[0:08] the May 28th, 2026 meeting of the bright

[0:13] Turner Revision Commission to order. Um,

[0:16] we're going to get them be getting the

[0:17] minutes for next meeting. Um, Jessica

[0:21] has done them and is sending them to us.

[0:23] Uh, I have no reasons to modify the

[0:26] agenda. Does anyone else have any reason

[0:28] to want to modify the agenda?

[0:32] Okay, we'll move right into old

[0:34] business, which is we're going to pick

[0:36] up where we left off from last week,

[0:40] which is the form of annual town meeting

[0:42] to include in the charter. And as a

[0:45] quick quick recap for anybody who hasn't

[0:48] watched last week's meeting yet or last

[0:51] two weeks ago meeting and uh or needs a

[0:55] refresher

[0:56] um where we left it was

[1:00] um you know we had had we talked about

[1:03] the results of the March vote

[1:05] um and whether we should in any way

[1:09] change what we have in the charter which

[1:11] is right now open town meeting. Peter

[1:14] and I asked for an opportunity to put

[1:17] some information together about how we

[1:19] might be able to do a combined

[1:21] open town meeting Australian ballot. And

[1:24] so that's what we want to talk to you

[1:26] folks about right now. And we have put

[1:30] some information together for anybody

[1:32] who's watching on TV. You can go to the

[1:36] brattleboroough.gov

[1:38] gov website, go to the charter page and

[1:41] you'll find the handouts that we're

[1:44] going to be referring to. And before I

[1:47] start, I just want everyone to know

[1:49] we're not presuming right now that we're

[1:52] going with a combined. I mean, Peter and

[1:53] I are not sitting here doing this as if

[1:56] we've all decided to go with a combined

[1:59] system because we know some people

[2:03] might not want to. But what we asked

[2:06] last meeting is if we could come forward

[2:08] with how we might be able to do a

[2:10] combined system. Um, so we we and we put

[2:13] a cover memo together. Um, and I'm going

[2:16] to let Peter talk about some of this

[2:18] because we equally work together and I

[2:21] don't want to the spotlight. Um,

[2:24] >> go ahead, Madam Chair. But yeah, and

[2:27] what we did is we um took some the some

[2:32] of the suggestions that we received at

[2:34] the last meeting

[2:36] um and we listened to Hillary and we

[2:39] talked to Hillary again and we talked to

[2:41] some other people and we've come up with

[2:44] I think three things to talk about and

[2:48] we might find there's something else

[2:50] that we need to talk about but we put

[2:52] down what we came up with and again n

[2:55] None of this is cast in stone. It's just

[2:57] we need a talk. We need a place to start

[2:59] the conversation. Um so we have like

[3:02] three different kind suggestions and

[3:05] Peter again if I say that you want step

[3:07] in. Got it.

[3:08] >> Um the first was a suggestion we

[3:11] received from the public last week which

[3:13] would be to do the open town meeting in

[3:16] January and have the budget vote on the

[3:20] first Tuesday in March. You know to

[3:21] coincide with the vote that we already

[3:23] do on town meeting day. Um then we did

[3:28] um a

[3:31] uh town meeting day

[3:34] same March

[3:37] 7th or would be March 7th 2028 but um

[3:41] town meeting day the

[3:44] Australian ballot for elected officials

[3:46] and everything would be done the first

[3:47] Tuesday in March as always. We would do

[3:50] an open town meeting either the sec

[3:52] first or second Saturday in March

[3:56] followed after that 30 to 40 days later

[3:58] by an Australian ballot vote. So that

[4:01] would be, you know, not changing Yeah.

[4:03] on the budget. Australian ballot vote on

[4:05] the budget. So not not flipping the

[4:07] order, keeping the order the same. Um,

[4:11] and then there are

[4:14] and there's two different ways that any

[4:16] of this could happen or the the ones the

[4:20] Australian ballot vote that would happen

[4:22] after town meeting day could either

[4:24] happen automatically or it could be

[4:27] activated by either a vote at open town

[4:31] meeting or by a citizen

[4:35] I don't want to say petition or

[4:36] referendum or whatever. So there are

[4:38] different ways that that could happen.

[4:39] So, what you have, and I'm going to let

[4:42] Peter walk through these, too, um is

[4:46] there's a sheet here that says

[4:48] information regarding the three

[4:49] alternatives for a combined system. That

[4:52] is where those um are laid out. And what

[4:55] we've tried to do is is not pick one

[4:59] over the other, but to say like this is

[5:02] why this is how this would happen. This

[5:03] is why this might work and this might

[5:05] not work. Um and the pros and the cons.

[5:08] Obviously, this is not a comprehensive

[5:09] list and I'm sure people here are going

[5:11] to look at it and go, "Well, what about

[5:12] this? What about that?" But we need to

[5:13] start the discussion somewhere. So,

[5:15] that's why we have this right now.

[5:17] >> So, Peter, I don't know if you want to

[5:18] walk through this. Yeah. And we're going

[5:20] to look at this memo again that says on

[5:22] the top information regarding the three

[5:23] alternatives.

[5:26] So um what we tried to do in uh this

[5:29] document was um name aspects that um

[5:33] differentiate

[5:35] um one or two from the other one or two

[5:37] so that um it gives a little bit of an

[5:39] opportunity to um frame the conversation

[5:42] um that we'll be getting into shortly

[5:45] where we um it's more of a pros and cons

[5:48] kind of a conversation here. we were

[5:50] trying to just state um factual impacts

[5:53] of choosing one versus another. So for

[5:57] instance um the first two bullets for

[6:00] both the um January OTM alternative and

[6:04] the uh automatic AB if it's AB otm AB um

[6:11] for both the of those two alternatives

[6:13] the first two bullets are clarity and

[6:15] consistency because we would all know

[6:17] ahead of time what the rules are. So, um

[6:20] there's going to be a certain sort of

[6:22] cadence to it that we would follow and

[6:25] we would follow it automatically

[6:26] whichever of those two might be the uh

[6:29] chosen option. And then as you get

[6:31] deeper down into the bullets for each of

[6:32] those two, there are some things that

[6:34] distinguish them. Um the January

[6:37] alternative would be the most efficient

[6:40] um in terms of the use of the voters's

[6:42] time only having to show up one time for

[6:45] an AB. um and also of town government's

[6:48] resources in terms of not having to um

[6:51] have multiple steps to the process. Um

[6:54] but it would require that the town

[6:57] government, the town administration and

[6:58] the select board prepare a budget um

[7:02] earlier by at least a month. Um the

[7:06] right now there's kind of some play in

[7:07] it. It's typically the budget is

[7:09] typically finished by about the 1st of

[7:10] February even though traditionally we

[7:12] haven't been considering it in time

[7:13] meeting until the middle of March. So,

[7:15] we think that that can be tightened and

[7:18] it'll be approximately a month earlier

[7:20] that the uh budget process would need to

[7:23] start and be completed uh in order to

[7:25] make this system work. And there's a

[7:27] logistical question about the basketball

[7:29] season being in January in the middle of

[7:31] basketball season might make it more

[7:32] complicated to get the BHS gym. Um I'll

[7:35] say personally I think the governance

[7:39] aspects are more important than the um

[7:42] access to the gym. I think we can work

[7:44] through um uh as a community options

[7:48] that might be available, but um the

[7:51] preference has been clearly identified

[7:53] to continue to meet in the gym. And so

[7:55] um we named that as a concern from uh uh

[7:58] if we chose that first option.

[8:01] The uh second one um would automatically

[8:05] require two Australian ballot votes each

[8:07] year um each spring. the uh town meeting

[8:11] David vote and then the later vote on

[8:12] the budget. Um

[8:15] although it's been observed that um

[8:18] perhaps if the second vote is just on

[8:20] the budget that we might be able to have

[8:22] that be not a full-blown um fully

[8:25] staffed kind of election setup um like

[8:28] we typically have at the Legion but

[8:30] maybe could be done uh more

[8:32] cost-ffectively. So there's a

[8:33] conversation still to be had around the

[8:35] um logistical aspect of that. Um and

[8:39] then the uh third is um less consistent

[8:44] the this option of um a conditional

[8:49] we've called it um Australian ballot

[8:50] where there would be under certain

[8:51] conditions an Australian ballot vote

[8:54] would be held rather than automatically

[8:55] every year um on the budget. Um it lacks

[8:59] consistency and clarity. There would be

[9:01] variation from year to year depending on

[9:03] circumstances. Um that means that there

[9:06] is the potential of saving time and

[9:08] money on years when there the budget is

[9:10] not a contentious issue in town. Um but

[9:13] it also means that um there's less

[9:15] certainty and potential for more

[9:17] confusion around um the process and um

[9:21] maybe harder for people to participate

[9:22] in the process.

[9:25] Um,

[9:26] one way to help alleviate that if this

[9:29] was the chosen path, um, would be to

[9:31] have an automatic,

[9:34] um, activator. So something like how the

[9:37] action is taken at town meeting affects

[9:39] whether or not the um, uh, Australian

[9:43] ballot is um, automatically warned. Um,

[9:48] and of course, there would always be the

[9:49] opportunity to to u petition to have it

[9:52] heard. Um,

[9:55] a nice thing about the automatic option

[9:59] if it was AB otmab

[10:02] is um, no petition would ever be

[10:04] required because the the vote on the

[10:06] budget would automatically occur each

[10:08] year. And so, um, from a sort of

[10:12] community civic health perspective as

[10:14] well as a, um, um,

[10:18] time efficiency in trying to make sure

[10:20] that this process gets done whenever

[10:22] possible before July 1st and the

[10:24] beginning of a new fiscal year. Um, that

[10:26] there are some pretty clear advantages

[10:29] to if it if it is ABOT, there's some

[10:32] pretty clear advantages to having it be

[10:33] automatic rather than conditional. Um

[10:38] we also uh suggest so I'll say um from

[10:43] my perspective not necessarily our

[10:45] perspective because we haven't discussed

[10:46] it this way um I don't have a strong

[10:49] preference for any one of these I have

[10:50] some concerns about each one um and I'm

[10:53] looking forward to the conversation to

[10:54] see where we might land um but we did

[10:58] have conversations about some aspects of

[11:01] this that we thought should apply um uh

[11:04] to any of the alternatives that might be

[11:06] chosen. So, there's different paths we

[11:07] could travel, but then in traveling

[11:08] those paths, there's certain um aspects

[11:11] of a new system that we thought would be

[11:12] important. And so, I say we on this one

[11:14] because we did have extensive

[11:16] conversation and frame this language

[11:17] together. Um we uh heard a suggestion

[11:21] that um OTM ought to not be able to

[11:25] reject a budget, that ought to have an

[11:28] obligation to pass a budget, whether

[11:29] it's an uh the select board's

[11:31] recommended budget or whether it's an

[11:33] amended one. Um we think that's a good

[11:35] suggestion. Again, um one of the things

[11:38] that we're going to need to um be

[11:40] mindful of as we decide on a system um

[11:42] is the passage of time. And there's

[11:44] timelines for each of these different

[11:46] alternatives that are um some sample

[11:48] timelines that are provided as part of

[11:49] the backup tonight. It's not the only

[11:51] way that each one could unfold, but it's

[11:53] a um

[11:56] in each case the way that made the most

[11:59] sense to us in terms of the 30 to 40day

[12:02] timelines that are required for gaps in

[12:04] between as each different piece of this

[12:06] gets warned. And so, um there are

[12:09] circumstances where it will be

[12:11] challenging to get a budget adopted by

[12:13] July 1st, uh in order to implement with

[12:15] the beginning of the new fiscal year.

[12:16] There's also safeguards that we can put

[12:18] into the um charter um to make it really

[12:23] clear that town government has the

[12:24] authority to continue to operate on July

[12:26] 1st if there isn't an approved budget

[12:28] for the new year that they can operate

[12:30] um in accordance with the the um

[12:32] authority of the prior year's budget um

[12:34] as if it had been readopted identical to

[12:37] what it was in the prior year just to

[12:39] tide the town over so it keeps

[12:40] functioning in July while we the

[12:42] community finish our work on approving

[12:44] what it's going to be for the new year.

[12:46] Um, so we think that getting into July

[12:49] for a final decision, it really isn't

[12:52] um to use informal language, it's not

[12:55] the end of the world. Um, and it's also

[12:58] um definitely not the best outcome. It's

[13:01] um it's a act an outcome that has um

[13:04] negative practical implications for the

[13:06] operation of town government that we

[13:07] should try to avoid if we can. Um and so

[13:10] uh we think that it's an advantage for

[13:12] that reason to have OTM have to pass out

[13:15] something whether they amend what's

[13:17] brought to them by the select board or

[13:18] whether they approve it as the select

[13:20] board has proposed it. Um having to

[13:22] approve something at OTM to um send to

[13:25] the Australian ballot uh phase of this

[13:28] we think is appropriate.

[13:30] And then um we also think it's

[13:33] appropriate that for the Australian

[13:35] ballot vote to reject the budget that is

[13:37] sent to the ballot um by OTM that the

[13:41] threshold for rejection of the budget

[13:42] should be 60% plus one rather than 50%

[13:45] plus one. So a super majority required.

