Editor’s note: This op-ed is by Steven Farnham, a resident of Plainfield.
About a year ago, Dan DeWalt wrote about how the Vermont Supreme Court has given selectboards too much power over what will (or will not) appear on town meeting warnings. For some reason, his piece prompted a tangential firestorm of enthusiastic sentiment aimed squarely against town meeting itself, as if the right to assemble, discuss and decide matters of our locality has somehow become anti-constitutional.
It is always dismaying to encounter such irrational and self-destructive propaganda, but as with many things, nonsense repeated often and loud enough takes on the appearance of fact, and then truth is in peril.
Leaving aside mob rule, there are only two methods of governing a community once town meeting is eliminated: by proxy (an elected body), and by Australian ballot. The former certainly dilutes the citizens’ direct control of the community, and the weaknesses of the latter are manifold.
An article voted by Australian ballot may only be approved or rejected – no amendments may be made to improve the action or make it more palatable to opposition. You are never required to hear your neighbor’s point of view, and he never is required to hear yours – you both get to vote with reckless disregard for the other. Imagine how shortsighted it would be to run a family or a business this way.
I’ve seen many highly controversial proposals presented to the voters in my town. Discussion sometimes is tense and heated, but more often than not, as each side reaches a better understanding of the other, and a few friendly amendments are made that both sides agree improve the proposal, the issue will pass unanimously, or nearly unanimously. That will never happen with Australian ballot.
If someone hasn’t the gumption to sacrifice one day’s pay a year to keep alive that democracy that was purchased by our ancestors’ blood, I’m not sure that one deserves the chance to vote.
I find the argument that town meeting is unfair to military personnel particularly bizarre. Nobody serving in the military would go into battle without all the facts: Where is the enemy? How many supplies do we have or need? What is the best strategy? … Yet we would argue that the same military person should sit on the other side of the planet and vote on a municipal or school budget, having heard little or nothing about how it affects friends and neighbors – perhaps even how it affects himself? It is the nature of military service that sacrifice is involved. And I’m betting that, in the heat of the war zone, not being able to vote in town meeting isn’t a sacrifice they lose much sleep over. Besides, what’s the point of sending them over there if while they’re gone, we’re going to eviscerate the very democracy they were sent to defend?
Then there is that tired old excuse that town meeting needs to be eliminated because it is unfair to those who are working and (allegedly) cannot attend. For the town meeting promoter, this does present a bit of a quandary, but not the one you think.
How many families celebrate the birthdays of their great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfathers, but do not ever celebrate the birthdays of anyone currently living? Unless their deceased ancestor is Christopher Columbus, George Washington or Martin Luther King, and their family is a major chunk of the American population, then the answer is exactly none of them.
How is it then that we have paid holidays to celebrate the birthdays of dead people who founded this democracy or dramatically altered its course, but no paid holiday on which to keep our democracy alive? This is a bit like spending a king’s ransom to buy a new home, yet failing to spend money on good insurance and proper maintenance.
But (here’s the quandary), is it so bad if Town Meeting Day is not a paid holiday? People fought wars that lasted years and/or gave their lives to create and defend our democracy. If someone hasn’t the gumption to sacrifice one day’s pay a year to keep alive that democracy that was purchased by our ancestors’ blood, I’m not sure that one deserves the chance to vote.
If for some reason, I cannot make it to town meeting some year, I have attended enough to be perfectly confident that my friends and neighbors will make sensible decisions about town affairs in my absence. And if they make foolish decisions, that foolishness will be many times compounded if issues are not discussed at all, and simply voted by Australian ballot. If you want to learn more, I’ll defer the discussion to the expert on the matter, UVM political science professor Frank Bryan. Read his book, “Real Democracy.”
If you are among the many who lament that political discourse in this country is on a one-way trip down a rat hole, remember – town meeting is the only part of our democracy where you get to represent yourself, and vote on the issues, and you don’t have to get elected to do it. If we don’t fight to defend it, participatory democracy will soon be relegated to history’s dustbin – and our descendants, when studying that history, will reflect wistfully back to a time when this country was populated by people who had the audacity and gumption to govern themselves.
