The writer is a Brattleboro Representative Town Meeting member serving District 8.
BRATTLEBORO-I am writing in support of changing the way Brattleboro residents govern our town; however, I do not agree that an open Town Meeting creates a solution.
I attended one of the Charter Review Committee meetings last year and found strong support for what was referred to as a “hybrid” meeting option. There would be an informational session, much as there is now the week before Annual Representative Town Meeting (RTM), with a follow-up Australian ballot vote.
There was concern that all members of the community wouldn’t have access to this meeting due to space limitations or technology, but given the low voter turnout in general in this town, that doesn’t seem like an obstacle.
A truly open Town Meeting appears to mimic the current RTM setup with simply the potential for more and longer circular discussion. While I agree that having access to information and hearing others’ thoughts on issues is vital, this could also be satisfied during the informational session.
There also seems to be a theory that with Australian ballot, there is no ability to reject or amend an article or the budget. However, there is always the option to vote in opposition.
For example, if you don’t agree with a budget that was presented at an informational session, you could vote “no,” and, if enough people do the same, the budget would fail. The Selectboard would have to create a revised budget and the town would have to vote again. That would continue until a budget passes, much the same process as happened this past year.
An Australian ballot system doesn’t eliminate our voices — it encourages them. Everyone votes. Period. Everyone has the option to use their vote to voice their opinion so that 150 people are not deciding how the taxes of a town of 12,000 are spent.
Tracey John
Brattleboro
The writer is a Brattleboro Representative Town Meeting member serving District 8.
This letter to the editor was submitted to The Commons.
This piece, published in print in the Voices section or as a column in the news sections, represents the opinion of the writer. In the newspaper and on this website, we strive to ensure that opinions are based on fair expression of established fact. In the spirit of transparency and accountability, The Commons is reviewing and developing more precise policies about editing of opinions and our role and our responsibility and standards in fact-checking our own work and the contributions to the newspaper. In the meantime, we heartily encourage civil and productive responses at voices@commonsnews.org.