Towns Changing to SB2

[dmjr]

After reading in the Citizen about the towns that voted in the SB2 instead of keep the traditional town meeting, I must say that I am very suprised. I am from Moultonboro and the voters voted down the change to SB2. I am in favor of keeping the old fashioned town meeting where the residents are the legislative body. I don't know how anyone else feels about SB2, but I feel that SB2 takes the New Hampshire feeling out of the town meeting season.

[bystander]

But in a town like Gilford the town meeting only has about 200 to 300 people in attendance that do the town or school business when we have 5000 voters! How is that fair? In a world of inclusiveness we need to give more the opportunity to vote. That is what SB-2 does. And the old argument about not being educated is wrong too.

[Rocky]

You are absolutely right. I think the towns that adopted SB2 will regret it. Glad to learn that Moultonboro tuned it down. What was the basis for anyone wanting it?

[dmjr]

Well,
The way I look at is that if the voters dont want to come out to town meeting to listen to what is being voted on, it is there own problem for not being educated. I feel that SB2 caters to people who dont want to take the time to come out to town meeting and stand up and ask questions. As a native of NH and Moultonboro, I feel that SB2 is no the New Hampshire way of town government

[Rocky]

From what I understand, the proponents of SB2 in Moultonboro were totally uninformed and made a very poor presentation. Also, according to Bea Lewis in the Citizen article, Moultonboro voters have the highest voting rate in the Lakes Region. Sorry that Gilford voters don't care enough to participate more in their local government.

[Modern Marty]

People need to realize that the traditional town meeting is an antiquated system. My town has town meeting still and I do attend, but I do not think it is the most fair system in today's world. Town meeting is a system that is left over from colonial times...when our world and society were both far different than it is today. In most towns, if all eligible voters showed up, the facility could not hold them...thus it depends on lower voter turn-outs. On top of that, we need to examine today's world. How many citizens today can not attend town meeting? A great many. Some do not have childcare available for the set meeting time, some are elderly or crippled and can not get out easily during that time, some are working...the list goes one. Town meeting, by taking place during very limited time frames, limits who an attend...it excludes certain voters. The only way to be assured that all voters, all citizens and tax-payers, have equal opportunity to vote is to have a special election over the course of a day. This allows greater options to those who can not make town meeting for a variety of reasons.

Most colonial ways of life have been dumped for more modern, more efficient ways of life...it is time that the same happens to town meeting. Dump it and begin living in modern times with our modern culture.

[Captain]

As the owner of two highly taxed pieces of property in Gilford I would be glad to go vote my opinion at town meeting. Unfortunately, because Gilford is not my primary residence I have no say in how my money is spent.

I also so think that the same people who are "unable" to make it to town meeting would be able to free up the same time space if you told them they had won the lottery and needed to go pick up their check. It is not a matter of free time but how they choose to spend it. You can do almost anything you really want to.

I think if you compared the taxable valuation of the second homes in Gilford to the primary residences you will find the minority percentage is making the decisions about how to spend the money of the non-voting (not by choice) taxpayers.

The law should be changed so that if you are a taxpayer in a community you can vote in any local matters, including elections. Obviously, you should only be allowed to vote in one national election.

O.K.............Fire away!

[ITD]

Marty,

The town meeting is one of the last bastions of true democracy where the people truly get to govern themselves. Articles brought forth can be amended on the floor of the meeting, true discussion of the impact of votes can be had real time. Proponents and opponents can square off and have a civil debate, then the meeting gets to decide. In my town controversial or large ticket items are debated and confirmed or denied in town meeting and if accepted put to vote in a special election, to give people who choose not to attend a chance to vote. The important difference here is that the vote is on an article debated and if needed amended in a town meeting.

This is all lost in a special election where you effectively get a limited choice generally tailored by a few politicians. The chance to amend and debate in public forum just before the vote is lost. True the town meeting system isn't perfect but none are.
The reasons you state for not attending town meeting are the same that people use when they don't vote in an election.

People abdicate their responsibility all the time, looking for government to take care of them, giving politicians more power over our lives than they ever where intended to have. Whenever government changes from town meeting to a more limited form, its citizens lose.

[Rocky]

In the quest for modenization, don't you think we should eliminate polling places and vote on line? Too bad if people who don't have computers can't vote. Do you really feel it makes sense to get rid of the purest form of Democracy simply for the sake of convenience?

[bystander]

It's interesting that normal ballot elections without national signifance has about 30% participation. For the ones with national the involvement is higher. Town meetings normally have about 250 to maybe 300 people at Gilford. There are 5000 voters in town. How is that democracy. The material to be voted on in SB-2 has to be available for the deliberative session which is at least 30 days before the vote. This says the voters can be more educated if the town/schools get the material out. We can go on and on, but bottom line is town meetings are not democracy.

[Kona]

Why is it that towns that have adopted SB-2 have only a handful turn out at the Deliberative Sessions? In some cases, less than 10 attendees.

[A. Voter]

Your suggestion would deny many the opportunity to vote, as do Town Meetings. SB2 extends the opportunity to all registered voters.

[Upthesaukee]

Having just spent Wednesday night and Saturday afternoon at the Alton town meeting, I can tell you that in Alton, as a "non-resident" (ie, not your primary residence), you would be asked to stand at the start of the meeting/session so that you can be identified as a such, but would be allowed to speak to an issue with a simple vote from the floor. You would not be allowed to vote on the issue, but can have your voice heard. It in fact occurred on Saturday.
What is sad is that we had approximately 200+ voters on hand on Wed, and just over 100 on Sat. Eight hours out of one year does not seem to be a lot of time to spend governing YOUR town.
Thanks for your thoughts.