[13:48] The thinking there is um that the um

[13:53] back to the what brought us even into

[13:55] this conversation. Those of you who were

[13:56] in the room and I think about half of

[13:58] you were and about half of you weren't

[14:00] um last week um or two weeks ago um

[14:03] heard the discussion of the commission

[14:06] around um interpreting the results of

[14:08] the election. And so um we have some

[14:12] difference of opinion among us that we

[14:14] will uh work through as we have this

[14:17] conversation.

[14:18] um around the uh the outcome of the

[14:22] election either being um indicating to

[14:25] us that the people of the town want both

[14:28] aspects of this system or don't

[14:31] necessarily want both as aspects of this

[14:33] system. Um I'm not going to try to speak

[14:35] for others about um the alternative

[14:38] point of view, but for Kate and me um we

[14:41] do think that the outcome of the vote

[14:42] said the people of the town said by a

[14:45] small margin we're done with our RTM and

[14:47] then by relatively larger margins for

[14:50] both OTM and AB um we like the both of

[14:54] these systems. So when asked what would

[14:56] you replace RTM with? The voters of the

[14:58] town said we would like to replace it

[15:00] with OTM. They also said we would like

[15:02] to replace it with AB. And we think that

[15:05] provides our commission with guidance to

[15:09] do this piece of work that we're doing

[15:10] right now of trying to find a way for

[15:12] these two systems to work together.

[15:14] We equally think that if we're going to

[15:16] rely on those results from the voters as

[15:20] indication of preference that it's fair

[15:22] to look at the tally related to uh open

[15:26] town meeting, the tally related to

[15:28] Australian ballot and see that the open

[15:32] town meeting vote, there were more yeses

[15:35] and fewer nos than the Australian ballot

[15:38] vote. And so we think that it's

[15:40] appropriate to have um for that reason

[15:44] in terms of the um intentions of the

[15:47] town voters and for the reason of the um

[15:52] uh efficiency and clarity of the

[15:53] process. So back to the idea that moving

[15:56] a process along um with the u best

[16:01] probability of having a successful

[16:03] outcome and having a budget that can be

[16:04] implemented on July 1st. Um for those

[16:06] reasons, we think that um a budget

[16:09] rejection at Australian ballot should

[16:11] require a supermajority of no votes.

[16:15] And then related to that would apply to

[16:18] any of the three options related just to

[16:21] the two that go ABMA.

[16:24] Um we think that that uh the rejection

[16:28] of a budget by Australian ballot should

[16:32] not send the process all the way back to

[16:33] the start with the select board. We

[16:35] don't think that there's time for that,

[16:36] frankly. And um by warning immediately

[16:40] after such a rejection, by warning the

[16:42] next OTM to consider the budget,

[16:45] there'll be a 30 to 40day window within

[16:47] which the select board will have an

[16:48] opportunity and the town staff will have

[16:50] an opportunity to do further work on the

[16:53] rejected budget so as to be able to make

[16:55] a recommendation to the OTM of any

[16:57] changes that town administration would

[16:59] recommend. So that by the time the OTM

[17:02] is held, we're saying basically it

[17:04] doesn't need to go back and start again

[17:05] at the select board. We need to get a a

[17:08] meeting warned as soon as possible to

[17:09] keep the process moving. But the select

[17:11] board would have an opportunity during

[17:13] that month to make a new recommendation

[17:15] for OTM to consider. OTM's action would

[17:18] then um be um immediately after the OTM

[17:22] warned for the next Australian ballot

[17:24] vote on the budget.

[17:26] And for this same reason, that's a

[17:28] recurring theme around

[17:31] um having this be a um as thorough a

[17:35] process as possible, but also a

[17:36] timeefficient process that doesn't lag

[17:40] so as to get to an outcome and be able

[17:42] to implement a budget. If there's a

[17:44] second rejected AB, um a sec a second

[17:48] time, this would be like a um June or

[17:51] July time frame for this vote for the uh second Australian ballot vote in

[17:57] any given year on the budget. If it's

[17:59] rejected for a second time, we think it

[18:01] ought to then go back to uh an open town

[18:04] meeting and be back and forth between

[18:06] open town meeting and select board until

[18:07] there's an outcome without another

[18:10] return. And so it would be from there on

[18:12] two steps in the process rather than

[18:13] three steps in the process each time.

[18:16] And that's what we there's there's

[18:18] timelines that are reflective of what I

[18:22] just described that we can go over in

[18:24] more detail if you'd like. They're they

[18:26] support basically what I've just

[18:28] described and we're looking forward to

[18:30] the conversation.

[18:31] >> Just a quick clarifying question if I

[18:32] can just because of this. You said back

[18:34] and forth between OTM and the select

[18:36] board. That's still a hypothetical back

[18:40] of what you've laid out if that would be

[18:42] the 60% plus one or 50%.

[18:44] >> Yes. So the if if it were ultimately

[18:48] approved that 60% plus one is required

[18:51] then that that would presume that that

[18:53] two times both in April and in June or

[18:56] July that the outcome on Australian

[18:59] ballot was greater than 60% opposed to

[19:01] the budget. And in that instance, after

[19:04] the second rejection, we do think it

[19:06] needs to go back to the town government.

[19:09] We we've used the phrase town government

[19:10] so that it's kind of town staff, select

[19:13] board, some combination thereof to be

[19:16] determined by the town staff and the

[19:17] select board rather than by us. Um but

[19:20] um in the in the case of two rejections,

[19:24] we think it must go back to town

[19:26] government so that town government has

[19:28] an opportunity to um rework what has now

[19:32] been rejected twice and can make a

[19:34] proposal. By then we're already into a

[19:36] situation where the new fiscal year is

[19:37] starting on last year's budget. And so

[19:40] taking the additional time in the July

[19:42] August time frame to actually go back

[19:45] and

[19:46] rework the budget we think is necessary

[19:48] under those circumstances.

[19:52] » And the timelines are just samples and

[19:58] as you'll see and we we did this based

[20:02] on our conversation with Hillary that

[20:04] the minimum number of days we need is

[20:06] 30. you know, between 30 and 40 days.

[20:09] So, we try to just sh it's more to show

[20:12] how it would work and where how far we

[20:15] can get in the process before we get

[20:18] past July 1st. You know what I mean? So,

[20:20] it's you can have we can go through the

[20:22] process once and still stay

[20:27] in um April

[20:30] or May,

[20:31] >> right? Even when we started in in March,

[20:34] it's when if a budget is rejected and we

[20:37] have to do it a second time is when we

[20:39] get back into the issue where it's

[20:42] passed

[20:44] July 1st

[20:45] >> under some circumstances

[20:46] >> under some under some circumstances.

[20:48] >> One other thing I think is worth noting

[20:49] if we do refer to these sample timelines

[20:52] as we have the discussion um they are

[20:56] using the real dates for town meeting

[21:00] day. the real day for town meeting day

[21:01] and then all the other dates play off of

[21:03] that starting point. Um but the real day

[21:06] for town meeting day of March 7th, 2028

[21:09] um is is um used as sort of the um

[21:16] the given for this. Um and it's

[21:19] important to note that that means this

[21:21] is the latest possible calendar for any

[21:24] of the seven, right? We could have a

[21:25] town meeting day on March 1st or on

[21:27] March 7th or any of the days in between.

[21:29] we will over the years have all of those

[21:32] different um uh things happen and this

[21:36] is the example of the latest of any of

[21:39] the possible ways of this occurring. So

[21:42] the fact that this one does take us into

[21:44] July um on um I think two of the three

[21:49] alternatives um again it different

[21:53] people can have different opinions about

[21:54] how much of a problem that is. That's a

[21:57] thing to weigh for sure. Um, but it's

[21:59] also there will be years when this that

[22:01] isn't the case even in a time when

[22:04] there's two budgets because the the

[22:06] reason that July 11th shows up as the

[22:08] time for the second AB vote in those

[22:11] scenarios um is because the week prior

[22:14] on Tuesday is July 4th. So in years

[22:17] where let's say it's the the 2nd of

[22:20] March is town meeting day. So that's 5

[22:22] days earlier 5 days earlier than um 5

[22:25] days earlier than March 7th. So 5 days

[22:28] earlier than July 4th is actually still

[22:30] in June for there to be another AB vote

[22:33] that could possibly um provide approval.

[22:35] And it's last minute, but it would still

[22:37] be um an approved budget before the town

[22:39] enters the new fiscal year.

[22:41] >> And and just so people know why there

[22:42] are two March examples. The first one is

[22:46] March 18, 2028, which is the second

[22:48] Tuesday after the second Saturday after

[22:51] the first Tuesday, which is the

[22:52] preferred date that the town clerk's

[22:54] office would love to do a town meeting.

[22:57] We also ran March 11th, the first

[23:00] Saturday, which is the f first Saturday

[23:02] after the first Tuesday, so we could see

[23:04] another example of March. And then we

[23:06] have the flipped. And I just want to

[23:08] make it really clear to everybody, we

[23:10] only go into May or June or May or July

[23:14] if the budget is rejected. If this, you

[23:17] know what I mean, if the select board's

[23:18] budget and the OTM budget is rejected.

[23:21] Otherwise,

[23:22] >> I think it's done.

[23:23] >> It's done in April.

[23:26] >> Um, yes.

[23:27] >> Can I ask a question?

[23:30] >> Um, the

[23:33] we're the third ex what I'll call the

[23:35] third example.

[23:37] Um, you have activator could be by a

[23:42] fixed rule, you know, that's where you

[23:44] have this 60 plus one.

[23:47] >> Um,

[23:49] how do you envision

[23:52] that vote taking place? I know when I

[23:55] saw that I I was reminded that in years

[23:59] past RTM

[24:01] sometimes did votes by ballot. for

[24:05] example, on um borrowing money or

[24:11] » moving the big one was moving the police

[24:14] station.

[24:16] Um is that how you envision figuring out

[24:20] how you get to 60 plus one?

[24:22] >> Not how I was envisioning. This could be

[24:23] accomplished by just standing up for yay

[24:26] and standing up for nay. But it but it

[24:28] also could be done.

[24:30] >> The reason why I asked is because I I

[24:32] several people have

[24:35] said to me that they like OTM and they

[24:38] like voting on the budget, but

[24:43] because they're business people, and I

[24:45] think we've heard this in in the past

[24:48] also, because they're business people,

[24:50] they're they're afraid or they're

[24:53] fearful that their vote will be taken in

[24:56] a way that would affect their business.

[24:59] Now, I I don't know whether that's true

[25:01] or not, but if they feel that way, you

[25:03] know, that's the way they feel.

[25:05] >> So, I would say that if we if we do an

[25:09] activator and and um I have to say that

[25:13] I'm leaning toward that

[25:16] option that it should be

[25:19] like paper ballot.

[25:25] Okay.

[25:28] We should say the timelines don't

[25:30] reflect

[25:32] an activator. They don't don't reflect

[25:34] the third option at all. They reflect

[25:36] two different possibilities for the

[25:38] second option.

[25:39] >> Yeah.

[25:40] >> Because the third option other than in

[25:41] the scenario that that

[25:43] >> is possible depending on our how our

[25:45] conversation goes around something that

[25:47] would be activated by an accident of

[25:49] town meeting.

[25:50] >> The the likelier um activator would be a

[25:55] petition. Whether that's a 10-day

[25:56] petition or a 30-day petition, in either

[25:58] case, you know, it depends on the timing

[26:01] of the petition and the certifying of

[26:02] the petition and then the warning of the

[26:04] meeting. I mean, there's a there's a

[26:05] time an unknown aspect to that timeline

[26:08] that made it impossible for us to

[26:10] >> Yeah, that's why I I would be in favor

[26:13] of we go with that option to have an

[26:16] activator.

[26:18] >> I mean, there can always be a request

[26:21] for I mean, we have petition requests

[26:25] in the charter.

[26:26] >> We do.

[26:28] >> Um, again, because we have a limited

[26:30] amount of time to get to July 1st, the

[26:32] second option would move this process

[26:35] along to a ballot in a certain and more

[26:38] efficient period of time. If we left it

[26:41] to the uncertainty of the third option,

[26:45] um, we will more often bump up against

[26:48] the July 1 deadline.

[26:56] Maybe we can combine

[26:58] the second and third options.

[27:04] » Yeah, I think Kate and I definitely make

[27:06] no representation that there isn't a

[27:07] fourth and a fifth and a 10th option.

[27:09] >> I mean, in this conversation, we expect

[27:11] that there'll be some morphing that'll

[27:14] occur that it won't necessarily be

[27:15] picking one of these, but these are a

[27:17] starting point for the conversation.

