This year, Shutesbury’s Annual Town Meeting was somewhat troubling. As some voters approached the microphones in an attempt to modify budgetary line items, it became clear just how difficult it is to change warrant articles and budget items at town meetings.
One issue concerned an Expense Budget line item (#178) for $112,695 to be raised and moved to Capital Stabilization. The request by a voter was to instead transfer the same amount from Free Cash instead of raising it from taxpayers. This move would bolster Capital Stabilization by making a transfer from an account that was projected to have $696,000 left over if all warrant articles passed Town Meeting.
It was decided by town officials and the moderator that the amendment could only ask that the amount in question be removed from the budget altogether. The reasoning was due to the significant amount of money involved; it was determined that voters not present at Town Meeting would be denied the opportunity to comment on the change. The amendment failed.
The second issue concerned warrant article number 5 which dealt with the Locks Pond Road culvert reconstruction. The proposed funding mix included money from the Capital Stabilization account, leftover funds from a state bridge grant, and taking a loan for $500,000. The article was changed at the last minute, however, as the town received a new, less expensive bid that would save $300,000.
The voter at the microphone said he had planned to propose an amendment that would turn the $500,000 loan into a free cash transfer. He now asked whether or not that could be done with the remaining $200,000. Again, it was determined that this could not be done. The article must be voted up or down, as presented. No nips and tucks allowed.
After complaints that the system seemed too rigid to enact any change by voters, the idea of a Citizens’ Initiative Petition was raised. The moderator noted that other Massachusetts towns have used this technique to good effect, but that Shutesbury does not tend to use it. At least two other commenters chimed in that the Citizens’ Petition route seemed like a winner.
What is a Citizens’ Petition for Town Meeting?
Voters may place articles on the Town Meeting warrant via a Citizens’ Petition as long as they deliver the articles before the Select Board closes the warrant. In Shutesbury, delivery must occur at least 45 days before Town Meeting.
For Annual Town Meeting, the petition must be signed by at least 10 registered voters who must state their place of residence, including street and number (if any).
To add an article to a Special Town Meeting, the signatures of 100 voters or 10% of the total number of registered voters (whichever is fewer) is necessary. If citizens want to call a Special Town Meeting themselves, they will need the signatures and stated residences of 200 voters or 20% of the town’s registered voters--whichever is fewer--to do so. The Special Town Meeting must occur within 45 days after the petition is received.
Limits of Citizens’ Petitions
Though useful, Citizens’ Petitions cannot address issues in a warrant that has already closed. For the scenarios outlined from Shutesbury’s most recent Town Meeting, any petition should have been delivered by April 29 at the very latest. However, the warrants and budget documents were not uploaded to Shutesbury’s website until May 23.
To know as early as possible what might be on the warrant would necessitate attending every meeting of at least the Select Board and Finance Committees for several weeks or months ahead of Town Meeting. Even then, interested voters may not know the exact nature of the warrant articles that will eventually be approved for Town Meeting.
Is there a better way for citizens to have their needs and concerns addressed by town officials? Indeed, there is.
Direct action can let town leaders know quickly and efficiently when voters are dissatisfied with a situation or decision. In the next post, we’ll take a look at how townspeople can turn the tide by getting directly involved.
No comments:
Post a Comment