one who finds it hard hard to stay focused on a topic when people slip up and start getting needlessly insulting or sarcastic. When you don’t have to wade through people’s bile, you can stay engaged in learning.
Thanks again,
Rolf
Please explain
Kurt, please explain this more clearly. Can you reference the sections of the charter that do what you are saying? I am not following you – and I am guessing that others may feel the same way.
Andy
The actual charter revisions as of 2012
Here is what the Brattleboro Town Charter Article III, titled “Powers of the People”, section 2 says regarding petitioned articles. (Capitals added)
advisory articles (also called resolutions)
pre-2012
a. If the date of the next town or town school district meeting falls WITHIN SIXTY (60) DAYS after receipt of the petition, and if the petition is presented within sufficient time to be legally warned for the meeting, it shall be included as an article on the warning for that meeting. OTHERWISE, A SPECIAL TOWN OR TOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT MEETING shall be called within sixty (60) days after receipt of the petition.
and as of 2012, as revised by the representative town meeting (RTM)
1. The selectboard or the school directors, upon receipt of such petition, requesting an article to reflect public sentiment to be voted upon by all the voters of the town, shall place the article on the warning for the NEXT GENERAL TOWN MEETING; OTHERWISE the selectboard or the school directors shall place it on the warning for THE NEXT ANNUAL REPRESENTATIVE TOWN MEETING. Neither body shall deny the petition or refuse to place it on the warning on grounds that the body considers the matters raised in the petition frivolous or not to be the business of the town.
binding articles (also called ordinances, and laws)
Pre 2012
b. The selectboard or school directors, upon receipt of such petition, SHALL PLACE THE ARTICLE ON THE WARNING FOR THE NEXT TOWN or Town School District MEETING.
and as of 2012, as revised by RTM
1. 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.
2. If the date of the next REPRESENTATIVE TOWN or town school district MEETING falls within sixty (60) days after receipt of the petition, and if the petition is presented within sufficient time to be legally warned for the meeting, it shall be included as an article on the warning for that meeting. Otherwise, a SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE TOWN or town school district MEETING shall be called within sixty (60) days after receipt of the petition.
3. A binding initiative article PASSED BY THE REPRESENTATIVE TOWN MEETING shall be acted upon by all voters of the town by Australian ballot, no later than the next town-wide election or via a called special general town or town school district meeting within sixty (60) days following passage of the binding initiative, whichever comes first.
The RTM has taken away these traditional powers of the people. In the case of the advisory articles, placing the article on the ballot for general town meeting means once a year – not any time of year — , and the ballot for the annual representative town meeting means the people don’t get to vote on it. In the case of binding articles, the people can vote on it only it is first passed by the RTM. Anyway, this is more like “More Powers of the RTM” than “Powers of the People”, under which it is listed.
Let's try to clarify what the 2011 revisions did
Kurt, thanks for the explanation of your issues. Here are my thoughts on the matters you raise.
With regard to the non-binding, advisory, ‘public sentiment’ type of INITIATIVES. There was a lively debate at the 2011 charter revision meetings on this issue. Some folks wanted to raise the bar on matters of public opinion that might not directly effect town government (granted, vis-a-vis the butterfly effect, everything matters everywhere).
The vote on the charter revision on these initiatives accomplished the following: Such initiatives, if presented with the correct number of legal signatures CANNOT be disregarded. I assume you and I agree that this was a victory.
The charter revision also lowered the number of signatures from 20% of legal voters to 10% of legal voters. Another victory that you and I can perhaps agree upon.
If you are trying to say that some ‘traditional powers of the people’ have been taken away. I need a specific example because I am not following you.
Are you suggesting that we hold a special town meeting every time 10% of the town voters want to have everyone weigh in on a non-binding, advisory initiative that may or not have a direct effect on town governance? I have no problem with advisory matters waiting until the next election or the next RTM. What am I missing?
With regard to a binding REFERENDUM: The current charter (as revised in 2011) does hold that the RTM votes on a properly presented petition either at annual RTM or school meeting. This is the same as it was before. However, in 2011 the language was broadened to include provisions for special town/school meetings if the annual meetings are too far in the future. Again, an improvement that we could agree on?
Admittedly, the bar was raised from 250 signatures to 5% of legal voters. The pros and cons were debated at the time. Maybe it should go back to the lower figure. Folks can disagree on this.
As was articulated at the charter hearings, the RTM does serve as a check and balance in some matters. Certainly, reasonable people may disagree on this point. If we are going to have RTM we should probably grant it some actual powers. Perhaps with term limits and the addition of more 16 and 17 year olds we may find a better balance of the ‘right’ people to be reps. I continually see our democratic processes challenging and changing RTM decisions (PAYT and 2015 town budget, to name two recent examples).
I will wrap up by saying that the last round of charter revisions broadened access to town government within our current system. The recent call for a revote on the RTM approved budget was achieved by getting 50 town meeting reps to sign the petition. This indicates to me that the current system is responsive to the voters and is designed to refer issues to the voters at large when that desire is expressed and acted upon.
As a recent Reformer article noted, now is the time to run for RTM if you are someone who wants to affect change through this particular body of town government. Obviously there are many other ways to serve our town. Petitions are due the last Monday of January I believe. Each district as open seats to be decided in March – by the people.
Thanks for listening,
Andy
The actual charter revisions as of 2012
The revisions look OK at first glance. It’s true that the selectboard cannot reject petitions. But such changes don’t matter if RTM can block petitions from the ballot every day but one per year. It’s for the people to say what governance is for. So, yes, of course I’m suggesting that we should have a town meeting every time the people want to weigh in on town governance. That’s how it was before 2012 and it was never a problem. Last May when we were debating the revised budget amid doubts about the PFP, people were asking BCS to promote a resolution about it. It would have been illegal at that time because of the 2012 amendments. You see, these petitions by the people are only a problem if you are the RTM and you don’t want to hear form the people.
overstatement vs advocacy
Kurt, no one on RTM has ever expressed a desire to ‘not hear from the people’. All town reps are legal representatives of the people. Rep’s phone numbers, addresses and emails are easily available. I think you overstate your case to say that ‘the people’ can only be heard from ‘one day a year’. Over stating a case often leads to undermining the case.
Special town meetings can still be petitioned for year round on referenda and ordinances. The only matters that wait for the next scheduled meeting are non-binding matters of public sentiment. A reasonable person could easily argue that public sentiment is easily expressed 365 days of the year through letters, phone calls, emails, petitions, twitter feeds, facebook pages, selectboard meetings, committee meetings, and on and on…
I think we just disagree on this, Kurt, which is fine. Good work in bringing it before the town with your recent petitions.
Andy
Accuracy
But the facts remain, that this official way of people calling for votes has been reduced to one day a year, March town meeting and that other days RTM now has the power to block article from the ballot.