GraniteGrok

Meredith:

Citizen

...The petition has received support from town residents, though others have opposed the measure, citing complications such as the potential for articles to be amended to zero dollars and the potential for a default budget to be greater than an appropriated budget, among other concerns...

Let's see:

Ask yourself - isn't it true that articles can also be changed during Town Meetings?  There's no difference here!

Default budget - yes, that can happen based on contractual obligations that were agreed upon during prior votes (be they Town or SB2 meetings) - think of a school budget that stays flat over all EXCEPT for a contractual salary increase.  Ditto with other unions.  

Remember, SB2 generally means much MORE scrutiny by taxpayers and the effects of special interests is much more diluted due to LARGER percentages of voters actually voting.

And often, this is what is feared - more voters actually voting!

This next one's a doozy (from the Citizen)! 

Miller said the town meeting tradition is tied to democratic history as the founders of the country met and decided on the Constitution in a similar type of meeting. He also said it is vital to the town's social fabric as it brings residents together to debate and discuss its issues.

Democratic History - right!  So, in keeping with the historical context, shouldn't Meredith also be restricting its voting citizenry to only those that own land (which historically was the norm), eliminating the female vote (which also used to be the norm), and restricted other minorities from voting?   

Social Fabric?  Since when does having 200-300 voters actually attending more democratic than having 1,800 to over 2,000 (as here in Gilford)?  Again, from a historic fabric, when towns only consisted of just a few hundred farmers, where people did not stray far from where they lived, this made sense.  Ask yourself - how little does this reflect reality today?

And trust me, with such a small percentage of folks attending Town Meetings (compared with the registered voters in Town), if the "social fabric" of a town really depended on a Town Meeting, there's a terrible problem a foot!  And in a town of several thousand or more, it is impossible to know everyone to keep the social fabric from unraveling. 

"To have that vote come as part of that dialogue I think is critical," he said. "To put all of those issues on a paper ballot is entirely different."

Really?  This goes to the argument of "uniformed voter".  Hate to clue you and others that that try this absurd claim but the right to vote is not dependent on being "informed".  It is a right that "is"; it is dependent of only on being of legal age and legal residency.

I actually would challenge Mr. Miller (and all those elected officials who say the same thing):

Gee, aren't these the same voters that elected YOU?

I'll raise your challenge one more - go ahead, are you in favor of creating a requirement that forces voters to take a test to see how informed they are before allowing them to vote?

After all, in Historical Times, the only place where voters became informed may well have been at Town Meeting or on Sunday morning at church.  Nowadays, with the printed media, TV, radio, and the Internet, the only people who are uninformed are those that choose to remain so.

Go ahead, Mr. Miller, try to take away that right to vote!

Additionally, according to Miller, voting in a default budget as part of SB2 would result in "axing capital projects"

No, it would not.  Capital projects are generally a result of specific warrant articles and not operational budgets. They are subject to votes, be they Town Meeting or SB2.

Once again, the FUD factor (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) is raised to scare people.   Actually, the only people that seem to get scared are those that are always wanting more out of the voters' wallets, like this!  He continues: 

and the town would not have its community center or its new police station if SB2 were in place.

That's right, and what would be wrong with that AS LONG AS THE VOTERS (more voters than in a town meeting) made that so?  Often times, those citizens that vote against spending money are accused of "voting their wallets".

Pray tell me, why is that so wrong?  Why would ANYONE want to assent to something that is against their own interest?

Selectman Bob Flanders addressed the concern people away from town were "disenfranchised" by not being able to vote at town meeting.

"It's also true that those same people who are in Florida and can't go to a deliberative session, they're equally disenfranchised," Flanders said. "Is that a more representative form of government? It doesn't seem like that to me."

I am trying really hard NOT to devolve to Internet standards in addressing this, as this is about as silly an argument as the others.  I'll stay on the high road and say:

Absentee ballots allow legal voter to vote FROM anywhere!!!

Special interests hate to admit it, but often this is how, here in the cold clime of NH, expensive capital projects are rammed through - those that wish to vote against (OR EVEN FOR) things  cannot vote as they are physically somewhere else and will not return to the local area for a single day or night.  Absentee ballots levels the playing field.  And with  the Internet, ALL can stay informed!

