PROPOSED BRATTLEBORO CHARTER AMENDMENT INFORMATION SHEET
Proposed amendments to Brattleboro’s Charter are on the March 3, 2015 ballot. The Brattleboro Selectboard asks you to consider the following when voting.
TOWN MEETING TERM LIMITS
Brattleboro’s Town Meeting is both participatory and representative democracy. Up to 155 residents get elected and gather annually to make budget and policy decisions for the Town. It is anti-democratic to ban Brattleboro residents from Town Meeting because they have attended 6 years in a row. Term limits would bar many residents who now attend Town Meeting, and the institutional memory they bring with them would be lost. Right now there are 25 open Town Meeting slots, so anyone interested in joining already can. Term limits actually could empty out Town Meeting so there would not even be a quorum.
VOTING ON THE FIRST TUESDAY IN NOVEMBER
Town elections in Vermont are in March, and are distinct from national and state elections. The proposal to move elections and ballot items to a different cycle than Town Meeting would damage the link between these important parts of government and leave Brattleboro out of step with the rest of Vermont. Also, the ballot proposal would move elections to the first Tuesday in November, which is not national or state Election Day.
PAID TIME OFF FOR ELECTIONS
The ballot proposal to require employers to give paid time off is not tied to Brattleboro Town Meetings, so it also would mandate Brattleboro employers to pay employees to attend town meetings in other towns and states. Brattleboro residents already face very steep property taxes because the Town provides infrastructure and services to support the economy for the whole region, but the Town can’t collect taxes to support these services from people who work and shop here. The proposal for paid time off now also would force Brattleboro employers to support town meetings for the whole region.
TOWN GRAND JUROR
The role of the town grand juror under Vermont law is to recommend prosecution of offenses to authorized officials. The grand juror position is essentially obsolete in this modern era, because enforcement of laws and ordinances is handled by other elected officials and clear structures.
PROPOSED REFERENDUM, ORDINANCE AND INITIATIVE CHARTER CHANGES
The proposal to change the Charter’s current referendum system seeks to shift decision making away from the Town Meeting model, which encourages collective discussion and consideration of issues, to a ballot system that only allows up or down votes on questions. Town Meeting makes many important decisions, and setting separate rules for voter review of budget items over $2 million is confusing and arbitrary. The proposal to remove the words “representative” and “general” from the Charter’s ordinance and initiative sections do not fit with the structure of the Charter, and also would cause confusion. While it is claimed that the amendments would restore free speech, recent Charter changes actually lowered the number of signatures needed on a petition, and there is nothing to show that the Charter as it stands discourages ballot items.
STRUCTURE OF CHARTER AMENDMENT PROPOSALS
The proposed Charter amendments are grouped together on the March 3 ballot, and can only be voted up or down in groups. Voters should carefully consider all proposals in each ballot item, and remember that a vote to approve either group of amendments is a vote in favor of all its parts.
Prepared and endorsed by the Brattleboro Selectboard
Grand Juror?
I try not to get involved in Brattleboro politics (not that I am usually savvy enough to understand most of it, anyway) but I am grandly curious about one of the proposed thingies, & I haven’t seen any comment on why it is being proposed: Why the item to restore the position of Grand Juror? It’s a quaint position, and a lot of towns have kept it as one of those folksy remnants of an era when there were all sorts of small town official jobs that have been superseded by modern bureaucracy. Just wondering.
Intentional confusion vs clarity
I am opposed to all the above amendments except for the increased powers of referendum.
“Town Meeting makes many important decisions, and setting separate rules for voter review of budget items over $2 million is confusing and arbitrary.”
Actually, the abolishing of open meeting is what has caused the confusion over what the majority of town citizens think about what projects should be funded.
Currently, members of the select board have stated that the reasons that the general public rejected the town budget is unknowable, and the will of citizens in town is impossible to discern. This has been a convenient screen behind which to ignore popular sentiment.
The expression of will on the part of the town as a whole is only confusing if one wants to ignore it, as has been done. The fact is, they don’t want the town as a whole weighing in. Short of re instituting open meeting, giving more clear expression to citizens as a whole via referendum is the next best thing. It will then become much harder to ignore popular sentiment. Claiming that that it represents a move to a confusing state of affairs seems flatly false and politically motivated in a calculating way.
Grand Juror explanation
The purpose of reinstating the Town Grand Juror is to create an enforcement mechanism to require employers to grant time off to vote as required in a different article.
So..
This is how the Selectboard wants us to vote, not a full explanation of the changes themselves. This is not an “Information Sheet”, this is an opinion.
I agree. They state what
I agree. They state what “will” happen if these changes go into effect but offer nothing substantial to back up their stand on those changes nor any details to let us make informed decisions. I’m not sure why any of us expected anything other than a vague, unsubstantiated piece of propoganda which we are supposed to follow like Stepford Wives. That’s their modus operandi.
reasonable considerations
I think these are reasonable things to consider when casting your vote. It is not on the SB to present some kind of “all sides of the issue” information sheet. The SB is expected to weigh in on all kinds of town issues and to present its viewpoint publicly. I think they have done so here.
Will Kurt Daims and the Common Sense group respond with their viewpoint? During the previous charter revision process members of the town administration and Selectboard members had opinions on the various proposals. I think it was a good move to save the $3,000 and distribute this piece though the press and through electronic means. Its a level playing field, time to play ball.
If you disagree with their concerns about the proposed charter revisions then make your case.
Last week about 0.05% of eligible Brattleboro voters turned up at BUHS to educate themselves about the BUHS/BAMS/Career Center budget, ask questions, vote on proposed amendments and ultimately approve the $27,000,000 budget. It does not seem to me to be the time to be setting up roadblocks to participation like term limits.