[27:20] Tana,

[27:21] >> I feel like we're treating this

[27:22] conversation like we're already

[27:23] considering one of these three. And I

[27:25] know you said we're not, but I I think

[27:28] there are

[27:30] logistical and legal issues with all of

[27:33] these that need to be addressed before

[27:35] we can start talking about whether or

[27:37] not there's an activator. I mean,

[27:38] there's already a procedure under state

[27:40] law and our and our charter as it exists

[27:42] now to do an Australian ballot after an

[27:45] open town meeting. And I just don't see

[27:48] why we need to make things more

[27:50] complicated. And some of these

[27:53] suggestions, I mean, I don't I don't

[27:54] want to just immediately jump into this,

[27:57] but stuff like saying OTM has to pass a

[28:00] budget. That's you're infringing on

[28:01] people's constitutional right to vote

[28:03] how they want. You're I mean, it could

[28:05] even be argued to be like a you can't force people to vote. Yes. you

[28:10] and and

[28:13] you you

[28:15] I just I I'm I'm so baffled that

[28:21] we I I feel like for years we've been

[28:25] talking about ways to make voting more

[28:27] accessible, make town government easier

[28:29] to access, and this seems like a step in

[28:32] the wrong direction.

[28:34] And I am very concerned that we're headed

[28:39] down a road where one of these is the

[28:41] only thing that's going to like that there's no consideration of whether

[28:44] or not this is even an appropriate thing

[28:46] to do both. And I I I would really like

[28:50] to have that conversation. And I feel

[28:52] like I I I just don't want to get into the the

[28:58] nitty-gritty of which of these is best

[29:00] because quite frankly I don't think any

[29:02] of these are best.

[29:05] And I and I hear you and I think

[29:09] you know we do have something in the

[29:11] petition in the petition pendant charter

[29:13] about referendum or or or not referendum

[29:17] well whatever it is you know

[29:18] reconsideration

[29:19] >> petition for reconsideration. Um, but

[29:21] that requires 425 signatures.

[29:25] You know what I mean? So, I think we're

[29:26] making we're making it almost impossible

[29:30] for somebody who wants the budget to go

[29:33] to Australian ballot vote to do that.

[29:36] And I think B this is just like on that

[29:38] point. We did have this vote in March

[29:43] and I don't think it's right to tell

[29:44] some tell people you have to go get 425

[29:47] signatures in order to have an

[29:48] Australian ballot budget vote on the

[29:50] budget. So that's sort of where I am on yes, it it says something in our

[29:56] charter about being able to reconsider

[29:58] something at town meeting, but is it

[30:00] based on the vote that we had in March?

[30:03] Is that the appropriate thing to tell

[30:06] people? Well, you got to go out and get

[30:07] 425 signatures.

[30:09] >> You know, why wouldn't I feel like the

[30:10] easy option then would be to say, let's

[30:12] just lower that threshold instead of

[30:14] creating this system where there's

[30:16] suddenly two votes. It's extra work for

[30:17] staff. It's extra work for voters to

[30:20] understand and

[30:21] >> well that's one of our one of the

[30:23] options is is the activator and is one

[30:25] of the activators saying you need to get

[30:28] you know there need to be 50 people that

[30:31] sign a petition. I don't think I mean

[30:32] that's one of our things is is talking

[30:34] about what you're talking about

[30:35] >> and the January option actually doesn't

[30:38] require a second AV at all. There's

[30:40] already going to be an election on town

[30:41] meeting day. So if there was an OTM in

[30:43] January followed by the town meeting day

[30:45] election that would also include voting

[30:47] on the budget um then um it's actually

[30:52] not even an extra um step in the

[30:54] process. So um and I want to reiterate

[30:57] we don't think these are the only three

[30:58] things. So we think that there's a more

[31:00] complicated conversation to be had but

[31:02] embedded within these I think are from

[31:05] our perspective at least ways to balance

[31:09] the um

[31:11] work that we had already done the system

[31:13] we had already developed and the work

[31:14] that we did over two and a half years

[31:16] together and with the public during that

[31:18] two and a half years also especially

[31:20] during the final year of it um and as

[31:23] Kate said the results of the election in

[31:26] March there was an election in March

[31:27] there were months of runup to that with

[31:29] a very active community dialogue around

[31:32] pros and cons of different systems and

[31:34] we landed in this um challenging place

[31:37] of both of the alternatives being

[31:39] preferred um by a you know decent

[31:42] margin. And so um it's a fair place for

[31:46] you to land personally in a different

[31:47] place than that and say as you did last

[31:50] time you continue to think that what we

[31:52] put together last August is the right

[31:54] system. I totally respect that. Um, and

[31:59] I think we need to have a conversation

[32:01] around these these other options and the

[32:04] things that we haven't named that might

[32:06] spin off of one or another or come as an

[32:08] entirely different idea. But without

[32:11] having the consideration of how to try

[32:14] to make one of these work, we're

[32:15] disrespecting the outcome of the March

[32:17] election.

[32:18] >> I I I fundamentally disagree that that

[32:20] is what that vote said. It didn't.

[32:23] I can tell you I I voted and that's not

[32:25] what my vote said and that's not how I

[32:28] think a lot of people think that their

[32:30] vote would be considered.

[32:33] It it it it's if you want to consider it

[32:36] that way, I think the only thing we can

[32:38] take away is that there are now two

[32:40] pending

[32:41] diametrically opposed charter provisions

[32:44] before the legislature and there is no

[32:47] RTM. That's all we can know. We can't

[32:50] say that everyone wants both. that just

[32:52] because

[32:54] >> but so but but this is assuming that

[32:56] everyone wants both and that that's what

[32:58] we need to do.

[32:59] >> I'd like to say one more thing and I'm

[33:00] going to be quiet so we don't just get

[33:01] into an argument here but not suggesting

[33:03] everyone wants both. I'm suggesting that

[33:05] a majority of the voters on March 3rd

[33:08] said yes to OTM and a majority of the

[33:11] voters on March 3rd said yes to AB.

[33:13] That's driving our desire to try to have

[33:16] a system that is combining these two

[33:18] pieces to make them work. Another

[33:21] alternative if we land either on our own

[33:24] or with community input in a place that

[33:26] can't reconcile that. Another

[33:28] alternative is for us to um take another

[33:31] hiatus and ask the select board to warn

[33:34] a vote so that the people get this time

[33:35] instead of separate questions of yes or

[33:37] no on two different things. Would you

[33:40] prefer this one or would you prefer that

[33:42] one and

[33:44] have have a vote that would provide a

[33:46] more clear outcome. I think that it

[33:47] would um and I'm I'm seeing someone in

[33:50] the audience say three. So perhaps

[33:52] putting RTM back also into the mix, but

[33:54] pick one of the three. Um I'm not

[33:57] suggesting that. In fact, I my concern

[33:59] for that is the sort of civic welfare of

[34:02] the town. I think that we've been

[34:04] through a lot. I think we got to an

[34:06] outcome. I think us trying to respect

[34:07] that outcome and make something work

[34:10] here is the way forward. If we can't

[34:12] find that way forward, then perhaps what

[34:14] we ought to do is warn a vote where it's

[34:16] pick the one you want and get a clear

[34:18] outcome.

[34:21] >> When um we had special town meeting,

[34:25] special RTM,

[34:28] was it two years ago, and there was a

[34:31] petition for a vote on

[34:35] >> the ordinance. um did that require 400

[34:40] yes

[34:40] >> signatures

[34:42] >> and they had no trouble getting that

[34:46] number of signatures. So I I'm not sure

[34:49] the number of signatures is a barrier

[34:51] although I might be in favor of lowering

[34:54] that number. I I think it's it's a

[34:57] totally different situation because we

[35:00] there was a charter there was a petition

[35:02] circulated asking for us to have our

[35:06] town meeting by Australian ballot

[35:10] >> and then we had one open town meeting.

[35:12] No, I'm talking I'm talking about

[35:15] >> No, I'm I'm explaining why I think the

[35:16] barrier has to be less than getting 425

[35:19] signatures for the people by Australia

[35:21] ballot because it's not fair to say you

[35:23] got to get 425.

[35:25] >> I was just asking whether they got 400.

[35:27] >> They did.

[35:28] >> And they did.

[35:28] >> They did.

[35:29] >> So, but I would be in favor of lowering

[35:31] the number.

[35:33] >> Yeah.

[35:35] And I think I would be in favor of

[35:37] lowering the number for any any request

[35:41] for

[35:43] either referendum or open town meeting.

[35:48] » Okay. Does anyone in the public want to

[35:50] give us your opinion?

[35:54] >> And if you can um state your name for

[35:57] the minutes and for

[35:59] BCTV.

[36:02] » Sorry. Frickbrite,

[36:04] District 9. Um,

[36:08] I would like to say there's been a lot

[36:10] of assumptions made here. Um, especially

[36:13] with regard to the uh result of the vote

[36:16] and earlier was a result of the uh poll that you guys took that uh many

[36:25] of us were completely unaware of. Um

[36:30] the I'm not the only one who's looked at

[36:33] the numbers from the votes and talked to

[36:35] people and

[36:39] discovered that many people were

[36:41] extremely confused by the uh collection

[36:45] of questions on last time meeting

[36:48] ballot. Uh

[36:51] the first question being phrased in the

[36:53] negative could would likely have gone

[36:56] the other way had it been phrased in the

[36:59] positive. Uh a remarkable number of

[37:02] people reported afterwards that they did

[37:04] not understand that

[37:07] by voting yes they were voting against

[37:09] RDM. So that's first. Second, um

[37:15] the number of people who voted yes

[37:19] on those

[37:21] was a bigger number based on statistical

[37:25] analysis of numbers. Uh there were over

[37:28] 500 people on both of the second the

[37:32] last two questions who voted for both.

[37:36] Um and the people uh several of us have

[37:40] talked to who did that did not

[37:43] understand

[37:45] um the issue

[37:49] genuinely did not understand it. So, I

[37:52] think the cleanest answer is the one

[37:55] that just got mentioned, which is put out a really clean question that involves

[38:04] the three choices in the affirmative in

[38:07] every case

[38:09] with a

[38:11] meaningful education effort about what

[38:13] the different options mean. And as a

[38:16] longtime RTM member, I was not aware of

[38:20] what we were giving up by going to OTM.

[38:24] And there's a remarkable number of

[38:26] different things that we have we gave up

[38:29] this year in terms of the power of the

[38:32] voter

[38:33] um including

[38:36] uh

[38:37] the uh apparently the power to impanel

[38:41] uh finance review committee which

[38:45] I um was rather surprised by and I I

[38:50] don't believe that's the only thing.

[38:51] There are some other things in the back

[38:52] of my mind as well that I noticed, but

[38:55] um that's that's a big one.

[38:58] >> It's it's in the charter.

[38:59] >> Yeah. Yeah. That's the point I want to

[39:00] make too.

[39:01] >> I don't disbelieve that, but what I'm

[39:03] saying is that

[39:04] >> this this year and next year um we're without the opportunity for the um

[39:11] voters to um elect the finance committee

[39:16] members. But beyond that, if the

[39:17] recommendations in our proposed charter

[39:20] changes are approved, then it would be

[39:22] actually not a not a town meeting

[39:24] action, but a a ballot. People people

[39:27] would just like running for select or

[39:29] some other office. They would get

[39:30] signatures, they get on the ballot, and

[39:31] the people of the town would choose

[39:32] who's on the finance committee.

[39:35] >> Can I just make one other point was

[39:37] originally before these petitions came

[39:39] up, our plan was to present the vote to

[39:41] discontinue RTM likely at the same time

[39:44] as our proposed charter. So there

[39:46] wouldn't have been this gap that we're

[39:48] experiencing now, but that was due to

[39:49] factors out beyond our control.

[39:52] >> All right.

[39:54] >> And one last clarification, and I don't

[39:56] think it was your intention, but what

[39:57] you said is um a clear ballot that would

[40:00] have each phrased in the in the

[40:02] affirmative. And I just want to say

[40:05] again, I don't think personally that

[40:07] moving to another vote of the town, at

[40:09] least without a solid effort to try to

[40:12] make some kind of a combined system

[40:13] work. I don't think that's in our

[40:14] collective best interest. But if we do

[40:16] it, it can't be naming each of the three

[40:19] in the affirmative. It needs to be pick

[40:21] one of the three.

[40:23] >> Yeah, exactly.

[40:24] >> Okay.

[40:25] >> I think we're saying

[40:26] >> otherwise. Yeah, I thought we were too,

[40:27] but I just want to make sure that's

[40:28] clear in the otherwise we're not gaining

[40:30] anything by going back to the polls.

[40:32] Three choices.

[40:45] » Dina Chadwick. Um,

[40:48] so I've been loosely following this and

[40:51] um, you know, I own a business and I

[40:53] talk to a lot of people all the time and

[40:56] most recently my kids have grown up and

[40:59] I can be more involved which is great.

[41:01] Um,

[41:03] one of the things that I could not be

[41:04] involved with is sit in open town

[41:06] meeting all day long. And now I can,

[41:09] which I'm happy to do as my civic duty.

[41:12] But I talked to so many people and they

[41:15] can't do it. They they want to do it.

[41:17] They want to know what's going on, but

[41:19] their lives are too busy. They're

[41:21] raising kids. They're working two jobs.

[41:24] They just don't have the capacity. So um

[41:28] I think that um there was three things

[41:31] on the article. I mean the facts show

[41:35] one failed and two passed. So we need to

[41:38] honor everyone that voted and whether I

[41:41] can talk to every you know say oh well

[41:44] so and so didn't say that they

[41:46] misunderstood it. I can say that I can

[41:48] come up here and be like oh they didn't

[41:49] understand it but the facts say what

[41:52] they say. You know, you can read it and

[41:54] you can clearly see yes or no on this.

