Selectmen weigh surgery to body politic

With the initiative to replace the traditional town meeting with the official ballot system — SB-2 — winning strong support at the town and school district elections earlier this month, the Board of Selectmen have begun to weigh a restructuring of municipal government. Voters rejected SB 2-in both polls, but Meredith voters came within less than 3-percent of the three-fifths super-majority required for success in each election. In balloting for the town, the majority in favor of SB-2 was 57.5-percent, with 616 in favor and 456 against. In the school district election, 57.1-percent of Meredith voters — 599 to 450 — endorsed SB-2 only to be outnumbered by their counterparts in Center Harbor and Sandwich. SB-2 supporter generally argue that the town meeting system results in a very small percentage of voters — typically residents with a "special interest" in a particular outcome — making all of town's major decisions. And they believe that small minority generally favors spending more money. Proponents of the time-honored system point to not only the value of town meeting as a tradition but to their belief that voters who take the time to attend and participate are generally the most knowledgeable and concerned residents of a township. When the Board of Selectmen convened a workshop last week to set its goals for the coming year, Selectman Colette Worsman reminded her colleagues of the majorities in favor of SB-2 and asked that the board add reviewing alternative forms of government to its list of goals. In particular, she stressed that more than half of the voters wanted an opportunity to vote by secret ballot. In fact, even before voters went to the polls some opponents of SB-2, including former Selectboard chairman Peter Miller, suggested that the authority granted to towns to adopt tailer-made charters could offer alternatives superior to the official ballot. Selectman Peter Brothers, who was chosen to chair the board, indicated as much, saying that he has been approached by several people indicating their willingness to study the subject and report to the board. These overtures, together with the votes on SB-2, he acknowledged, reflected "some interest" and, along with selectmen Miller Lovett and Bob Flanders, agreed that the board should explore the alternatives, perhaps by appointing a committee. Town Manager Carol Granfield pointed out that the legal process, which includes voting to convene a charter commission, electing a charter commission, drafting a charter and voting on a charter itself, would stretch over two municipal election cycles from start to finish. The Constitution of New Hampshire does not grant municipalities home rule; that is, the authority to enact ordinances and perform functions that are not prohibited by the state Constitution, state statutes or common law. Instead, municipalities must seek authority from the state to adopt ordinances on matters that are not specifically reserved to the state by the Constitution or state law. For instance, when Laconia and Gilford developed the Lakes Business Park, as a joint venture, an act of the Legislature was required because there was no state statute that enabled municipalities to share property tax revenues. Constitutional amendments to grant municipalities home rule failed in 1974, 1984 and 2000. However, within specified limits, Part I, Article 39 of the constitution, adopted in 1966, authorizes municipalities, with the approval of the voters, to adopt or amend charters. Further, the amendment reads that "the legislature may by general law authorize cities and town to adopt or amend their charters or forms of government in any way which is not in conflict with general law." A quarter of a century later the Legislature got around to enacting a statute (RSA 49-D) to implement what it called these "home rule" powers. The legislation enacted in 1991 provided, in the words of the preamble, "an outline of optional forms of government which may be adopted by any municipality." The act noted that "while the pressures of growth, demand for services and complexity of governmental issues may compel citizens to consider alternative forms of governance of towns, which forms have the same or similar structural appearance and powers traditionally traditionally found in cities, that the preservation of a community's unique sociological and cultural heritage and history as a town be encouraged by the provision of the optional forms of government described in this chapter." In 1995, when SB-2 was enacted, it was incorporated into this statute. Consequently, a charter that seeks to preserve some semblance of the traditional open town meeting is less an alternative than a companion to SB-2. The legislation prescribes five basic forms of town government: town council; town council with official ballot; representative town meeting; budgetary town meeting; and official ballot town meeting. Each form may operate differently from one town to another according to the provisions of their particular charters. The town council, which closely resembles a city form of government, like found in Laconia, serves as both the legislative and governing body and is empowered to address all matters that would otherwise be decided by a town meeting, except for those