Other opponents of SB2 also discussed how a small number of people could attend a deliberative session and amend an article to remove it's entire contents or amend the appropriation amount to zero dollars or $1.

And this can happen in the Town meeting too!  Again, making the inference that only under SB2 could this happen is a deliberate act of nonsense.

"I think there is a potential for more people to become disenfranchised by SB2 than with a town meeting form of government,' Flanders said, urging voters to research SB2 before voting on it.

I really hope that those researching SB2 stumble upon this Post!  There is NO WAY that SB2 disenfranchises people - its sole purpose is to give people time to research the Warrant Articles before voting, and make it easier to vote.

From the Sun:

"...Town Manager Carol Granfield set the scene with a staff report which concluded “the SB-2 form of government is not recommended as a positive improvement for the Town of Meredith.”

This one, I've not heard of being tried - town employees that would actually be in FAVOR of SB-2 (not!).  I wonder what this staff report really says.....

Many people voting,” she said, “do not understand the articles. (And) Those who don’t understand the articles typically vote no.”

Sure, here we go again...and push the incorrect notion and inference that "uninformed voters vote no.  SB-2 automatically means that we have uninformed voters.  Uninformed voters are wrong and bad.  Therefore, SB-2 is bad."

sigh.....

She noted that when voters reject the budget, the default budget taking its place includes  contractual agreements with collective bargaining  units, which must be honored, sometimes at the expense of positions and services.

Here is a classic example of government operating exactly opposite a family's budget - you know, the budget that has to support the government's budget?  Government locks in agreements that automatically raise budgets beyond what it should so as to have to raise taxes beyond its means?

Families have to make choices, often painful ones.  So private companies.  So why is government exempt from putting itself into situations like this?  If the voters say no, and if government is for and by the people, then what they decide is the correct course of action, and government should believe it has to rein itself in.

Too often, government thinks that it is the other way around and believes it is entitled to "no cut backs".

And then they wonder why people push for SB-2?  Why is there never a limit to government growth?

Granfield suggested that SB-2, by increasing the likelihood of voters rejecting budgets while  ensuring that union contracts must be fulfilled, could encourage municipal employees to form collective bargaining units. “SB-2 communities,” Granfield suggested, may better assist towns that do not have a professional manager and department heads on staff.”

So, explain why unions abound at the State and Federal level? And to say that that towns that have "professionals" do not need SB-2?  Actually, I disagree as most bureaucracies want to grow, not shirink (private or public)...and growth means more expenses thus more taxes.  And "professional" managers always want to manage more...thus...well, you can fill in the blank.

There is NOTHING that backs this line of reasoning up so as to be true.

Miller said that the proposal was “all about curbing spending, a way of axing capital projects” and claimed that had the official ballot been in place, the Community Center and new police station would not have been built. He said that while Town Meeting “unites and bonds the residents of this town,” SB-2 has proved divisive. “I would hate to see us get mired in the kind of conflicts you see in Sanbornton, Gilford or Moultonborough.”

Tell me, when a majority of citizens agree that additional spending is wrong, why is that wrong?  Why is that to be complained about?

Oh yeah, when you are one of those that wants these projects regardless of the cost to your townfolk.  As long as you see "progress", regardless of its cost, you are fine.  When votes go against you, when an oversight process is put into place, that limits the ability to spend when those same citizens say "enough - no more".

And perhaps, given that more people would be voting, the special interests going for these projects would have been defeated. 

SB-2 is divisive for one and only one reason - it STOPS the special interests from hijacking Town Meetings and spending more than a majority of people want.

And I'll be honest - since I live in an SB2 town - Gilford - I can tell you that SB2 has only enhanced the political process here in town.  Sure, differences are sharpened, but the discussions happen and a conclusion is reached.  And in the end, a far lager percentage of voters make the final decisions than those small groups at a Town Meeting. 

Selectman Bob Flanders said that “my biggest concern is that when the people go to the polls they have the full story,” referring to the “warts and pimples” of the SB-2 process. “I’ve just heard an awful lot of negatives,” he said, recalling that in one town voters endorsed contradictory articles and in another reduced an appropriation for a fire station to $1. Noting that participation in the deliberative meeting is an important part of the SB 2-process, Flanders said that those people wintering in Florida and unable to attend are “disenfranchised,” even if they cast absentee ballots. “Is that a more representative form of government? It doesn’t seem like that to me,” he said.