[41:57] So, we have two things that the town

[42:00] said yes, we want. So, we need to work

[42:03] hard. I know change. Everyone's like,

[42:05] "Oh, change. We don't want change. It's

[42:08] too hard." That's the only thing that's

[42:10] constant in life is change. And we got

[42:12] to do the work. And I really appreciate

[42:14] all of you guys getting together and

[42:17] hashing it out. But we got to get this

[42:19] right. We got to have both. And what it

[42:21] what that looks like to me would be an

[42:24] open town meeting earlier, inform

[42:26] everybody, and then everything that is a

[42:29] vote goes on the Australian ballot.

[42:31] Anything that's monetary like that

[42:34] affects people's bottom line and their

[42:36] community has to go on an Australian

[42:38] ballot

[42:39] >> because you can have people at home

[42:41] watching the open town meeting. They can

[42:44] get educated. They don't have to

[42:45] participate. They can chime in and chime

[42:47] out if they want to. But this is what

[42:50] needs to be done. Both of them passed.

[42:53] We need to move forward. We got to pull

[42:55] up our sleeves and do the hard work to

[42:58] make it happen for all of our community.

[43:01] And I think that will really bring us

[43:02] all together. Um, yeah. Thank you.

[43:16] » I expect this mic is live. Maybe not.

[43:18] Timothy Bellnap, downtown resident,

[43:21] taxpayer, and voter. Um, first I'd like

[43:24] to just respectfully disagree with the

[43:27] specious interpretation

[43:30] of the voting results. Right. You, your

[43:33] team here, you put an amazing amount of

[43:36] work, enormous amount of work into

[43:37] reaching this point, and I understand

[43:39] the desire to finally push this across

[43:41] the finish line. but ignoring the voices

[43:44] of two thou what uh 2,300 residents at

[43:48] your own peril, a majority of who

[43:50] supported Australian ballot and open

[43:52] town meeting. If those voices are

[43:54] dismissed, I believe this proposal will

[43:56] be voted down and all of this work will

[43:59] be for nothing.

[44:01] A proposal that only allows Australian

[44:04] ballot if 60% plus one person an open

[44:07] town meeting approves does not honor the

[44:10] will of the people either. To my ears,

[44:13] holding the open town meeting in

[44:15] January, followed by an Australian

[44:17] ballot makes the most sense both

[44:19] financially and from a timing

[44:21] standpoint. It gives residents the

[44:23] opportunity to fully debate the issue

[44:26] while ensuring everyone has an equal

[44:28] opportunity to vote. Thank you.

[44:38] » Uh, hi Tom Graasso. Um, first of all,

[44:41] thank you for all the time that you guys

[44:43] have been putting in. It's been it's

[44:44] been quite a long haul and I just get a

[44:46] sense from the your faces that you're

[44:48] kind of done with it. Um, and I can

[44:50] understand it. Um, I also think that

[44:53] Bradboro has a tendency to be a very

[44:55] deliberative kind of place. I mean, it

[44:57] took us how many years to put a

[44:58] skateboard park in, and this is even

[45:01] more complicated than that, I can

[45:02] imagine.

[45:03] >> Um, so I I appreciate that. I I do think

[45:06] um and I've listened to a lot of this uh

[45:09] and and contributed some um we're we're

[45:13] faced now in a in a political climate

[45:15] where people are trying to limit the

[45:17] ability of people to vote and there's a

[45:19] recent you know court executive order by

[45:22] the current federal administration

[45:23] trying to limit the ability of mail and

[45:24] ballots. Um, so I think the fact that a

[45:28] majority of the people voted for

[45:29] Australian ballot in open town meeting

[45:31] means that more people want to be more

[45:33] involved. And I think Dina makes a

[45:35] really important point. Just because you

[45:37] can't go to the open town meeting

[45:38] doesn't mean you don't have a right to

[45:40] vote. And I don't think that giving more

[45:42] power to fewer people to vote is is is

[45:46] the way we should be going in in this

[45:48] day and age. So I think an open town

[45:49] meeting where if if there you want to

[45:52] have an advisory vote that goes back to

[45:54] the select board to say not 27 million

[45:57] but 26 million but I don't think the the

[45:59] OTM should be vested with the actual

[46:01] authority to either vote up or vote down

[46:04] uh the budget. That should be the select

[46:06] board and then presented to the entire voting uh population. So I do

[46:11] think that option one um is the simplest

[46:14] most straightforward if you limit the

[46:16] vote of OTM2 on us to basically an

[46:19] advisory vote. Um and an advisory vote

[46:21] could be make some changes here, make

[46:23] some changes here if the budget can

[46:25] work. I I think Hannah makes some

[46:27] important points about the fact that

[46:29] there's we need to work out how this is

[46:31] going to actually function and all that.

[46:33] But I do think that it's pretty clear

[46:35] what the what the public want wanted in

[46:37] the last vote and you can say you didn't

[46:39] understand the vote, but that means you

[46:41] just didn't read the vote very

[46:42] carefully. So, um I would I would

[46:44] encourage you guys to keep doing your

[46:46] work. Um I appreciate all the time you

[46:48] put into it. So, thank you.

[46:51] >> I want Hillary

[46:54] um Hillary Francis, town clerk. Um, I I

[46:58] think that I am not advocating one way

[47:02] or another for any of these. I think

[47:03] y'all have done a lot of work. Um, and I

[47:06] think like Hannah said, it doesn't have

[47:08] to be one of these. It, and you all have

[47:10] said that as well. Um, I think there are

[47:12] pros and cons to all of them. Um, and

[47:16] you took a lot of my thoughts and put

[47:18] them in your your um

[47:23] your backup materials. Um, I think that

[47:27] hearing you all speak, hearing the

[47:29] public speak, um,

[47:33] the results can be interpreted in a

[47:35] million different ways. Um, and I I

[47:39] think that it's hard to

[47:42] hard and fast say this is what the

[47:45] results mean. Um, because we don't know

[47:48] what the results mean. It could mean

[47:50] anything that you want them to mean. um

[47:53] as we're hearing um based on your

[47:55] preference. Um I don't know what the

[47:58] answer is. Um but I just I think that

[48:01] it's we can't we can't know hard and

[48:04] fast what those results mean with the

[48:07] way that the questions were put on the

[48:10] ballot because of petitions. They

[48:11] legally had to be put on put on that

[48:13] way. Um and that was a challenge um for

[48:16] the voters and for um the interpretation

[48:19] of what those votes mean. Um, no matter

[48:23] what you all decide, no matter what the

[48:24] community advises, I would sort of

[48:28] begging strongly request that you don't

[48:31] go with the first Saturday after the

[48:34] first Tuesday. Um, it is logistically

[48:37] really really challenging for our office

[48:40] and we are tasked with pulling all of

[48:42] this off.

[48:43] >> Um, we can pull almost anything off. We

[48:45] can we can be magicians. Um but

[48:48] especially every four years and it will

[48:51] come every four years. There's a

[48:52] presidential primary on that first

[48:54] Tuesday and we have reporting that we

[48:57] have to get done to the state in

[48:59] addition to wrapping up everything and

[49:01] we just logistically do not have time to

[49:05] accurately print the checklist and do

[49:07] everything that we need to do in time

[49:09] for that Saturday or Sunday. Um, so

[49:11] short of begging, I would I would please please do not do it the first

[49:16] Saturday. We won't make you beg. Begging

[49:18] her.

[49:19] >> Thank you.

[49:22] for that. Um, we want to just

[49:24] go to Jill who's on

[49:43] Can you see me? Can you hear me?

[49:44] >> Yes.

[49:45] And just introduce yourself for the

[49:46] record.

[49:48] >> Uh Jill Salyler, District 7. Wanted to

[49:51] start by thanking you again. All of you

[49:53] have done a lot of work. It's been a

[49:54] very long hall for you. I know you've

[49:56] done your survey, you've done meetings,

[49:58] you've done input, and then you had

[50:01] petitions and a vote, and you have to

[50:03] try to finangle all of that information

[50:07] into your recommendations. Special to

[50:11] Peter and Kate for really trying hard to

[50:14] lay out some concrete

[50:16] um directions that you can all go to.

[50:19] Just my own personal opinion. I got

[50:22] involved with this from the very

[50:23] beginning because I was excited about

[50:25] everybody being able to have a vote. I

[50:27] don't have any other great agenda except

[50:29] that I talked to so many people who say

[50:33] they don't understand what

[50:34] representative town meeting was. They

[50:36] didn't understand why they went to vote

[50:38] on town meeting day, but there wasn't

[50:39] really a town meeting. Um, you know, if

[50:42] you talk to the voters even as they went

[50:44] to vote, they were like, "What what

[50:46] exactly is that?" that night. So you you

[50:49] could look at all sorts of things as you

[50:51] guys are saying and try and understand

[50:53] who voted what why.

[50:56] But I think that's kind of the

[50:59] vote that that's what happens when we

[51:02] vote. We have to take the results that

[51:03] are there. And Peter and Kate, you guys

[51:05] have done exactly that. You're looking

[51:06] at how to make a hybrid. I personally

[51:09] love the in January.

[51:12] It makes a select board move a little

[51:14] bit faster, but it gives all that input.

[51:17] And I've never been against the input

[51:19] nor the ideas of the civic discussion

[51:22] and having people get to talk directly

[51:25] to each other. Uh, this town really

[51:28] values that and that came out in the

[51:30] vote. But in the bottom, the other part

[51:33] that everybody was saying all along too,

[51:35] you not everybody gets to vote if you do

[51:38] it at open town meeting. I've been at

[51:40] Representative Tommy for many years.

[51:42] I've been at Opentown Meeting now last

[51:43] year. Um, you know, it's just better if

[51:48] you can have everybody vote. And I like

[51:50] what Tom had to say, too, that this is a

[51:52] time when we're losing votes and feeling

[51:54] like things are changing around in the

[51:56] country. I love for Brattleboro to stand

[51:59] up for what I think we're kind of known

[52:01] for, which is having the voice of the

[52:03] people respected and a way to put it out

[52:06] there. and you're coming up with that

[52:08] when you do the hybrid system. And to

[52:12] me, that open town meeting in January,

[52:15] then follow it up, get all of that input

[52:17] back to the select board, let the select

[52:19] board change it over, put it out to

[52:21] Australian ballot, and that Australian

[52:24] ballot will give you a result. if it's

[52:27] rejected.

[52:29] Last year, Representative Town Meeting

[52:31] rejected it the end of March and the

[52:34] select board went to work and managed

[52:36] one that was passed in good time. So, I

[52:40] didn't know that it was going to be

[52:41] done, but we proved that it could be

[52:43] done last year. So, this is completely

[52:47] possible. You put it out in January,

[52:48] have it voted on in early March, send it

[52:50] back to the select board, bring it back

[52:52] out for another vote. Yeah. by

[52:54] Australian ballot again, which is what

[52:56] people are asking for. And you're done.

[53:03] » That's it.

[53:04] >> Thanks, Jill.

[53:07] Randy. Oh, no. I'm sorry. Yeah, Ernie.

[53:15] » Ernie Coplin, District 7. First of all,

[53:18] thanks. Um, obviously this reflects a

[53:20] lot of time, energy, and all that, and

[53:22] does reflect what the town voted on. I

[53:25] personally am in favor for a straight

[53:28] ballot. I like the first uh option

[53:30] number one. Number two would be okay,

[53:33] but I want to address something else.

[53:36] That's your activator and your rejection

[53:39] of 60%. This is not a filibuster. This

[53:43] is um everything else that requires a

[53:46] vote. If you uh some people get voted on

[53:49] the seat board have done that by three

[53:53] votes, seven votes. Why is this

[53:56] different? I think that needs to be 50%

[53:59] 51% bounces it or approves it whichever

[54:03] it is. And um everything else has been

[54:07] said. Uh I'm a firm believer in

[54:09] Australian ballot and I've talked to a

[54:11] lot of people as well and I think this

[54:15] combination of both really does reflect

[54:19] uh

[54:21] what the town wants. And again, thank

[54:24] you for all your time and energy and

[54:26] putting this together.

[54:38] Hi, Randy BL at West Brattleboro. Um,

[54:42] I I get it. It's been a lot of work.

[54:44] It's been a long time. It's aggravating.

[54:48] I'm sitting here and trying to put

[54:49] myself in a few of your places and I get

[54:52] some of it. Some of it I don't get. Um,

[54:56] hey,

[54:58] plan one or version one is what I

[55:00] brought up the last meeting. I agree. We

[55:02] don't need a filibuster activator. It

[55:04] should just be simple majority. It's

[55:06] Australian ballot. That's what people

[55:07] want. That's what people voted for. I

[55:09] know the reasoning.

[55:11] You know, I I get why that's in there or

[55:14] why he proposed it. I don't agree with

[55:16] it. Um v votes aren't meant to be

[55:20] interpreted 10 ways to Sunday. It's very

[55:22] simple. One lost to one. Two are at the

[55:25] state legislature.

[55:27] You know, here's where we are.

