Thomas P. Caldwell: Adopting a charter process is better alternative to town meeting

To The Daily Sun,

Bristol voters are being asked again to adopt the provisions of the Official Ballot Act, commonly known as SB-2 after the senate bill that established the two-session method of handling warrant articles. So far, each time it has been proposed, voters have rejected the change, and they should do so again. SB-2 has been a disaster in every town and school district that has adopted it, and there is a better solution.

There are valid arguments for moving away from Town Meeting, just as there are valid reasons for keeping the tradition intact. One way to handle both of those concerns is to adopt a town charter.

Bristol Selectman Rick Alpers has raised that possibility a few times in the past, but said he doubted the time was right. Perhaps the time has arrived.

The strengths of the traditional Town Meeting are the ability to discuss the warrant and hear from all sides before casting a vote. That is largely lost with SB-2, for two reasons: Voters can only discuss and amend, but not vote, during the deliberative session, and that reduces the incentive to attend. Voters are able to skip the deliberative session and simply cast a ballot, often without a complete understanding of the consequences of their vote.

Proponents of SB-2 correctly point out the time commitment involved in conducting traditional town and school district meetings which makes it difficult for elders and young families to attend. SB-2 also opens it up to “snowbirds” who are away for the winter, and others who find it difficult to get the polls, by allowing for absentee voting. However, a ballot vote requires a contingency in case the proposed budget is defeated, and that leads to the biggest problem with SB-2: the default budget.

The state Legislature has repeatedly tried, unsuccessfully, to adjust the guidelines for default budgets to make it a straightforward calculation, not prone to manipulation by those in authority. The Newfound Area School District has shown how easily the default budget can be used to push through spending that voters have never approved, and it leaves voters with no real choice at the ballot box.

A town charter could address these problems through a three-step process: a business meeting similar to our traditional Town Meeting, where we actually vote on the articles after deliberation and amendments; a ballot vote to ratify those decisions, which allows the elderly and those who can’t attend Town Meeting to have a say; and a third step, going back to a Town Meeting to address any article that is voted down on the ballot.

This proposal takes care of the argument that people don’t get to vote if they don’t want to attend a long meeting (they can choose the ballot and then only attend a short meeting to address the failed articles).

Rather than switching to SB-2, Bristol should appoint a charter commission to bring such a proposal to next year’s meeting.

Thomas P. Caldwell

Bristol