First, ask Mr. Flanders who he hears the negatives from!  I'll bet that it is always those that are shrinking from additional oversight and additional voting.  This dilutes their power - of course they will fight it tooth and nail! 

Next, we have Mr. Flanders calling voters stupid, then denigrating them for rejecting a fire station proposal (which could be done at a Town Meeting too!).  After all, anyone who votes against the establishment MUST be addled, right?

I still have no clue what he means by disenfranchised snow-birds - in today's media world, anyone who wants to be informed can be.....being informed has nothing to do with location.

And how the heck can he claim that by voting by absentee ballots is disenfranshing?  That, plainly speaking, ranks high on the "stupid" scale.  If that is true, why do absentee ballots exist in the first place for non-geographically located people?

***** 

Moultonborough:

Citizen 

Please give our position on this article serious consideration before you make your final decision. A 'no' vote on this petitioned warrant article will maintain our current form of government, which allows all residents to discuss and vote on warrant articles during our annual meeting. Thank you very much.

Laurie Whitley, Moultonborough School Board, Chair

Hah!  This seems to infer that by switching to SB2, voters will not be able to discuss anything anytime.  WRONG!  This can be done at the annual Deliberative Session as well as during the time period between the Deliberative Session and the actual voting.

In other words, they don't like the idea that you can CONTINUE to talk, further the debate and the knowledge gathering process, before actually voting. 

This is a blatant attempt at misdirection and mis-information.

***** 

Shaker Regional School District:

From the Citizen:

While others have praised the system for allowing people's voices to be heard at the ballot box, others have criticized the system for not allowing citizens to be better informed when they vote and the lack of attendance at deliberative sessions.

At the last school board meeting, members voted to not support the measure when presented on the warrant.

The uninformed voter argument was addressed earlier and again I ask - "so, when do you start doing the test for Town Meetings too"?  I find a lot of folks uninformed there as well.?

Remember - voting is a right and not contingent on anything else!

And I am HARDLY surprised that yet another School Board is against it - their budget comes under more scrutiny (and we can't have THAT, can we)? 

*****

Belmont:

From the Citizen - [School] Board Chair Graham Chynoweth:

"Regarding the board's position, our feeling is if it ain't broke, don't fix it," he said.

Oh really?  Is that why the building projects you keep proposing keep getting rejected?  Did you ever think that SB2 is being proposed because the citizens have lost their trust in you?

Chynoweth said he and the board did not know much about SB2 before the petition was brought before them. He said that after doing their research, they decided that they would not support the measure to turn the district into an SB2 district.

"The proponents had not pointed out to problems in the district and in our view, they can't," he said.

I have yet to hear of a single situation where a School Board was in favor of SB2 - yet, year after year, regular citizens adopt it in their towns.  And only 3 have ever gone back. 

You know, covering the Presidential campaigns the way we have this year has given us a nose - a nose that can sniff out spin faster than me slipping on my icy driveway.  Pure pap!

Resident Ron Mitchell said that one of the major problems of SB2 was that not many people get involved in the deliberative session and that it limits participation in the process

NOTHING could be further than the truth!  ANY level participation that can be had under the Town Meeting format is available under SB2. There is NOTHING that automatically limits participation - either before, during, or afterwards - in any way.  Fini, the end, the Truth!  Again, the only difference is that voting takes place a month after the Deliberative Session and in the privacy of the voting booth!

Chynoweth also pointed out the problems with having a small minority controlling what gets put on the budget at the ballot box. Board member Roy Robert said that the board had been accused of being exclusive in the past but that more people have gotten involved in the process under the current system than they would under SB2.

Heh!  Ever watch the moves of a special interest group during a Town Meeting?  That's about it - a small minority hijacking the entire process.  But remember, ANY petition warrant article  can go on, and any warrant article (petition or not) can be amended at a Deliberative Session (just like a Town Meeting).

"If you put it on the ballot, read about it in the paper, it's not the same feeling on what it means if you see it in the ballot box for the first time," Roberts said.

Sheesh...back to the uninformed voter argument again!