The writer represents District 9 as a member of Brattleboro’s Representative Town Meeting.
BRATTLEBORO-Based on my own experiences as an RTM member of some years, I find that any assertions attempting to paint Representative Town Meeting as some noble enterprise, wherein members enter into deliberations without agendas, to be inaccurate and perhaps a tad disingenuous.
Consider the upcoming/recent District 8 and District 9 informational sessions.
In District 8, a meeting will feature keynote speakers Nell Mayo and Isaac Evans-Frantz (two of the candidates for the Selectboard). Six other Selectboard candidates were not invited. Six. That is not an oversight — it is gatekeeping.
When a publicly branded “informational session” spotlights only two candidates while excluding the rest, it ceases to be informational and becomes promotional. This is not neutral civic engagement; it is agenda-driven advocacy disguised as public discussion.
In District 9, the meeting organizers are openly leading efforts to “save RTM,” and prior meetings have been dominated by a single narrow viewpoint. When the organizers of a discussion are simultaneously campaigning for a specific outcome and opposing voices are marginalized or absent, the process is not deliberative — it is curated.
These examples expose a deeper structural problem. RTM concentrates power into a small subset of the citizenry who shape agendas, frame debates, control platforms, and influence outcomes before the broader public ever has a meaningful chance to engage.
The promise of RTM is thoughtful, balanced representation. The reality is selective amplification and political maneuvering.
If RTM cannot even conduct neutral informational sessions during an election cycle, how can it credibly claim to represent the full diversity of town opinion?
This is precisely why RTM should be discontinued. A system that allows insiders to control access, elevate preferred candidates, and narrow debate undermines transparency and public trust.
Our town deserves a governance structure that is open, inclusive, and directly accountable — not one that filters participation through a small body vulnerable to organized agendas.
The open Town Meeting (OTM) format does not really offer a workable solution to the problem of concentrating power into a small pool of voters, either. Why? Because all of the 9,000 eligible voters in this town have a right to participate in decision-making about our collective future without the burden of being required to sit in a room for the all-day discussions, as the proponents of OTM would have us do.
Public debate is fine for those who want or need it. For those of us who don’t, the exercise feels less like democracy and more like being beaten with socks full of nickels.
This town is full of intelligent and informed folks who are perfectly capable of separating fact from opinion and making sensible decisions in the voting booth privately and without coercion.
Vote yes on Article 2 to end RTM. Vote yes on Article 3 to replace RTM with secret ballot; aka “one person, one vote.” Vote no on Article 4 to replace RTM with OTM.
Roni Byrne
Brattleboro
The writer represents District 9 as a member of Brattleboro’s Representative Town Meeting.
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.