F. David Levenbach is a Brattleboro Town Meeting member, representing District 9.
BRATTLEBORO-A Town Meeting — be it open (OTM) or representative (RTM) — provides a critical opportunity for citizens to check the Selectboard.
Over the past several years, the Selectboard has made decisions that have had a tremendous effect on our community — adopting the Downtown Safety Action Plan, creating a town emergency medical service, eliminating funding for human services, choosing a new arrangement for solid waste collection, adopting a community conduct ordinance, and allocating federal Covid funds. Not to mention, in the last two years, substantial increases in spending and related tax increases.
You may like or dislike some or all of these decisions but, without a Town Meeting, there is little recourse to reverse a Selectboard decision and no avenue for publicly debating it.
With a Town Meeting — and I am comfortable with either form, open or representative — the budget that encapsulates many of the decisions noted above is subject to a discussion by participants. A discussion in which they can express support or reservations about the budget as a whole or specific lines and one in which they can ask questions.
Moreover, and this is vital, a Town Meeting can propose, discuss, and vote on amendments to raise or lower the proposed budget; it also votes to approve or disapprove other articles, all of which can be amended.
Although it is true that the intended effect behind a budget amendment is not binding on the Selectboard, that body has traditionally respected the vote of the Town Meeting.
Just because it can amend the budget — upwards or downwards — it is not the case that it willy nilly tries to rewrite the entire budget.
Instead, there have been infrequent and strategic amendments, like adding money to push the skatepark over the goal line, boosting the Global Warming Solutions Fund, and financing the hiring of three additional firefighters, to mention a few.
In those instances, and others, there was robust debate and, I believe, Representative Town Meeting members made considered decisions.
* * *
“One person, one vote” is a superficially simple appeal. Even so, an Australian ballot, yes or no, is a blunt instrument in community governance. A sledgehammer, not a scalpel.
It limits citizen control, allowing voters only a restricted menu. Either eat whatever the Selectboard serves up or, in rejecting the budget, go hungry. There is no opportunity to offer sensible amendments or to find compromises when there are contending preferences.
If the budget or another article is rejected by Australian ballot, there is no clear guidance for the Selectboard as to how to move forward. In the one case in 2025, when RTM rejected the original budget article, there was enough discussion on the floor to allow the Selectboard to develop a revised budget that was subsequently passed by RTM, 110–4.
Even when there is an affirmative Australian ballot vote, the absence of discussion makes it difficult to assess whether there is grudging or enthusiastic support for Selectboard proposals. Moreover, a Town Meeting requires Selectboard members to explain and justify their decisions, enhancing accountability to the citizens.
* * *
I have served as an RTM member, and as a member (and periodically chair) of RTM’s Finance Committee. I will vote against rescinding RTM.
Allowing for the possibility that RTM may be rescinded, I will happily vote in favor of OTM with the firm conviction that it will engage the citizenry in a thoughtful and effective consideration of town affairs and will provide a useful and necessary check on the power of the Selectboard.
(The Charter Review Commission, after extensive and imaginative study, identified a number of reforms that will make a Town Meeting move more quickly and be more productive.)
Because an Australian ballot undercuts public debate, removes any chance to amend articles, and makes it impossible for citizens to work towards compromises that promote community consensus, I will vote no on that question.
This Voices Viewpoint 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.