[55:29] um

[55:31] you were put in this position to

[55:33] recommend something. The select board

[55:35] has to approve it. You know, in the end,

[55:37] all the citizens that want to vote are

[55:39] going to vote yes or no. And you know,

[55:42] right now, if we don't have that, I'm

[55:44] going to be voting no. I don't want to

[55:46] vote no. I want to move this forward. I

[55:48] want to get to where it's both of these

[55:50] things like like I think it can be. I

[55:52] think it should be. And why are we

[55:55] afraid of more people voting? That

[55:56] that's the thing I keep going back to.

[55:59] It's not a you know everybody should be

[56:02] able to vote. You want to go to open

[56:04] town meeting you can. I will. You know I

[56:07] did last time I went to RTM got elected.

[56:11] But hey, everybody has to be allowed to

[56:13] vote. We should be afraid of this.

[56:14] There's nothing wrong with letting

[56:15] people vote.

[56:17] I mean that's part of our rights in this

[56:19] country. Let let's give the people the

[56:21] right to vote. Don't be afraid of more

[56:23] people voting. So, I hope you approve

[56:25] one without the 60% threshold. It's a

[56:28] simple majority. And I I do want to work

[56:31] with the town so that we don't have any,

[56:33] you know, problems of creating more

[56:35] chaos or or more shortages of time for

[56:38] staff. So, whatever we have to do to

[56:40] make all that happen, hey, let let's

[56:42] figure it out. Um, we do have time. We

[56:45] can move the schedule around. Change is

[56:46] hard, but let's do some change. Thank

[56:49] you.

[56:50] >> Oh, yeah. Yeah,

[56:52] >> I I would just like to say that

[56:55] everybody seems to be saying everybody

[56:57] voted for Australian ballot and the

[57:01] totals are 1362

[57:04] for Australian ballot and 1457 for open

[57:08] town meeting.

[57:10] >> But that doesn't mean anything. All it

[57:11] means is both passed. That's all that

[57:14] vote was meant to show

[57:15] >> is

[57:16] >> not necessally

[57:19] legally. That's all it is. It's a

[57:21] petition. It was voted yes. Period.

[57:24] Everybody's trying to armchair

[57:26] quarterback and that's not the purpose

[57:27] of the petition.

[57:29] But we can't talk over each other. We

[57:32] don't want to talk over each other.

[57:33] >> I'm just saying that more people voted

[57:35] yes for open town meeting than they

[57:37] voted for Australian ballot. Now, I

[57:40] don't know what that means and I'm not

[57:42] trying to say what it means. I am just

[57:44] pointing out the vote totals.

[57:47] >> Okay? So, I wish people would stop

[57:50] saying people voted for Australian

[57:52] ballot. Yes, they did. But they also

[57:54] voted for open town meeting

[57:57] >> and that's what this does.

[58:00] >> Wait, I just want to make a quick

[58:01] correction to something Randy said,

[58:03] which is that our charter does not have

[58:05] to be pre-approved by the select board.

[58:07] >> It goes directly to the voters.

[58:09] >> So then why were we told at previous

[58:11] meetings by the old select board that

[58:13] you were like, see, can we go back and

[58:15] do that? Cuz I thought that I There's

[58:18] multiple ways for the for the petition

[58:20] to get before the voters, but this

[58:22] commission, we have a special procedure

[58:24] by where ours can go directly to the

[58:26] voters, but

[58:28] it would have gone directly to RTM, but

[58:30] now that there's no RTM, it would go

[58:32] directly to an Australian ballot vote.

[58:33] >> Can I comment on that real quick?

[58:35] >> Yes, Hillary, I just have a question on

[58:37] that. I and I might totally

[58:40] misunderstand this um and I'm not an

[58:42] attorney, but is it the case that it's

[58:45] sort of assumed that it has to be

[58:46] approved by the select board because the

[58:48] select board are the ones who have to

[58:50] warn it and if they refuse to warn it,

[58:53] then it doesn't go to the voters. Is

[58:55] that And I I don't know if that's right,

[58:57] but I just want

[58:58] >> I mean I I think that the select

[59:01] probably would have to

[59:03] I I mean, yeah, I think that they they

[59:05] would have to warn the vote, but under our charter, the charter

[59:09] commission is allowed to put together

[59:12] its own charter proposal and put that to

[59:14] the voters

[59:16] >> without change from the select board

[59:18] because we were told by the old select

[59:19] board that they could like

[59:21] >> we were going under a different we were

[59:23] trying to go under a different method.

[59:24] so that it would go to a townwide

[59:27] vote instead of to us to representative

[59:29] town meeting. But now there's no

[59:30] representative town meeting. And Bob

[59:32] couldn't be here tonight, but I he'd be

[59:34] happy to come to our next meeting and

[59:35] clarify that under the town attorney's

[59:38] interpretation of the statutes that that

[59:41] provision is still effective and it

[59:44] would just go to an Australian ballot

[59:46] vote. Peter,

[59:51] » I'm interested in hearing Bob's opinion

[59:53] about that because that um comes as a

[59:55] surprise to me because I thought that

[59:57] the direct route to the voters was lost

[1:00:01] as one of the things that happened when

[1:00:02] RTM got um eliminated was that our work

[1:00:06] initially there was um under the

[1:00:11] charter as it's currently written when

[1:00:13] we had RTM um called for the work of of

[1:00:16] the charter review commission to be um

[1:00:20] voted on by the uh RTM. Um because our

[1:00:26] the place that we landed after all that

[1:00:28] consideration was to propose elimination

[1:00:31] of RTM and switch to OTM. We had made a

[1:00:34] decision that we would take our proposal

[1:00:36] to the select board and ask the select

[1:00:38] board to warn the vote of the people

[1:00:40] because it was a weird thing and it felt

[1:00:42] like a not necessarily appropriate thing

[1:00:43] to go to RTM and say shall RTM be

[1:00:46] discontinued. So, we were going

[1:00:48] voluntarily to the board. You're right

[1:00:50] that you heard from individual members

[1:00:52] of the prior select board that they had

[1:00:54] an intention to make changes of things

[1:00:57] that they didn't like where we landed.

[1:00:59] Um I believe that the select board ought

[1:01:04] to and I am hopeful that this select

[1:01:07] board will just view their role as a

[1:01:09] ministerial duty that this body was

[1:01:12] convened three and a half years ago to

[1:01:17] do the work that we've done and we

[1:01:19] paused long enough to have the vote

[1:01:20] occur. We've heard the vote. We're

[1:01:22] working through,

[1:01:24] as challenging as it may be, the process

[1:01:26] of like taking that vote and bringing it

[1:01:28] into our work or deciding not to. We'll

[1:01:30] see where we land. But we're in that

[1:01:32] moment now. We're hearing from you some

[1:01:34] more about it. We're going to get to a

[1:01:35] place. And I think it is incumbent and

[1:01:38] we'll say so to the select board when

[1:01:40] the time comes. Incumbent upon the

[1:01:43] select board to respect that um they

[1:01:46] have the authority to warn a vote of the

[1:01:48] people on this and we don't have that

[1:01:50] authority. I don't think unless Bob

[1:01:52] points out something I'm not aware of.

[1:01:54] Um, but the select board shouldn't

[1:01:56] presume to impose its own opinion on the

[1:02:00] document that has come from this, you

[1:02:02] know, long and intense process of public

[1:02:04] engagement by the people who were

[1:02:06] appointed for this purpose. I think the

[1:02:08] select word has a ministerial duty to

[1:02:12] take the recommendations that we

[1:02:14] ultimately make and put them up for

[1:02:16] better or for worse to a vote of the

[1:02:17] people. We we want the we at least me I

[1:02:20] shouldn't speak for everybody. I want

[1:02:21] the citizens of the town of

[1:02:23] Brattleboroough to vote on our charter.

[1:02:25] I don't want five select board members

[1:02:27] who have not been engaged in it. It's

[1:02:30] not I'm not putting a charter together

[1:02:33] for five select board members. I'm

[1:02:34] trying to put a charter together for

[1:02:35] 12,000 people. I'm just going to go to

[1:02:38] Neil because he hasn't he's been waiting

[1:02:40] if that's okay. Is anyone else?

[1:03:00] Did that work?

[1:03:01] >> Yes. And if you can introduce yourselves

[1:03:03] for the

[1:03:03] >> Okay. Thank you.

[1:03:04] >> public. My name is Neil Manders and I am

[1:03:07] voting for the most remote input to your

[1:03:10] meeting as I am calling you from the

[1:03:12] terminal station in Eugene, Oregon.

[1:03:16] So, you know how important this is to be

[1:03:19] sitting in the terminal and attending a

[1:03:21] local meeting. Um, first of all, I would

[1:03:24] really appreciate I really do appreciate

[1:03:26] all the work you guys have done. And

[1:03:28] over the last two years, I've been

[1:03:29] fairly active around town trying to

[1:03:32] either get some votes for individuals or

[1:03:34] to vote for the uh one person, one vote.

[1:03:38] And if everybody that I talked to

[1:03:40] basically seems to be interested in a

[1:03:42] ballot vote, they want to have a vote

[1:03:45] and what's going on. And for many of

[1:03:47] them, they're either confused about what

[1:03:49] used to be RTM or OTM. And they really

[1:03:53] don't know what's going on with that,

[1:03:54] but a vote is plain and simple and clear

[1:03:56] for them. So, I would highly urge you

[1:03:58] folks, I don't know how you're going to

[1:04:00] do it because I haven't got all the

[1:04:02] materials with me, but I know you can do

[1:04:04] it that you could go with a with a pure

[1:04:06] hybrid situation and make it so that

[1:04:10] people in town have this opportunity for

[1:04:12] discussion and and and uh comments and

[1:04:16] then an opportunity to do a yes, no vote

[1:04:18] on a on a total budget. So, thank you

[1:04:20] for listening and I hope I can get there

[1:04:22] within the next 24 hours.

[1:04:25] And who else is on Zoom?

[1:04:29] >> Alissa.

[1:04:30] >> Okay, good. Alissa, I only can see a

[1:04:33] little box in the face.

[1:04:39] » Hello. Can you hear me?

[1:04:40] >> Yes.

[1:04:41] >> Hi. Thank you for your time. Um, Alisa

[1:04:44] Royal District 9. Um, I just wanted to

[1:04:48] chime in and say that I am in favor of

[1:04:50] Australian ballot. Um, I don't know if

[1:04:53] any of you recall that at this past

[1:04:55] Opentown meeting,

[1:04:57] I um requested private vote, priv

[1:05:01] private ballot voting twice. Um, and the

[1:05:05] second time I did so, um, someone

[1:05:07] actually asked the moderator if they

[1:05:10] could reverse that decision and not have

[1:05:12] private ballot vote. So, I question

[1:05:16] that. Okay. I questioned the motive

[1:05:18] behind that. Um, mostly I feel as

[1:05:22] though, frankly, it's no one's business

[1:05:25] how I vote. It's no one's business how

[1:05:27] anybody in this town votes. Um, we live

[1:05:31] in, um, pretty much a cancel culture.

[1:05:34] And I think that, um, when people aren't

[1:05:37] voting privately and we're putting it

[1:05:39] out there publicly, there's the

[1:05:41] potential to create an us versus them

[1:05:43] kind of mentality and it can really

[1:05:46] perpetuate division in our community.

[1:05:48] Um, I think that um, we have a right a

[1:05:52] right to keep our votes private and I I

[1:05:56] just think that's something that should

[1:05:58] be considered in all of this. Thank you

[1:06:00] for your time.

[1:06:02] >> Thank you.

[1:06:04] I'll go spoon and go back to Tom Spoon.

[1:06:06] You haven't spoken. You get to speak.

[1:06:09] >> Yes.

[1:06:10] >> If you can introduce yourself for the

[1:06:14] spoon agave.

[1:06:16] Um,

[1:06:18] one change I'd like to see is the whole

[1:06:20] thing reorganized so the select board is

[1:06:22] elected in November at a at the regular

[1:06:26] election day so we can count on a much

[1:06:30] higher participation so people can run

[1:06:33] when they aren't freezing their

[1:06:38] fingers off. And um, so that's one. Um I

[1:06:43] do hope um

[1:06:46] I always worry when I hear talk about

[1:06:48] the select board because this has

[1:06:50] nothing to do with the select board.

[1:06:52] This is you are you a committee of the

[1:06:57] people of this town. You you are doing

[1:07:00] our work and uh you have no obligations

[1:07:05] at all to the

[1:07:09] select board. their only role was to

[1:07:11] appoint and to reappoint if there's a

[1:07:14] vacancy or something. Um I do hope

[1:07:18] you'll examine very carefully all the

[1:07:20] statements. I think that's one of the

[1:07:21] things we lack um here and just about

[1:07:26] everyone. You know, I find it hard when

[1:07:28] I hear a statement that people can't

[1:07:31] come because they don't have the time

[1:07:33] and I say to myself when you know

[1:07:36] something is going to happen a year in

[1:07:38] advance or in this case it could be two

[1:07:40] or three or four or five years in

[1:07:42] advance because it's always the town

[1:07:44] meeting has always been on a certain

[1:07:46] day.

