BRATTLEBORO-The Charter Revision Commission is proposing a 60% supermajority requirement to reject a budget by Australian ballot. The stated goal is to encourage attendance at open Town Meeting.
But this proposal would do the opposite of what democracy should do - it would make it harder for the people as a whole to overrule the decisions of a small minority.
Open Town Meeting is a valued tradition, but it is not equally accessible. A meeting that can last 10 to 12 hours excludes many residents: seniors, people with disabilities, caregivers, parents, and hourly workers who simply cannot spend an entire day.
Last March, roughly 300 residents attended open Town Meeting and made decisions affecting a town with approximately 9,200 registered voters. That's about 3% of the electorate.
The proposed charter change would give those decisions extraordinary protection. Instead of allowing a simple majority of town-wide voters to reject a budget, it would require a 60% supermajority. In other words, a budget approved by a few hundred meeting attendees could remain in effect even if a majority of voters opposed it.
That would create two classes of voters: those able to attend Town Meeting, whose decisions stand unless overturned by an unusually high threshold, and everyone else, whose votes would count only if they can assemble a supermajority.
If the goal is to strengthen open Town Meeting, the answer is to make participation more accessible - not to make the Australian ballot less meaningful.
Every registered voter should have an equal voice.
Timothy Belknap
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 [email protected].