BRATTLEBORO — The Brattleboro Selectboard recently voted 3–2 to hold this year's Annual Representative Town Meeting (RTM) completely in person, with no remote option. And with that, a large blow in a line of blows was dealt to the accessibility and diversification of our town's government, bolstering an increasingly regressive status quo.
Town meetings in Vermont are sacrosanct and celebrated instruments of government for the people, by the people. They are “democracy in action,” opportunities for the average citizen to speak up about issues that directly impact their daily lives and those of their neighbors.
Compared to growing disenfranchisement in other states, the government in Vermont is proudly said to be accessible, transparent, and truly representative. When I ran for a three-year term as a representative to RTM last year, I felt a sense of giddy patriotism as I went to vote for myself in our town's one and only polling place.
But the vote to hold RTM in person with no masking or vaccine requirements prohibits participation among those who are immunocompromised or otherwise unable to risk a case of COVID-19. The vote took place after several RTM members stated that they wanted to participate but would be unable to do so if it were fully in person.
A hybrid option was not considered as a compromise. One Selectboard member even went so far as to say, “the very success of Representative Town Meeting, and indeed, democracy in Brattleboro, asks us to be in person, if we can. If we can't, someone else should serve as a representative.”
This suggests that anyone who is unable to attend in person, even to protect their physical safety, should not expect to be an RTM member or run for Selectboard: Only those with uncompromised immune systems need apply.
* * *
In addition to being ableist, the decision disenfranchises disabled and immunocompromised folks, those who love them, and those who can't afford to take a sick day.
People who fit into these categories are among the most directly impacted by the decisions made at RTM - for example, approving the human services budget - and those most marginalized from our decision-making bodies. This decision further restricts their ability to inform the policies that impact them most.
This is not the only barrier to participation in town government. Last RTM, a proposal to set aside negligible funds to provide free lunch for this year's RTM was voted down.
This proposal was made by a committee that had been explicitly formed to make RTM accessible to more people. Yet, this basic measure to make participation in a day-long meeting more financially and logistically feasible was considered too costly to fund.
Some even suggested that providing lunch would be against the “spirit of volunteerism,” implying that anyone for whom this is a barrier to entry doesn't have the right “spirit” to participate in RTM.
Last RTM, I was honored to be voted in as a member of the town's human services committee. This committee considers funding proposals from nonprofits and agencies that provide crucial social services in town, including for refugees, those experiencing homelessness, the BIPOC community, youth, and the rural LGBTQ+ community.
I was excited to serve in a way that would distribute as many resources as possible to organizations that are led by and serving marginalized populations. As a 34-year-old social worker, I was also hoping to add a degree of diversity to the committee, which - like most town bodies - seems to be dominated by retirees who I often hear bemoaning the lack of more or younger participants.
When I received an invitation to my first meeting, however, I noticed that it was to be at 3 p.m. on a weekday afternoon, difficult for someone who works full-time. I emailed back to ask if a new time could be considered.
The response I received was that my request had been considered and denied: “I wish we could have been able to include you in our future deliberations - we love new members.”
I have since been informed that many organizations saw their funding slashed this year, especially those that are BIPOC-, LGBTQ-, and peer-led.
* * *
Brattleboro prides itself on being a progressive and welcoming town. If our town government was truly representative, a more progressive agenda - led and informed by those most impacted, and supported by their allies - could be advanced.
But covert barriers to access like these make it difficult or impossible for young people, disabled people, and working people to participate. Instead, even our most ostensibly accessible bodies are dominated by those who have the most free time, the most resources, and the most robust health.
In other words, the most privileged.
So much for democracy by the people, for the people.