Group wants ability to vote in secret at Town Meeting
August 12, 2009 09:15 am—
HAMILTON — At their best, they are freewheeling wrangles over the public will, where the high and mighty and the low and powerless each have just one vote. At their worst, town meetings dissolve into name-calling, booing and other displays of boorishness before moderators restore order.
What if some people fear the latter more than they welcome the former, and claim to be uncomfortable expressing an opinion in such a forum, unwilling even to raise their hands or voices "yay" or "nay"?
They should be able to vote in secret, a group of Hamilton activists is proposing.
Members of Enough is Enough, a grass-roots group that has been lobbying for "fiscal responsibility" since 2007, have asked selectmen to place a question on the Special Town Meeting warrant this fall that would set a threshold for a secret ballot at future meetings.
Presently, town bylaws don't address secret ballots, meaning they are Moderator Bruce Ramsey's call. Ramsey said he asks that anyone who wants a secret ballot to say so before discussion of an article begins. After that, he lets a simple majority of those present make the decision.
Instead, proponents of the citizens' initiative want 20 percent of the voters at the meeting to make the call.
Ramsey can recall only one time when a secret ballot was employed in Hamilton. That was for a single-issue meeting called to decide the fate of new and renovated middle and high schools, when several thousand voters were expected. School operating budgets have been contentious in town for years. When a Proposition 2 1/2 override is called for to boost the budget, battle lines form quickly.
Opponents of the overrides have long claimed they are intimidated about appearing to be voting "against the children" if they speak up during a meeting. "I was actively booed at a town meeting," resident Betty Gray told the selectmen during their Monday night meeting. Others in the crowded room clamored in agreement.
While state law mandates some of the conduct at town meetings, individual towns decide whether secret ballots are allowed and how they can be called. Until two years ago, Middleton allowed a secret ballot if just five voters stood for it. Now, 25 percent of those present must favor it, and Town Administrator Ira Singer said the change seems to have dissuaded those who were routinely calling for it.
Undemocratic?
In Middleton, as in Hamilton, proponents of secret ballots claimed voters were intimidated by a public vote. But opponents say open discussion — and voting — is the very essence of democracy in this most basic of forms. "It's the nature of the system," Singer said. "There's nothing necessarily wrong with people having different opinions."
Hamilton Selectman Bill Bowler was vehement in his opposition to the citizens' initiative, on a number of levels. First, he's heard the arguments about reluctant participation, he said, but thinks they're overstated. Second, "Town Meeting is the legislative branch of town government," Bowler said. "Legislators vote in public." Finally, permitting 20 percent of the meeting to direct the actions of the other 80 percent would violate the very basis of Town Meeting, he said. "It's undemocratic," Bowler said, drawing rebuttal from Enough is Enough members.
"People are intimidated to vote on certain issues," Betty Gray said.
Selectman David Carey is of two minds about the proposal. He said that he wouldn't oppose "occasional" secret votes, because some people do feel intimidated. On the other hand, the point of the meeting is to gauge the community's support or opposition for the various items on the agenda. "Secret ballots don't do that," Carey said.
Ramsey's biggest concern is a rash of secret ballots that could bog down meetings and discourage attendance. If voters are so reluctant to speak and vote their minds, why not elect people to do it for them and adopt representative town government? In Hamilton, where the subject of merging with neighboring Wenham has consumed volumes of time over the years, dumping open Town Meeting would be a nonstarter, Bowler said.
"I think we'd merge the towns before we'd go to representative Town Meeting."
For an unquestionably fine and thoughtful
response to this Salem News article, go to:
No comments:
Post a Comment