[ITD]

Bystander,

I hear what you are saying about people who choose not to vote, but even if 250 out of 5000 show up it's still democracy. It's just that the 4,750 other voters have chosen to allow the 250 to speak for them. Their choice, but you know its still a vote. Because there is so much apathy, why not abandon elections all together and allow the politicians to decide everything including when and if they get replaced? That's a really bad idea. My problem with a scheme like sb2 is that politicians become more bold and give choices that no one likes and can't be or are more difficult to be changed. It ends up 3 or 5 people speaking for everybody. It becomes my way or the highway. The voters lose some ability to govern themselves, its a shame and its a result of laziness and people looking for the easy way out.

[Rocky]

Sorry my facetious response was misunderstood - it was in reference to someone's desire to "modernize" the process.

If SB2 allows more voters to participate, please provide statistics to show where this has happened. My research indicates that there is no increase in voter in voter turnout at all when a town goes to SB2 which totally destroys the arguments offered by proponents.

[-]

Don't know about you all but I had no idea what SB-2 was all about. So I did some searching and this is what I found. This article talks about what SB-2 is and how it may be the new way in Moultonboro.




Citizen article on SB-2 (http://www4.citizen.com/news2004/February2004/February_20/moultonboro_02.20.04a.asp)

[A. Voter]

I vote absentee every Town Meeting because I'm down in Florida then. This year there were about 20 warrant articles I could not vote for or against. SB2 will make that opportunity available to me. So, while I will still show as the same number [one] participating with SB2 I will now have the opportunity to vote on issues previously denied me. The type of statistic you are looking for will not shed any light on this advantage [to me].

[bystander]

Regarding the idea that no more voters participate in SB-2 towns---the proof is in the count for ballot votes vs town meetings. In our town, ballot votes always get in the order of 30% of the voters out. Mostly more if national signifance. The town meeting 5%. Regarding the educated voter in SB-2. The opportunity is greater to be educated because material to be on the ballot has to be ready approx. 30 days prior to the vote. Even if people don't come to the deliberative session they can study the articles, ask questions and talk to their neighbors. And for the lack of democracy, if a dumb article gets on the ballot by a bias deliberative attendance, it still has to be voted on by the town's voters (30%), that won't pass it.

[Just Wonderin]

I just read through all of the posts on the topic of SB2. I am a very strong proponent of SB2. I could go on and on, but I'll just give you two examples of how Town Meeting wasn't working in the town I live in.

Case #1 Our town was spiraling out of control with spending. So, someone in the town followed every rule of the meeting, had his motion written out as well as all of the necessary signatures to be able to present his motion. He wanted to have the opportunity to address the budget in a line by line veto format. Whether you agree or disagree with his view, he still should have had the opportunity to be heard.

The moderator said that he wouldn't even entertain the motion because the budget committee had worked long and hard on the budget. The gentleman was told to sit down. When many of the voters backed the gentleman presenting the motion, the moderator told everyone to stop and that if they thought they could do the job better than he could, he would be glad to step down, on the spot, and hand over the microphone. I wish someone had taken him up on it.

Case #2 On numerous warrant article votes, the voters were all asked to vote "yea" or "nay" (sp?). I can't tell you how many articles were passed when it was obvious that the "nays" far outnumbered the "yeas". Over the years, this happened time and time again!

So, even though we took the time, every year, to attend the Town Meeting, and sat on those hard metal chairs until 2:00 in the morning, our voices were not heard!

My town may be the exception to the rule. But if the Town Meetings were run exactly the way they should, with no special interests having greater control over their outcome, I would have strongly supported the Town Meeting format, but don't tell me that we are the only town that has this type of politics going on.

The final reason that I strongly supported SB2 was because all of the people who controlled this town to always work in their favor were adamantly opposed to it.

Thank God, our town adopted SB2 5 or 6 years ago. Now, every time that strong core doesn't get it's way, they say that the voters were just uninformed and didn't understand. No, that's not the reason, it's that we believe that we can't continue to spend money that we don't have. It's nice to finally feel that I have a voice and when things don't go my way, at least I feel that the majority voice of the town got what they wanted.

[Merrymeeting]

Just Wonderin,

I'd like to respond to your comments on why town meeting didn't work in your town.

To your point #2, if the nays seemed to be in the majority, all one needs to do is challenge the vote and ask for a vote count. Happens all the time in my town. A good moderator will more often initiate this. Sounds like you either have a bad moderator or people unwilling to challenge the vote. If the former, replace him/her at next election.

To point #1, I have to say I support your moderator on this one. Line item budgets are usually the culmination of many, many months work by volunteer boards. These meetings are posted, public meetings. If this person wanted to challenge line items or budget expenditures, he should have done it before reaching the town meeting floor. If he had done this, your point is valid.

I served on a town board for many years. It was VERY frustrating to hold public hearing after pubic hearing while the details were worked out, with no one showing up. Then have someone expect you to explain these months of work, IN DETAIL, on town meeting floor. More often than not, these were people who took no interest in the items other than the 1 night a year they attended town meeting, and usually did little to help the town other than to gripe about the volunteers who were doing their best to run it.

Not surprisingly, it is getting harder and harder to find volunteers for these positions. Your comment that not one of the complainers was willing to step into the moderators role is telling. If your friend has an issue with the budget now, tell him to wait until he has to pay full-time politicians to fill these positions. He'll love it then.