[1:07:47] How you could say sorry uh I know three

[1:07:51] years from now on that date I will be

[1:07:53] too busy. I won't be able to attend to

[1:07:55] attend

[1:07:57] town meeting. I also wonder when I hear

[1:08:01] we just went through what is probably

[1:08:03] arguably

[1:08:05] the most impactful election since RTM

[1:08:10] was created 40 what 65 years ago and

[1:08:15] interestingly with all that with all the

[1:08:19] news in the play and the writing

[1:08:23] if I'm not mistaken Hillary correctly 2%

[1:08:27] % of the electorate of the electorate

[1:08:30] less than the year before voted.

[1:08:35] So there shouldn't be any assumptions

[1:08:38] about what the people want about what

[1:08:41] their in everything requires a very

[1:08:45] thoughtful question of how do we know

[1:08:49] this is true and be able to find some evidence. If

[1:08:56] you don't have evidence,

[1:08:58] you need to admit that it's just a

[1:09:02] feeling

[1:09:03] and be able to say, "We chose to go this

[1:09:06] way or that way because it was our

[1:09:08] feeling. We really don't know." So, but

[1:09:11] I hope it's never that way. I hope you

[1:09:13] can always show a good, logical, solid

[1:09:16] argument for everything you do. Um,

[1:09:20] there's also a misnomer, but I

[1:09:22] understand where it comes from because

[1:09:24] in our public schools, what we are

[1:09:27] inundated with and only inundated with

[1:09:31] is that a democracy is

[1:09:35] the right to vote. But, you know, in the

[1:09:38] Soviet Union, they'd often get turnouts

[1:09:41] of 90 and 95%.

[1:09:44] Seems strange. Well, actually all the

[1:09:46] local city elections

[1:09:49] and all that, they had elections for

[1:09:50] local people and as long as you were a

[1:09:54] registered

[1:09:56] member of the Communist Party, you could

[1:09:58] vote. You were expected to vote.

[1:10:01] Aha, that's and there was only one

[1:10:04] party. It was simple, but sometimes a

[1:10:07] person could run who was not a member of

[1:10:09] the party. But there was only one party.

[1:10:12] So I say these things to to begin to

[1:10:15] show you that there is far more to a

[1:10:18] democracy than just voting. In fact,

[1:10:21] voting itself can kill, if that's your

[1:10:25] only definition, it will kill a

[1:10:27] democracy if more important than

[1:10:30] anything else. And this is what I hope

[1:10:33] you focus on. There has to be an

[1:10:36] informed vote. It doesn't matter if a

[1:10:40] 100%

[1:10:41] turn out.

[1:10:43] If that 100% doesn't have the right

[1:10:46] information,

[1:10:48] it's going to be a bad decision.

[1:10:51] And so, more than anything else that

[1:10:54] preserves a democracy is an informed

[1:10:58] electorate.

[1:11:00] And so in your deliberations, I hope

[1:11:02] you're always thinking, what can we do

[1:11:06] to improve the information that gets out

[1:11:10] to people? It's not clear. I think if

[1:11:13] you go back and listen to all of the

[1:11:16] town meetings we have have had and

[1:11:20] listen to what people stand up and say

[1:11:22] and the statements that are made with

[1:11:25] great confidence, this is the truth.

[1:11:28] And in fact, under closer examination,

[1:11:32] it's not. Um, but you need the time and

[1:11:36] the ability and the place and the desire to make sure that every

[1:11:44] statement that you're willing to put

[1:11:47] forward or back up or or or propose can

[1:11:51] be defended logically according

[1:11:54] in in with a democratic structure. A a a

[1:11:59] democracy essentially is

[1:12:02] rule of the people. It implies all the

[1:12:05] power belong to the people.

[1:12:08] But it is also

[1:12:10] from the very first democ we look at the

[1:12:15] moment in the history of democ democracy

[1:12:18] the magna carta when the peasants

[1:12:21] surrounded the king on running meat I

[1:12:23] think it was or something. Um they that

[1:12:27] all that was all about

[1:12:30] securing the rights of people of putting

[1:12:35] limits on the rights of the king and the

[1:12:38] royalty and all of democracy

[1:12:43] is built around that premise. It exists

[1:12:46] to protect and to preserve and to create

[1:12:50] witness the rights of people and it

[1:12:56] >> but we have all I'll stop u but we have

[1:13:01] to also have a successful democracy

[1:13:06] and that harks back to a lot of other

[1:13:09] elements like being in control of the

[1:13:12] agenda. If if you're told what to do,

[1:13:16] what to talk about, it's not your

[1:13:18] meeting.

[1:13:20] If it and and all sorts of other

[1:13:22] elements and I would hope you would all

[1:13:25] take the time to look through the

[1:13:28] internet wherever you go to study and

[1:13:30] look up what are the elements of a

[1:13:34] successful democracy.

[1:13:38] » Janet and then one second

[1:13:40] >> and then Tommy, you're next.

[1:13:44] So, Chantress, um I don't know if I'm

[1:13:47] seven or nine. I don't know that it

[1:13:49] matters somewhere.

[1:13:51] >> Um

[1:13:53] I'm going to say the same thing that

[1:13:54] I've said since the very beginning of

[1:13:56] this is that we are

[1:14:00] hopefully opening up the system so that

[1:14:03] shift workers and people who are very

[1:14:05] busy can participate. I know somebody

[1:14:07] who's not here tonight because they're a

[1:14:08] shift worker. they couldn't be here. You

[1:14:12] know, these are the people that can't

[1:14:13] like dedicate hours and hours of their

[1:14:15] time to to all of these meetings. I I

[1:14:19] appreciate the idea of trying to

[1:14:21] incorporate an open town meeting with

[1:14:23] the Australian ballot, but I know people

[1:14:26] who cannot be here and I and and we know

[1:14:28] them in common, by the way, um because I

[1:14:31] chat with people like out in the stores.

[1:14:33] um and they could not come to the last

[1:14:36] open town meeting because it's it's uh

[1:14:39] they needed to keep their business open.

[1:14:42] If we want to open up our town so that

[1:14:44] we have, you know, more people involved,

[1:14:47] more people voting, more people

[1:14:48] interested, and more people informed,

[1:14:51] then we need to open up the vote.

[1:14:54] That's the only way to do it. That's the

[1:14:56] only way is to feel like that, you know,

[1:14:59] if I vote, I'm going to I'm going to

[1:15:01] make a difference. Um if we shut out the

[1:15:05] voters from the system, if we shut them

[1:15:07] down from an open town meeting and just

[1:15:08] say, "Well, it's just the people that

[1:15:10] have the luxury um who can plan their

[1:15:12] schedules." They're not coming. You

[1:15:15] know, I beg people to come tonight and

[1:15:17] they they cannot dedicate this kind of

[1:15:19] time.

[1:15:20] They care and they live here in

[1:15:22] Brattleboro and they want to vote.

[1:15:26] Anyway, that's what I've been saying

[1:15:28] since the very beginning and that's the

[1:15:29] end of my statement. Thank you very

[1:15:30] much.

[1:15:32] All right, Tom. Tom can be very brief.

[1:15:35] >> Finish it off.

[1:15:36] >> Um,

[1:15:38] like Kate, you said something very

[1:15:40] passionately about what you would like

[1:15:42] to see the electorate do for this the

[1:15:45] charter commission's recommendations and

[1:15:47] you want all voters in Brattleboro to

[1:15:49] vote for it. And I completely agree with

[1:15:51] that. And I would just say we want to

[1:15:52] apply the same principle to the budget

[1:15:54] every year. I look around the room and I

[1:15:57] I'm, you know, one of the older people

[1:15:59] in town just like most of us here

[1:16:01] tonight and some of us have time to do

[1:16:03] these sorts of things, but there's a lot

[1:16:04] of young people with families who don't.

[1:16:06] They have just as much right and

[1:16:08] interest in what the town is doing and

[1:16:10] deciding and they have just as much

[1:16:11] right as I do just because I can stand

[1:16:14] up here and talk, but they can't. And so

[1:16:16] I think that's the basic principle. I

[1:16:18] couldn't be at the last OTM because I

[1:16:19] was I was away traveling for work and

[1:16:21] it's I could have had on my calendar for

[1:16:23] three years and it's still I got called

[1:16:26] to a job that I had to do. So, I just

[1:16:28] don't think it's realistic to suggest

[1:16:29] that everybody can go to OTM and express

[1:16:31] their their their votes uh their their

[1:16:34] right to vote. And this is not about

[1:16:36] democracy as a whole. This is about how

[1:16:39] we vote on things in town. There's a

[1:16:41] number of other things that the town

[1:16:42] does that are about democracy, but

[1:16:44] that's not what this is about tonight.

[1:16:45] Thank you.

[1:16:46] >> Thank you.

[1:16:47] One more time, Timothy. Then I want to

[1:16:49] have a conversation right here.

[1:16:57] » Timothy Balnath, downtown resident,

[1:16:59] voter and taxpayer.

[1:17:02] Just want to say

[1:17:04] the great Marxist CLR James once wrote,

[1:17:07] "Every cook can govern." And I want to

[1:17:10] take exception to the idea that an RTM

[1:17:14] or an OTM with 2% of the population is

[1:17:17] somehow knows better than anyone else. I

[1:17:20] think each individual in this town

[1:17:22] deserves to have that vote in the future

[1:17:24] of the town. Thank you.

[1:17:25] >> Thanks.

[1:17:26] everybody. Um I think I want to

[1:17:28] ask Hillary a question.

[1:17:29] >> Oh yeah, go right ahead

[1:17:31] >> Hillary. Yes.

[1:17:32] >> What what is the average percentage of

[1:17:36] voter turnout? Do you have any idea?

[1:17:39] >> Um, well, I have a whole spreadsheet in

[1:17:42] my office. Um, and I think it depends.

[1:17:45] Are you talking about town meeting? Are

[1:17:47] you talking about

[1:17:49] August state primary? Are you talking

[1:17:51] about November general election? Are you

[1:17:52] talking

[1:17:53] >> I'm talking about town meeting.

[1:17:55] >> Um, I think we've seen anywhere from

[1:18:01] 13 to 30. Um,

[1:18:06] but I don't know the average off the top

[1:18:08] of my head. Um, I would really need to

[1:18:10] if if we take a break at some point, I

[1:18:13] can run downstairs and pull that up or I

[1:18:15] can run downstairs now and

[1:18:17] >> you can let us know next time.

[1:18:19] >> That's fine.

[1:18:20] >> I can and just in case I can't be here,

[1:18:22] I'll email it to Kate.

[1:18:23] >> Yes. Um,

[1:18:24] >> that's fine.

[1:18:26] >> I was just curious.

[1:18:30] I know presidential elections are

[1:18:32] higher.

[1:18:33] >> Yes. And it also depends some like if

[1:18:37] it's if it's a presidential primary

[1:18:40] year, you're going to see turnout for

[1:18:41] town meeting day higher um because

[1:18:44] people are turning out for the

[1:18:45] presidential primary um versus a

[1:18:48] non-presidential primary. Um and you'll

[1:18:52] see right some years are like um I think

[1:18:58] last year like Spoon said it was 2%

[1:19:01] higher than this year. Um even though

[1:19:03] both years were controversial with um

[1:19:05] some hot hot button issues. Um so I'll email a spreadsheet to Kate so that

[1:19:10] you all can um do what you will with the

[1:19:14] data.

[1:19:16] >> Curiosity. It it's basically like like

[1:19:19] Hillary was saying and it's in the 60s

[1:19:21] generally for some of those other events

[1:19:23] just as a a number put out there what

[1:19:25] we're talking about.

[1:19:26] >> No,

[1:19:27] >> 60ome percent

[1:19:28] >> for the November general

[1:19:29] >> for those. Yeah.

[1:19:31] >> Right.

[1:19:32] >> Versus what 3,000 over 9,000. So roughly

[1:19:36] 30%

[1:19:39] >> as a high number of turnout

[1:19:41] >> for the March for March.

[1:19:43] >> Yeah. versus open town meeting which is

[1:19:46] what 300 people.

[1:19:48] >> We've had one. We don't have a very good

[1:19:50] sample size for that.

[1:19:51] >> Yeah, fair enough.

[1:19:53] >> Okay. So, my question for for us up here

[1:19:56] is

[1:19:58] not which one of these do we want to

[1:20:01] pick and what combination of what or how

[1:20:03] do we want to maneuver all this, but do

[1:20:06] we want to

[1:20:09] we have open town meeting in our charter

[1:20:11] now. Do we want to add the Australian

[1:20:13] ballot component? Then we can decide if

[1:20:16] we decide we want to add the Australian

[1:20:18] ballot component, then we can figure out

[1:20:20] how to add an Australian ballot

[1:20:21] component. I'm happy to start and say my

[1:20:25] opinion has not changed from the last

[1:20:28] meeting that I believe we need to add an

[1:20:31] Australian ballot component.

[1:20:34] Um, I think we need to add it because we

[1:20:37] heard from the people in March. I also

[1:20:40] think we need to add it because there's

[1:20:43] two bills sitting up in the legislature.

