BRATTLEBORO-Representative Town Meeting (RTM) has been an eye-opener for me.
When I moved here, I did not think anything about local politics would require much effort to understand. Since I became a member of RTM, I have learned that local governance can be very complicated. People sometimes express positions that reflect valid but conflicting values, and making an informed decision to address the real problems of the town can be hard.
Town Meeting has forced me to get rid of simplistic beliefs about fiscal management and how to square them with issues that I consider important: compassion for others, climate change, the needs to fund core town services, and to consider the burden of property taxes on people with limited incomes.
My experiences in RTM have changed my views on issues on a number of occasions - sometimes enough to change my vote.
Many knowledgeable people present information and perspectives at RTM, including some whom I disagree with or have little in common with politically. But I know them to be honest, and I consider their opinions with respect.
The meeting has remained vigorously devoid of reference to political parties. The discussion is encouraged to be fact-based with a rational analysis. Opposing views and relevant facts are presented, and nonconstructive behaviors such as grandstanding about political positions is strongly discouraged.
If RTM and open Town Meeting (OTM) are defeated, losing the independent town committees, including the RTM Finance Committee, would be a major loss for the town. That committee spends hundreds of hours preparing an independent assessment of the town's finances that the public needs in order to assess the budget. Losing an independent finance committee would reduce financial scrutiny and consolidate more power in the hands of the Selectboard.
Australian ballot voting has the advantage of allowing every registered voter to vote. There are informational meetings that the public is welcome to attend, every year, but very few do. I think it is unlikely that changing to a ballot system would bring a large increase in public attendance or civic involvement.
Such voting does not allow for any amendments to the budget or issues. Ballot voting allows only an up or down vote and does not allow for any changes or compromises in the proposed articles.
Australian ballot would also immediately lead to a marketing arms race for political agendas. Whoever has the largest, best, slickest campaign would have a significant edge in any vote. Social media would likely devolve into emotional rhetoric designed to polarize.
Finally, Australian ballot voting is already an option in the charter. If 50 RTM members or 5% of residents oppose a budget vote, it will automatically be brought to a full vote. There is no need to remove Town Meeting and make Australian ballot voting mandatory for the budget.
No system is perfect, and each has strengths and flaws.
I, in my capacity as a left-handed juggler, will be voting no on Article 2 on rescinding RTM, no on Article 3 on implementing the Australian ballot, and yes on Article 4 to have open Town Meeting if voters approve the question to eliminate Representative Town Meeting. (OTM would retain most of the key aspects already in RTM.)
Tony Duncan
Brattleboro
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.