This article is by Keith Whitcomb Jr., of the Bennington Banner, in which it was first published Dec. 4, 2014.
BENNINGTON — Citing the Shires Housing grant as an example, a Gage Street resident is suggesting the town alter its charter to expand citizen’s ability to reverse Select Board decisions.
“This referendum would make it so people could vote on the issues the Select Board sees,” said Mike Bethel at the board’s last meeting Nov. 24. “I think it would make the citizens of Bennington feel almost more responsible. If you had voted the other way on the Shires thing, the other side could come and say we’d like a vote of the town.”
In September the Select Board voted 5-2 in favor of facilitating a $700,000 housing grant to Shires Housing for the $5.5 million Monument View Apartment complex. The 24-unit proposal was the subject of heated controversy with many opposed to it turning up in droves at board meetings of the town and school as well as the Development Review Board which in early November approved the project with conditions.
To be awarded the grant, Shires Housing had to have the town act as the receiver, hence the Select Board’s involvement.
Board Chairman Greg Van Houten said voters can already overturn certain types of board decisions if they get a petitioned signed by a certain percentage of registered voters. Such petitions normally require around 500 signatures.
“Anytime with something like this, it’s the unintended consequences you try to predict,” said Van Houten. “I think its certainly worth of entertaining, but there are also definitions of ‘import issues.’”
Definitions would be important, he said, for if every decision the board made could be overturned it would beg the question of why have the select board model of government.
Board member Justin Corcoran also wondered about definitions, saying “important issues” would have to be outlined.
Town Manager Stuart Hurd said that because this is a charter change, the warning times on public hearings for it would legally have to be longer compared to other matters. Two hearings would have to be held before a vote on Town Meeting Day in March. The second could be the floor meeting before the vote.
“I don’t want to rush this, I want to get some research,” said Jacobs.
Corcoran said the second board meeting in December would give adequate time for the matter to be researched enough for further discussion.
The board agreed that it would gather more information and possible bring the matter up at that meeting.
Bethel said he does believe the amendment would remove any of the board’s power, but would eliminate some of the “angst” created by issues such as the housing grant.
The board would be able to do what it thinks best, then voters, if the issue stirred them enough, could respond.
Jacobs said he is not sure they don’t already have that ability. Board member John McFadden said they do in the sense they can vote for who they want on the board.