[1:20:46] One saying Brad wants open town meeting

[1:20:48] and one that says Bradboro wants

[1:20:50] Australian ballot. And I don't want the

[1:20:53] Vermont legislature making a decision

[1:20:56] for the people of Bradboro on what our

[1:20:58] form of town government is. So I think

[1:21:00] it's for me it's important for two

[1:21:02] reasons

[1:21:03] that we take a stab at figuring out how

[1:21:07] we can do an Australian ballot and an

[1:21:10] open town meeting. That is me. But we

[1:21:13] all need to decide

[1:21:16] together if we move forward with with

[1:21:18] trying to figure out the Australian

[1:21:20] ballot piece. So I don't know who wants

[1:21:22] to go next.

[1:21:22] >> I'm in agreement with you. I feel like

[1:21:25] that would make the most people

[1:21:26] satisfied.

[1:21:30] And it's okay not to agree with me. I

[1:21:32] just want I just want to put that out

[1:21:33] there. I just haven't changed my mind

[1:21:35] since since last week. We all are

[1:21:37] individual, so I want people to feel

[1:21:38] comfortable not agreeing with with me.

[1:21:44] I'm happy to take a stab um at it. Um

[1:21:50] I

[1:21:54] am still trying to

[1:21:56] process

[1:21:59] Um, especially given some more meat on

[1:22:01] the bones. I have

[1:22:08] concerns about, and I know we're not

[1:22:10] like nitpicking at this point because

[1:22:13] it's not a given. Um,

[1:22:17] concerns about other concerns that

[1:22:19] aren't listed. Um,

[1:22:26] I'm wrestling with

[1:22:34] what makes it different enough like so

[1:22:37] I'm I'm also as we jump we're jumping

[1:22:40] back into this hybrid now means

[1:22:42] something different than it meant in

[1:22:43] August.

[1:22:45] Hybrid now means because Australian

[1:22:48] ballot has existed and would have

[1:22:51] continued to existed in the draft that

[1:22:53] we are putting forward. hybrid now means

[1:22:55] something else

[1:22:57] >> and that is a mental um that's why I

[1:23:00] don't call it hybrid

[1:23:01] >> right it's a conceptual map change which

[1:23:05] is not a problem but it does mean

[1:23:06] something different and if again the

[1:23:09] educational portion and the bringing

[1:23:12] folks up to speed the argument

[1:23:14] >> in August or in the summertime is not

[1:23:17] the argument today

[1:23:19] Um

[1:23:30] I I

[1:23:36] it is the our budget is complicated and

[1:23:41] I'm not saying anyone can't handle that.

[1:23:44] I'm not saying the education can't

[1:23:45] happen there.

[1:23:50] the pass through things that have to

[1:23:53] happen that could fail

[1:23:56] and not get a recall,

[1:23:59] right? Like

[1:24:01] it is

[1:24:05] there I are concerns that I think and I

[1:24:09] think it hoot

[1:24:11] is good. I am wrestling with this real hard

[1:24:22] and

[1:24:24] I

[1:24:27] again I don't want to nitpick the

[1:24:29] options in front of us

[1:24:32] to get to like a conclusion or

[1:24:34] something. I don't know. It is

[1:24:37] I do not take lightly

[1:24:40] what we're hearing and the

[1:24:46] consideration.

[1:24:55] So I can't like firmly say and I hope I

[1:24:59] can articulate myself with more words

[1:25:02] soon but I don't want to be like yes I

[1:25:04] like

[1:25:06] >> because I maybe I would consider

[1:25:08] wrestling through the details because

[1:25:11] the devil's in the details but at this

[1:25:13] point we are not wrestling with the

[1:25:15] details.

[1:25:17] So if the question is just to pursue

[1:25:20] this other path or do OTM

[1:25:23] I am really

[1:25:25] >> struggling. Now let me ask you

[1:25:27] something. Do you think

[1:25:29] you might not know the answer to this

[1:25:31] but is is fleshing out would fleshing

[1:25:34] out some more of the details help you

[1:25:36] decide or not?

[1:25:39] Like is it is it what goes to the voters

[1:25:43] is of concern to you? Like what is it?

[1:25:45] And you don't have to answer. I'm just

[1:25:46] trying to figure out a way. How would we

[1:25:48] help you figure out what you're what

[1:25:50] you're comfortable with? You know what I

[1:25:52] mean?

[1:25:52] >> I would of course love to hash out every

[1:25:55] single one. I don't know that that's a

[1:25:57] great use of our time. Um, and

[1:26:03] I just we I just want to figure out if

[1:26:04] there's some way to like help you figure

[1:26:06] out like what what is

[1:26:10] that we might be able to answer or work

[1:26:13] through to put to to have you go either

[1:26:15] way. I'm not saying to push you over to

[1:26:17] going to Australian ballot. I'm saying

[1:26:18] what what would help you?

[1:26:22] >> And you don't have to answer that this

[1:26:23] second, but think about like what is it

[1:26:25] that eventually can help you figure out

[1:26:35] Yeah,

[1:26:37] something about that

[1:26:38] >> for the moment. For the moment.

[1:26:41] Um,

[1:26:43] some of my cards are on the table and

[1:26:46] um,

[1:26:48] based on some of the communication we've

[1:26:50] had tonight and the conversation that we

[1:26:51] had that led to this, you know, what we

[1:26:54] had two weeks ago that led to the fact

[1:26:55] that we even put these this information

[1:26:58] together and had this conversation

[1:27:00] tonight. Um, I don't think what I'm

[1:27:02] about to say is going to surprise

[1:27:03] anybody, but I want to say it and I want

[1:27:05] to say it um particularly

[1:27:08] um

[1:27:12] I want to be clear to those who have

[1:27:14] come tonight and spoken to us that um I

[1:27:18] want to articulate a way in which I see

[1:27:20] something really fundamentally different

[1:27:21] from what most of it's kind of a theme

[1:27:23] that's emerged from what most of you

[1:27:24] have said and um and so I want to be

[1:27:28] clear about something I see different

[1:27:31] and be equally clear about um how

[1:27:34] strongly I feel even though in the vote

[1:27:37] on March 3rd it was not what I

[1:27:38] personally preferred. how strongly I

[1:27:40] feel that we ought to include Australian

[1:27:43] ballot and and I think we ought to

[1:27:46] include it in a meaningful

[1:27:49] um

[1:27:52] manner with the authority of the vote of

[1:27:54] the people to you know and the outcome

[1:27:56] of this process um it's very important

[1:28:00] that's that's a true clear unequivocal

[1:28:04] statement from me even though it's not

[1:28:05] what I personally preferred I think that

[1:28:07] it's based on what we've been through in

[1:28:09] the last year in our community and based

[1:28:11] on the March 3rd vote, I think it's the

[1:28:12] right thing to do. Um,

[1:28:16] and what I heard, not from every one of

[1:28:20] you, but from several of you, and it was

[1:28:22] kind of embedded in the theme that I

[1:28:24] heard um from advocates for the

[1:28:26] Australian ballot this evening.

[1:28:29] Um,

[1:28:32] several people said flat out, it ought

[1:28:34] that the OTM ought to be advisory.

[1:28:36] And I just want to be really clear. I

[1:28:38] disagree with that. I don't think that

[1:28:40] accurately represents that just as much

[1:28:43] as some of us are struggling hard to

[1:28:45] come up with a solution that we don't

[1:28:46] personally love, but we think is the

[1:28:49] right thing to do because of trying to

[1:28:51] be responsive and respectful of the

[1:28:53] outcome on March 3rd. Um,

[1:28:56] equally I think it's disrespectful of

[1:28:58] the AKA on March 3rd to say that the

[1:29:02] 1400 voters, the even larger majority

[1:29:05] who voted for OTM as compared to AB um,

[1:29:10] did so because they want to have

[1:29:12] conversation that will help the AB

[1:29:15] voters make their choices. I don't think

[1:29:16] that's what happened. I don't think

[1:29:18] those are happen in the dialogue in our

[1:29:19] community. I don't think that's what the

[1:29:21] votes mean. Yes, we all can interpret

[1:29:23] the votes different ways, but again, I

[1:29:25] think the only way to not try to

[1:29:28] responsibly interpret the vote is to

[1:29:30] throw it out and put a clearer question

[1:29:32] before the people. And I I think we

[1:29:34] should not do that. And so, um, it's

[1:29:37] important to me that I I hope that we do

[1:29:40] land in a place where we incorporate

[1:29:44] real Australian ballot authority into

[1:29:46] this system. And I hope we do it in a

[1:29:49] way that retains real OTM authority as

[1:29:52] well. And that's why that's what what

[1:29:55] drove my recommendation, our

[1:29:57] recommendation for the

[1:30:01] um when the larger number of people who

[1:30:03] are not engaged for all kinds of good

[1:30:05] reasons and other reasons. You know,

[1:30:08] everybody has their own reasons, but

[1:30:10] it's a fact, regardless of the reasons

[1:30:12] why, it's a fact that the people who are

[1:30:15] in the OTM are engaged in a dialogue

[1:30:18] with each other, hearing points of view

[1:30:20] they don't agree with, participating in

[1:30:23] ways that say, "I don't like that, but

[1:30:25] if we did it this way, I could support

[1:30:26] it." That that process where we as a

[1:30:29] community come to something that maybe a

[1:30:32] larger group of people can live with. I

[1:30:34] hear loud and clear both from the

[1:30:36] results of the vote and from those of

[1:30:38] you who advocate strongly for AB as the

[1:30:40] final word. I hear that there are people

[1:30:43] who can't participate in OTM and a

[1:30:47] statistically clearly larger proportion

[1:30:50] of our community can participate in AB.

[1:30:52] And so I I do think we ought to include

[1:30:54] it. if we include it in a way that um

[1:30:59] causes the OTM to not be meaningful

[1:31:02] anymore, I think we've harmed our

[1:31:04] community and I think we've disrespected

[1:31:05] the outcome of the vote. And so um my

[1:31:08] thought about the 60% threshold not as a

[1:31:12] activator for holding an AB I don't like

[1:31:14] that alternative but as a uh threshold

[1:31:18] that has to be surpassed at the AB in

[1:31:20] order to reject a budget is that we have

[1:31:24] um larger participation but less engaged

[1:31:28] participation at the AB than at the OTM.

[1:31:32] And if we um treat them as though they

[1:31:35] were equal, there's no incentive anymore

[1:31:38] for anybody to participate in that more

[1:31:41] challenging, more engaging, more intense

[1:31:44] process of wrestling with the stuff to

[1:31:46] get to the outcome that's going to go

[1:31:48] onto that ballot.

[1:31:50] And I think that um it also ought to not

[1:31:56] be the final word, right? So if there is

[1:31:58] an outcome at OTM that a broad

[1:32:01] cross-section of the community rejects,

[1:32:03] then the 60% threshold will be met and

[1:32:06] the AB will have used its power to say,

[1:32:09] "No, we're we don't agree with this

[1:32:11] budget. Send it back. Get it reworked."

[1:32:14] Um, I'm for that now in the fullness of

[1:32:18] what we've been through for all the

[1:32:19] reasons we've been talking about. Um,

[1:32:21] but if OTM is only set up as a

[1:32:25] opportunity to have a several hourlong

[1:32:28] conversation that may or may not help

[1:32:30] people make an informed vote when it

[1:32:32] comes time for the Australian ballot,

[1:32:33] I'm not for that. I don't think that's

[1:32:34] what the voters reflected in the choice

[1:32:37] they made on March 3rd. Um, and I think

[1:32:40] it's would be bad for our local

[1:32:42] governance. And so, um, so that the

[1:32:46] bottom line is I I I hope that we can

[1:32:49] land in a place where we do, u AB piece

[1:32:54] in here, not anything that is like token

[1:32:56] consideration of it that would be hard

[1:32:58] like a like a conditional one that

[1:33:00] requires people to sign petitions is

[1:33:02] making it hard to actually have a real

[1:33:04] AB component. I'm not for that. I think

[1:33:06] it ought to be automatic and I think it

[1:33:09] ought to flow from a real meaningful OTM

[1:33:13] where the business of the town gets done

[1:33:16] not just discussed.

[1:33:23] Well, I I think that

[1:33:27] we need to figure out and I I I have my

[1:33:31] own ideas, but how to do some kind of

[1:33:35] hybrid and I know Kate doesn't like the

[1:33:37] word

[1:33:38] >> combined some kind of all right combined

[1:33:42] um

[1:33:44] process, but I I think that

[1:33:48] open town meeting was

[1:33:52] almost better than RTM had been. Um I

[1:33:57] mean in terms of the discussion and I

[1:33:59] think that's very important and I think

[1:34:03] that our draft charter I mean that's

[1:34:07] what it reflects. Um and I I would like

[1:34:10] to see

[1:34:13] us try to figure out how to include

[1:34:17] Australian ballot some way.

[1:34:20] And I will say, as I said last time,

[1:34:23] last meeting in our draft, there's more

[1:34:27] opportunity for Australian ballot votes

[1:34:30] um than there had been in the previous

[1:34:33] chart.

[1:34:37] » What she means by that is already

[1:34:43] » explain what was better about why did

[1:34:45] you why did you make that statement?