Could someone explain the role of the Grand Juror and why it is part of restoring democracy? Before we welcome in 16 and 17 year olds, where are the 18 and 19 year olds? I know a young man who served recently at RTM when we was still at BUHS. Why are there not more?
Why paid time off for elections when the polls are open for 10 hours? Would an employee of a Brattleboro firm get the entire day off to attend their town meeting in Guilford? How would this work?
I am all for strengthening democracy. I am not sure that these proposals have been fully vetted or examined for their actual effects. I signed Kut’s petition to get these considered because I believe the way to move forward is by freely looking at new ideas. But the new ideas have to pass muster and survive scrutiny.
Andy
They offered their collective
They offered their collective opinion on why these proposals were no good but didn’t give any information to back up their statements. If you are going to state that a limit on terms is not democratic then tell me how it isn’t democratic. Why should I or anyone take your viewpoint into consideration when you aren’t offering any examples of why you feel this way. I don’t necessarily agree with all the changes that are in question but I would certainly need more than a ” because we say so” from the Selectboard to make me think differently.
If they want their views to be taken seriously they need to come up with more information than they’ve offered in this document. Nobody is asking them to “provide all sides to the issues”. But, they haven’t even provided their own side. I wouldn’t want them on my debate team, that’s for sure.
anti-democratic
I think it is anti democratic to tell someone that after 6 years they are not allowed to run for a public office when we currently do not have enough people wishing to make that commitment. Contested elections are rare in Brattleboro. We need more people running – not excluding people. If someone has been in office for a number of years and holds a lot of experience or leadership and then is denied a chance to run simply for a term limit – that feels anti-democratic to me. Right now the door is open to anyone who wants to step forward and participate… I think the above information does a fine job of spelling out reasonable concerns. Then, make up your own mind.
Term Limits
The practice of term limits has been in evidence as long as democracy has been a construct. It’s there to block undue consolidation of power or influence. I don’t see trying to keep a political body vibrant as anti-democratic in the least. Also, unless I’m mistaken, any citizen can speak at RTM, we just can’t vote. To me that means institutional memory is not threatened, and mechanisms for drawing in fresh new blood are boosted.
good argument
I have no problem with that viewpoint. Maybe it is a good idea. It would be interesting to know what percentage of current members would be limited in the first year of the new system. Does anyone know?
I hope these discussions continue.
undue consolidation of power or influence
Can you expand on the ‘undue consolidation of power or influence’ that you see in Brattleboro?
Andy
Wrong versus right
The only justification I’ve heard for term limits is: “The WRONG PEOPLE are on it”.
i) Who are the “wrong” people?
ii) What makes them “wrong”?
iii) Who would the “right” people be?
iv) What would prevent the “wrong” people from being replaced by new “wrong” people?
Rusty Burgher
I’m not a fan of RTM, especially as a more direct form of Democracy has been established as a norm within our state.
Having said that, the WRONG PEOPLE argument- which I have not heard- seems like a straw man.
Here’s a nugget to chew on that illuminates what can and often goes wrong with representative democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy.
The wrong trousers
I’ve never heard the justification for term limits that the “wrong” people are elected. I think the justification is that, even despite clear ineptitude or corruption, it is difficult for any challenger to defeat an incumbent, bordering on impossible the longer they serve. The power of incumbency deters many potential candidates from running.
Term limits, though I don’t necessarily support them, force change. But if I were voting for change in Brattleboro, I wouldn’t vote for term limits, I’d vote to end the anti-democratic representative Town Meeting, which is so out of step with the rest of Vermont.
Source of "wrong people" argument
I believe that one source for the “wrong people” argument is none other than Kurt Daims, the lead organizer for the so-called pro-democracy amendments:
Submitted to Brattleboro by Kurt Daims on January 7, 2015 – 10:37am :
“If one believes that open meeting is better for 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.”
I will grant that term limits were used to prevent folks like Franklin Roosevelt from becoming a dictator. Two terms is enough for an American president to amass power and influence. As a multiple term RTM rep I don’t feel any particular accumulation of power and influence. Nor do I enjoy any power of incumbency. I simply run again because their is always a need for candidates.
The current pro-democracy ammendment is an attempt to replace people who only participate out of loyalty and affection for their town with a a mythical ‘different’ crowd that will vote differently on some issues without having to step forward and run fairly against the people who have simply followed the rules and run as a civic duty. I think it is odd that Mr. Daims – who has been a member of RTM for quite a few years – is promoting an amendment that will prevent him from having a vote at RTM.
It is true that the national media loves to talk about Vermont’s pure form of democracy every year at Town Meeting time. The truth is that many Vermonters live in towns that have mayoral and town council systems. The RTM was an attempt to make a compromise between differing systems. Even folks who live in small towns have plenty of complaints about their ‘open’ town meeting: it’s too long, takes place on a work day, only retired and self employed folks can participate…
Brattleboro’s munincipal/financial/infrastructure woes transcend any tweaking of our way of self governance. Until we find new – and fair – sources of revenue our body politic will be in turmoil. A town cannot pay for the costs of being a regional hub on the backs of residential tax payers. Our infrastructure is crumbling here in northern New England. The federal government is not interested in paying our way. Without new sources of tax revenue we will be left with blaming our own neighbors. That is no way to run a community. Our problem is not “the wrong people wielding too much power.
Andy
Andy
Term limits and democracy
Interesting.
Taking the assertion that term limits harm democracy as true, it would follow that if we got rid of Presidential (or House or Senate) term limits, there would be more democracy and more participation at the national level.
So this is it
And why the SB is being sued.