Timothy Belknap is a Brattleboro Representative Town Meeting member representing District 9. For more information about the town charter review process, including the results of the survey mentioned in this piece, visit brattleboro.gov/charter-commission.
BRATTLEBORO-A recent analysis of responses to Brattleboro's Charter Revision Survey reveals deep and widespread dissatisfaction with the current Representative Town Meeting (RTM) system.
In Districts 7, 8, and 9, a strong majority of respondents - 66%, 78%, and 62%, respectively - expressed discontent with how RTM functions, raising concerns about representation, transparency, and effectiveness.
Many residents believe the RTM no longer reflects the will of the electorate. Instead, it is often described as unrepresentative, opaque, and increasingly dominated by a small number of activists or individuals with personal agendas.
Survey respondents noted that RTM votes have contradicted broader voter sentiment on key issues such as budget allocations and human services funding.
One respondent characterized the current system as "a tyranny of personal agendas," while another stated, "RTM should no longer be an option. It's getting manipulated to favor a certain group." Several expressed frustration with the lack of information available about how RTM members vote or what positions they hold on important town issues.
"I don't feel my representatives represent me," a resident commented. "They certainly don't express my views."
* * *
Across numerous responses, a consistent theme emerged: the belief that Brattleboro should move toward more direct forms of democratic decision-making.
Chief among the alternatives proposed were open Town Meetings and Australian ballot voting. Both methods were praised for their inclusivity and alignment with democratic principles, especially the notion of one person, one vote.
"Let the populace vote for themselves again," wrote one participant. Another stated simply, "Australian Ballot is the only way every person who chooses to participate has a truly equal voice."
A number of respondents proposed a hybrid model that combines in-person discussion - whether through open Town Meetings or pre-ballot public forums - with final decisions made via town-wide ballot. This approach aims to preserve the value of deliberative debate while ensuring broader, more equitable participation in final decisions.
* * *
Several core motivations were cited repeatedly in support of change:
• empowering all voters to have a direct voice in decisions affecting the town.
• increasing transparency and accountability, especially in budgetary matters.
• ensuring equal access to decision-making, without perceived gatekeeping or insider influence.
Many emphasized the need for better public education on issues and ballot language to support meaningful participation in direct voting.
One particularly pointed critique summed up the current sentiment: "RTM is broken due to an inherent flaw in design. When participation wanes, a vacuum is created that any group of self-interested members can fill."
* * *
Brattleboro's RTM system was originally designed to foster thoughtful local governance through representation. But according to many residents, it has evolved into a structure that often shuts out the very people it was meant to serve.
"We are the only town that does RTM," one commenter observed, "and it is a deeply flawed system."
The charter revision process has opened the door for serious discussion about the future of town governance. Whether Brattleboro ultimately adopts an open Town Meeting, shifts to Australian ballot voting, or adopts a hybrid model, the message from many residents is clear: They want a system that is fairer, more inclusive, and more reflective of the collective will.
As one respondent put it: "If eligible voters still decide not to cast a ballot, then too bad for them. But give everyone that chance first."
This Voices Viewpoint 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 [email protected].