BRATTLEBORO-The Commons goes to great lengths to a question how the Charter Revision Commission can manage to deal with two apparently contradictory votes that were cast in Brattleboro's last election on March 3.
These two votes dealt with the issue of Representative Town Meeting,and the Australian ballot system. The only issue I can see, is how the results are contradictory?
The Brattleboro voter, as far as I can tell, felt that the Representative Town Meeting was no longer capable of expressing the true feeling of Brattleboro voters on issues ranging from the budget to anti-Israeli referendums.
Many of these elected representatives (but not all) ran for reasons of their own making, whether it was for a civic pride or their own self-esteem, but they did not have the interest of the district they represented foremost in their minds.
Likewise, Brattleboro voters were tired of being given ballots that were basically open for viewing as they filled them in.
The Australian ballot system is simply a secret ballot, upon which America has been founded for the last 250 years. Time after time when employers, for instance, provided time off for their employees to vote, that vote would often take place openly and in the clear view of management. That is not the case today, as the courts have ruled against this practice. Yet when voting in Brattleboro, I was often uncomfortable in seeing election representatives passing by my table as I darkened in the names of representatives whom I wished to support my views.
The Charter Revision Commission has worked long and hard to find common grounds for charter revision. Particularly important is the issue of the 5% rule, which allows a referendum on any subject if signed by 5% of eligible voters to appear on the ballot. Not only does this currently encourage irrelevant referendums but irresponsible ones as well, such as the one on last March's ballot which declared Israel an apartheid state.
Peter Elwell, commissioner and former Brattleboro town manager, has been quoted: "We were thorough in our work that led up to what is currently in our set of recommendations," with the two different votes simply "a spot we need to reconcile."
I would agree with this assessment and see a simple solution in holding an open Town Meeting (with an informational meeting a week prior), followed automatically by a townwide ballot on all financial questions.
Yes, there is an answer, and one which is not contradictory, but enhances transparency and democracy in our town of Brattleboro.
Kenneth Gutwein
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.