that the law or the charter require appear on the official ballot. The charter must provide for the appointment of a town manager. A town council may consist of an odd number of members up to a maximum of 15, elected at-large, by district or both to either coterminous or staggered terms. The charter may prescribe that voters, by referendum, approve amendments to the zoning ordinance and bond issues. Bedford, Derry and Durham are now governed by town councils. Alternatively, with the "official ballot town council," the charter incorporates SB-2 and vests the town council with limited authority by prescribing that some or all of the matters otherwise addressed by town meeting, including both budgetary and non-budgetary questions, be reserved to voters and placed on the official ballot. Hooksett, Londonderry, Merrimack and Newmarket have chosen this form. With the representative form of town meeting, authority is vested in a group of representatives elected by districts within the town delineated by the charter as well as the selectmen, town clerk and chair of the Budget Committee, all of whom serve as members-at-large. Like the town council, the representatives exercise all the powers of the traditional town meeting, though the charter may provide for referenda on specific issues at special town meetings convened for the sole purpose of addressing those issues. The budgetary town meeting form retains the traditional open town meeting, but restricts its authority to the annual operating budget presented by the selectmen as well as any bond issues. However, the charter must provide for the introduction of petitioned articles. The budgetary town meeting is a genuine alternative — even the antithesis —to SB-2 and, perhaps not surprisingly has yet to be adopted by any town. The official ballot town meeting form represents a compromise between the traditional town meeting and SB-2. The charter specifies which articles, both budgetary and non-budgetary, will be voted by the open town meeting and which by the official ballot. Salem, a town of nearly 30,000 people, opted for this form of government in 1997 and Peterborough, which with a population between 6,000 and 7,000 is comparable in size to Meredith, adopted this form of government a year ago. Peterborough's charter prescribes a town meeting form of government with a Board of Selectmen of three and a town administrator, but includes a provision that the town meeting consists of three sessions, an initial open session followed by an election and official ballot session followed by a final open session. The first open session, held in March, may debate and amend the operating budget, cost items of collective bargaining agreements, and zoning and charter amendments, all of which appear on the official ballot. The selectmen are entitled to place articles on either the official ballot, in which case they may be debated and amended at the first session, or the warrant of the final open session. Petitioners submitting articles may request they be placed on the official ballot or warrant of the final open session, but the decision rests with the selectmen. The election and official ballot session is held on the second Tuesday in May and is conducted according to the statutes governing town elections. The final open session, scheduled by the selectmen between the second Tuesday and following Saturday in May, may consider, debate and amend any article not included on the official ballot, including articles to appropriate funds for any purpose. If voters reject the operating budget at the official ballot session, it must be adopted by the final open session. But, no other actions of the official ballot session can be reconsidered at the final open session. In contrast to adopting SB-2, which requires only a 60-percent majority on a petitioned article, the process for restructuring town government, prescribed by state law (RSA-49-B), is lengthy and cumbersome. Revision of the town charter may be initiated either by an order of the selectmen or by a petition, endorsed by voters equal to at least 20-percent of the number of ballots cast at the last regular municipal election, to establish a charter commission. The question must then be put to the voters at the next regular municipal election or, in municipalities with biennial elections, at the next state election. In other words, the question could not be put to the voters of Meredith until March, 2009. If voters approve the establishment of a charter commission, the selectmen must then order a special election not less than 56 days or more than 63 days later to chose its nine members, who are elected at-large and without partisan affiliation. The commission may adopt rules to govern its proceedings, but must hold a public meeting within 14 days of organizing itself. The commission must issue a preliminary report within 170 days and a final report within 231 days of its election. Amendments to the charter may be placed on the ballot either by the selectmen or by petitioners. Meanwhile, before it is put to the voters, the charter must be reviewed and approved by the Secretary of State, Attorney General and Commissioner of the Department of Revenue Administration. Once approved the proposed charter would be placed on the ballot of the next municipal election.