Under the SB2 plan, there is a "deliberative session" a month before voting at which all items are explained and discussed and, if people want, amended. On voting day ALL warrant items are set out on a ballot and the polling place is open all day for people to come and cast their votes, thereby making it easier for more people to participate.
The following is from an interview conducted last week with one of our State Representatives, Tara Sad, who has come out against the proposed change.
I agree with Ms. Sad on this one. While it would be great to have more people come to the town meeting to decide key matters in town governance, I would rather have the people that have cared enough to listen to the arguments make the decisions than to invite everyone that can vote to do so regardless of whether they have informed themselves. It's true that the current form excludes some potential voters by requiring them to attend the town meeting in person on a specific day and time. But anyone CAN now get an absentee ballot for the Tuesday part of it, and the experience in our own school district, SAU29, that uses an SB2 format has been very few voters turn out for "deliberative sessions" where no votes are taken. CCB
3-7-08
Walpole Rep Opposes SB2 Town Meeting Change
By Chuck Bingaman, Contributing Writer
Walpole State Representative Tara Sad announced Thursday that she is opposing the Walpole warrant article asking voters if they want to restructure their town meeting to the “SB2” form in which all warrant articles are decided by ballot a month after a non-voting “deliberative session” to discuss the issues.
Sad’s comments came after a required hearing in which petitioners said the SB2 form, by reducing all voting to balloting at polling places that would be open all day, would enable many more people to vote on the warrant articles. Moreover, they argued, by getting warrant articles in final form several weeks before the balloting, voters, including those in the military and those whose employment prevented their attending the usual town meeting, could vote by absentee ballot.
“SB2 has some positive points in its favor,” conceded Sad, “but, on balance, I think our present town meeting/voting format remains a better way to run our town government.”
“Many of the towns and school districts that have enacted SB2 have found that few people actually attend the ‘deliberative session’ where the warrant articles are discussed but not voted on,” said Sad. “Maybe taking away the drama or focus of the traditional town meeting—where everyone knows there will be vote and the end of each article’s discussion—lessens the motivation to attend and participate in the meeting. In SAU60, the Fall Mountain school district that has an SB2 format, hardly anybody attends the deliberative session, although millions of dollars are involved.”
“With respect to our traditional town meeting precluding absentee ballots for those who cannot attend, people should remember that we DO still vote by secret ballot several days before the in person meeting on town officers and on planning and zoning articles. And, we can request absentee ballots on those matters.” Absentee ballots cannot be used for the articles discussed and voted on at the in person meeting because “amendments from the floor can, and often do, change the content of the articles just before the votes are taken.
Sad said that she understands people who avoid town meeting because of the arguments and conflicts that some express, sometimes in less than polite language or volume. But, she says, “That’s what the town meeting is all about! Hearing people’s ideas and feelings on all sides of issues and having the opportunity to be educated and to have your mind changed by the arguments. While we might do more to encourage respectful argument rather than bullying, etc., we DO need to hear all sides in order to decide and vote responsibly. And if larger numbers of voters under SB2 can cast ballots without even hearing the arguments, I doubt that the result will be better government!”
Sad conceded that some town meeting attendees are justified in hesitating to vote publicly by shows of hands or voice votes on controversial items. But she points out that meeting attendees in the current system can have a secret ballot on any warrant article simply by filing at the meeting a petition for secret ballot by collecting only five signatures in support of it.
Sad also concedes that the traditional, in-person meeting would be unwieldy in larger towns where audiences could be much bigger and the list of warrant articles more lengthy. “But,” she argues, “size is Walpole’s strong point. We’re still small enough that the number of people attending is manageable and hearing arguments on all sides immediately before voting guarantees decisions by informed voters.”
“I used to be put off by the relatively small number of people who made the town’s key decisions at the town meeting, usually fewer than 100 in Walpole. But now I see that at least they are the ones who care enough to spend a few hours asking questions, listening to the town officers’ answers, and seeking responsible decisions.”
Finally, Sad notes, Paul McGuirk, a past Walpole selectman and former State Representative remarked recently that the last warrant article each year is “to transact any other business that may legally come before the meeting.” And, McGuirk noted, commonly items come up under that article that need airing or further research, a sometimes surprising but occasionally valuable outcome of a traditional town meeting that would not be possible if voters were limited to a printed ballot that they cast in a voting booth all by themselves.
--30--