NEWFANE-In the weeks after Town Meeting, I am left with a simple question. How does a town with 1,645 residents and 1,467 registered voters end up with barely 100 people participating in decisions that affect everyone?
Few questions are asked. Few suggestions are offered. Debate on anything of substance is rare.
By the time proposals on national or international issues appear near the end of the agenda, many people have already left. They have gone to work, picked up their children, or simply returned to their daily lives.
In Newfane this year, two such items came up after most residents had checked out, both figuratively and literally. About 40 people remained in the room. Each measure passed with roughly 30 votes. That is just over 2% of the town's registered voters. Yet the only headline afterward is that the measure passed.
Who is responsible? Not the people presenting the items. They understand the math and plan accordingly. Their proposals arrive late, face little scrutiny, and pass with ease. Strategy matters.
The real question is why so many residents stay disengaged. Are things going so well that people see no reason to participate? Are they satisfied with their tax bills, their schools, and their representation in Montpelier and Washington? Or have they simply concluded that showing up will not change anything?
None of the above. Most residents simply do not have the time or patience to sit through an in-person Town Meeting. If we want outcomes that actually reflect the will of the town, votes should be held by Australian ballot.
As it is now, 2% of the town drives the conversation. Everyone else just reads the headline.
Cristine A. White
Newfane
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.