This commentary is by Brian F. Carroll of West Glover, a native Vermonter with a doctorate in educational leadership who works as a public education administrator. He is a member of the Glover Selectboard.
Having recently held our second informational meeting to inform Glover residents of the articles on our town meeting’s Australian ballot, I’ve learned a few things that compel me to reframe my attitude toward Australian ballot.
The town of Glover has long cherished its town meetings and, in my opinion, it should. My wife and I moved to Glover 21 years ago. We attended our first town meeting and thought we’d arrived on a Hollywood set for a Frank Capra movie. One hundred people fill a historic town hall; a deep-voiced moderator adheres to a Vermont version of parliamentary procedure; ample voter participation is sprinkled with constructive banter and humor. All this followed by a delicious church lunch next door to the Town Hall. It was, and still is, an inspiring event.
That scene has repeated itself annually up until this year. As with many towns, the selectboard made the difficult decision to go Australian ballot with the clear intent to return to the annual meeting next year. No-brainer, right? Well, maybe.
With the recent revelation that a significantly higher number of “Gloverites” have requested absentee ballots than typically attend town meeting, I’ve experienced a bit of consternation with how to define a representative democracy.
If our intent is to achieve the highest participation in the decision-making process that can help or hurt a municipality, wouldn’t we strive to enact voting at the polls? The reality is that town meeting in Glover provides an opportunity for 100 out of more than 700 registered voters to weigh in on decisions that impact taxes. That’s not exactly a majority.
So, in my deeper analysis in comparing the two options for implementing democracy, it is obvious they both have their attributes and liabilities. A public town meeting provides residents the opportunity to “call to question” any article presented with the opportunity for the assembled to revise the article. It provides accountability for individual commitment through transparency in the public voting.
Those 100 people attending town meeting know how you vote. One might say that contributes to building a viable community. One might also say that town meeting contributes to a more informed electorate.
Australian ballot allows individuals to privately make their decision in the safe confines of a polling booth. It does allow for quick and easy access to the required ballot, promoting a high turnout.
What was evident at our information meeting was the stark reality that articles could not be revised. They were on the ballot. There was no opportunity for “adjustment” as there would be in a town meeting.
So what’s the resolution to this dilemma? What should our town do? I believe it is the role of every selectboard to ensure all citizens have access and opportunity to attend town meeting. Media reports indicate our towns are not doing a great job with that mission.
One thing Covid has taught us is that we can learn to interact remotely. Despite the many glitches in our informational meetings, we were able to “connect” with the public despite location restrictions. We had 32 participants in our information meetings, which is more than double the number who attend our regular board meetings.
I’ve learned that, although still a logistical challenge, we can broaden our access to the community, giving opportunity to both a live and remote Town Meeting. I believe the answer for towns like Glover is to invest in remote technologies that offer quality video and audio connectivity to our citizens.
Of course, that means we need that web-based infrastructure in our small rural towns.