[1:34:48] I thought the discussion had more

[1:34:51] different points of view than there had

[1:34:54] been in the past. That's all.

[1:34:58] >> More people speak than usual.

[1:35:01] >> I don't know whether it was more people

[1:35:03] or just more points of view or I just

[1:35:07] thought the discussion was quite lively

[1:35:10] that let me put it that way. that it was

[1:35:13] >> I just want to see if Hannah wants an

[1:35:15] opportunity to

[1:35:17] >> Yeah. I mean, I think I've made my

[1:35:20] position pretty clear. I I

[1:35:24] I'm not

[1:35:26] saying that

[1:35:29] we need to stick exactly with what we

[1:35:33] had last August, but I think that

[1:35:37] acting like the results of that that

[1:35:39] vote said anything in particular or that

[1:35:43] we have an obligation to make everyone

[1:35:46] happy is it is is not accurate. Our job

[1:35:51] is to create a a document that allows

[1:35:54] our town to function effectively. And

[1:35:58] >> yeah,

[1:36:00] >> I understand that it's not going to make

[1:36:03] everyone happy, but I I also think that

[1:36:07] we need to to think about what's best

[1:36:09] for the town as a a municipality, not

[1:36:13] just what everyone in town wants. Like

[1:36:16] just because some people have very very

[1:36:18] strong voices one way or the other

[1:36:20] doesn't mean that that's what we need to

[1:36:22] do. And I I feel like we spent a lot of

[1:36:27] time considering Australian ballot,

[1:36:29] considering RTM, considering OTM and we

[1:36:32] came to the conclusion we came to and

[1:36:36] hearing the feedback. I mean, I think

[1:36:38] that I would be open to maybe making it

[1:36:41] easier to ask for a ballot for

[1:36:45] reconsideration so long as then once you

[1:36:47] get to that point, it is a higher

[1:36:48] threshold to overturn OTM. But I think

[1:36:51] that these systems all make things more

[1:36:54] complicated instead of less complicated

[1:36:56] because you're adding an extra step.

[1:36:59] you are either like Peter said

[1:37:02] discounting the value of someone's vote

[1:37:04] at RTM

[1:37:05] or you know some of these proposals have

[1:37:08] it that it just sort of cycles back

[1:37:10] between OTM and Australian ballot and I

[1:37:11] don't really understand logistically how

[1:37:13] that would work like what ballot are you

[1:37:14] or what budget are you going back to

[1:37:16] when it gets rejected

[1:37:18] and and that seems to me to be taking

[1:37:21] some

[1:37:23] power away from the select board to

[1:37:24] propose a budget and so I don't I just

[1:37:28] don't see how these

[1:37:31] are better for the town just because

[1:37:34] there are a couple loud voices really

[1:37:37] pushing for a certain thing to be

[1:37:39] included. And I I think that, you know, to Joyy's, I

[1:37:45] don't think these are fleshed out

[1:37:46] enough. I think there's a lot of

[1:37:49] stuff that would need to to be looked at

[1:37:52] to see if these are even possible. I

[1:37:55] don't I I I just think that there

[1:37:57] there's too me much uncertainty here and

[1:38:00] we spent so much time looking at

[1:38:03] everything already and I don't think we

[1:38:05] need to reinvent the wheel and and try

[1:38:07] and and jam something in that we looked

[1:38:10] at and said no we don't think that's

[1:38:12] what's best and we came up with what I

[1:38:16] stand by was a good proposal and I think

[1:38:18] there are ways that we can tweak it and make adjustments based on what's

[1:38:22] happened but I don't think that we can

[1:38:26] say first of all that this is what the

[1:38:27] people want or or that what the results

[1:38:30] of those votes mean that we have to do

[1:38:32] that

[1:38:34] >> and and so I would really discourage us

[1:38:38] from

[1:38:41] » you guys we all we all have a right to

[1:38:44] our opinion so

[1:38:45] >> and this is actually our committee's

[1:38:47] work and and the public is allowed to

[1:38:48] come here and comment but we're we're

[1:38:50] the members of this commission

[1:38:53] And so I just really really really want

[1:38:56] to to to advocate for not

[1:39:01] trying to to to turn this into some sort

[1:39:04] of like Frankenstein's monster of like

[1:39:06] trying to fit all of these different

[1:39:08] ideas into something when it what we

[1:39:10] really need to be doing is making a good

[1:39:13] solid foundational document for our

[1:39:15] town, which I think we've done.

[1:39:21] Tom.

[1:39:26] » So, um I think I'm going to take issue

[1:39:28] with what Peter was saying about the

[1:39:30] vote. First of all, it was not rank

[1:39:31] choice voting, so it doesn't matter how

[1:39:32] many votes happened for one or the

[1:39:34] other. Second of all, the the um ballot

[1:39:37] on open town meeting was non-specific.

[1:39:39] It didn't say I want to open town

[1:39:41] meeting so I can vote up or down on the

[1:39:43] budget. The Australian ballot ballot

[1:39:45] did. And so, I think there's a big

[1:39:47] difference there. Um, I also think that

[1:39:49] this idea that deliberation happens one

[1:39:51] day a year is disrespectful to all the

[1:39:55] other conversations that happen all year

[1:39:57] long, select board meetings, meetings in

[1:39:59] a coffee shop, letters to the editor.

[1:40:02] So, I think we need to be realistic

[1:40:03] about the way that the town really

[1:40:05] decides things and not make it seem like

[1:40:07] the only place to decide things is one

[1:40:09] day a year.

[1:40:11] Um, Hannah, I think I agreed with

[1:40:14] everything you were saying about having

[1:40:15] a good system in place until you said

[1:40:18] what the commission recommended because

[1:40:19] I don't agree with what the commission

[1:40:20] recommended.

[1:40:22] >> Thank you.

[1:40:29] » Okay.

[1:40:32] I just want to not be misunderstood, so

[1:40:34] I apologize that I'm going to respond

[1:40:36] directly to that, but you responded

[1:40:37] directly to me. Um,

[1:40:41] I totally um accept and respect that we

[1:40:44] might land in different places. I think

[1:40:45] we are going to land in different

[1:40:46] places. I know we've come from different

[1:40:48] perspectives into the conversation

[1:40:50] tonight around this issue. Um,

[1:40:56] I think all of those other times when

[1:40:59] members of the community are engaged

[1:41:02] with one another around the welfare of

[1:41:03] the community are important

[1:41:06] >> and informative to where each of us

[1:41:09] individually comes to when it's time to

[1:41:12] cast a ballot. I think all of that's

[1:41:13] true. I wouldn't quibble with anything

[1:41:15] that you said. And I think it's not just

[1:41:17] true, it's important. And it's different

[1:41:20] than being in a room where the people in

[1:41:22] the room that day through an official

[1:41:25] governmental process are empowered to

[1:41:28] actually make decisions together and to

[1:41:30] amend the questions that have been

[1:41:33] placed before us by the smaller number

[1:41:35] of people who are in positions of

[1:41:36] authority in our community. And I think

[1:41:38] that moment is important. It's way not

[1:41:42] the only important moment of the year,

[1:41:44] but I think it's really important. Can I

[1:41:45] can you just so the people that you

[1:41:47] mentioned the select board they're

[1:41:49] elected by ballot of the by by the

[1:41:51] public of town it's different than than

[1:41:54] sitting in it going to an open town

[1:41:55] meeting and I agree I think those sort

[1:41:57] of deliberations are important but they

[1:41:59] don't necessarily need to be the thing

[1:42:01] that makes the decisions for the town.

[1:42:03] That's all I'm saying.

[1:42:05] >> Y

[1:42:07] and I think that's why a combined system

[1:42:11] is important. Um,

[1:42:14] so

[1:42:21] we do have at least four of us who are

[1:42:27] willing

[1:42:29] or interested in considering Australian

[1:42:32] moving Australian ballot or at least

[1:42:33] considering we didn't vote to go put

[1:42:35] Australian ballot. I want to make sure

[1:42:37] nobody's misinterpreting what I'm

[1:42:39] saying, but into maybe discussing

[1:42:42] further how we do the combined system.

[1:42:48] Um,

[1:42:53] and Hannah's right, it's not totally

[1:42:56] fleshed out because literally Peter and

[1:42:58] I were talking to a lot of people and

[1:43:00] saying here's the way to go.

[1:43:03] Um, one of the things that we haven't

[1:43:05] done,

[1:43:07] um, is talked to like anyone

[1:43:12] from

[1:43:15] whether they're on the select board or

[1:43:18] the town manager's office about whether

[1:43:22] January is even an option. I mean, we

[1:43:25] Peter was a former town manager. I'm a

[1:43:27] former select board member.

[1:43:29] you know whether

[1:43:32] they can get a budget done by the end of

[1:43:34] December.

[1:43:36] My experience is no. That's just my my

[1:43:39] experience. But we have not asked

[1:43:41] anybody. Um you know so that's a I mean

[1:43:47] that's an option that needs to be

[1:43:50] explored. If we're serious about moving

[1:43:52] forward, we can have a serious

[1:43:54] discussion. I mean one of the things is

[1:43:56] we don't get our town audit back until

[1:43:57] December.

[1:43:58] >> Yeah. and we don't have, you know,

[1:44:01] numbers, but you know,

[1:44:04] I if if you want,

[1:44:08] you know, and I think I can tell you

[1:44:10] right now because obviously Peter and I

[1:44:12] produced this document together, I agree

[1:44:15] really strongly with him that open town

[1:44:18] meeting should vote on the budget and

[1:44:21] pass that budget on to Australian

[1:44:23] ballot. I think we've done either

[1:44:26] representative town meeting or now an

[1:44:27] open town meeting now for 60 whatever

[1:44:29] years and it's been really actually

[1:44:32] quite effective and then you have the

[1:44:34] people vote on that. Um that's where I'm

[1:44:37] coming down on that. Um

[1:44:40] so

[1:44:43] but that doesn't mean everybody else has

[1:44:45] to. I'm just struggling now to figure

[1:44:46] out how we can you know if you want us

[1:44:50] to flush some of this out talk to some

[1:44:52] more people. Um, you know, are there

[1:44:54] because I know Joyy's still trying to

[1:44:56] you're you're trying to figure out which

[1:44:57] way you want to even go. So, I'm trying

[1:44:58] to figure out is there something that

[1:45:00] can help you as we move this forward as

[1:45:04] we try to figure out if we can land at a

[1:45:07] place I mean we have a willingness by at

[1:45:10] least four of us to try to land at a

[1:45:13] place where Australian ballot can be

[1:45:15] part of the process. And if you want,

[1:45:18] you know, Peter and I to do some more

[1:45:20] work between now and November 4 or

[1:45:22] November

[1:45:23] >> June June. Oh my god. November 4th. June

[1:45:27] 4th.

[1:45:27] >> It's just next week.

[1:45:28] >> Yeah, just next week.

[1:45:30] >> And some of it is talking through

[1:45:32] because we have a list of some legal

[1:45:34] issues that we have to see how it can

[1:45:38] work. We have that list already.

[1:45:42] >> I don't want to interrupt you. I want to

[1:45:44] >> add something and pose a question once

[1:45:46] you are done talking.

[1:45:47] >> No, I I think that's the next thing is

[1:45:49] where do we where do we take this since

[1:45:50] we do have willingness

[1:45:53] from four of us to at the very least see

[1:45:57] how we can make a combined system. You

[1:46:00] know, we we've taken a step from last

[1:46:01] week. We've we've moved a little bit

[1:46:04] from last last week the last meeting

[1:46:07] where we weren't even sure we wanted to

[1:46:08] even take the next step to go to a

[1:46:10] combined system. So Peter and I brought

[1:46:12] this to you folks and now we've moved a

[1:46:14] step on Yeah, let's there is a

[1:46:17] willingness to consider it and I'm not

[1:46:19] taking this as anybody

[1:46:22] is supporting it. I'm just saying

[1:46:24] >> no I think we need to think about it and

[1:46:28] maybe flesh out some things. I mean, I

[1:46:31] have a whole lot of questions about

[1:46:34] various alternatives, some of which are

[1:46:37] just very practical like

[1:46:40] >> um basketball season

[1:46:42] >> and and some of the things would be

[1:46:44] really helpful if we could leave tonight

[1:46:47] with what this and not come back next

[1:46:48] week and you tell us this stuff.

[1:46:50] >> Yeah. So, that's um exactly the point I

[1:46:52] was going to make. I'm I'm worried. I' I

[1:46:54] would like to further consider this um

[1:46:59] not this exactly. I would like to

[1:47:01] further consider the topic and I would

[1:47:03] like to consider it with more substance

[1:47:06] in front of us around the potential ways

[1:47:10] to make this happen.

[1:47:12] Um and I think we set ourselves up for

[1:47:16] failure if we try to do that next week.

[1:47:17] a week from tonight, what leaves us like

[1:47:20] the next couple of days to try to

[1:47:22] actually do anything different with

[1:47:24] this. And

[1:47:25] >> um I think that we do need to have some

[1:47:27] communication with people inside town

[1:47:28] government. I think we um also need to

[1:47:31] have some communication with people at

[1:47:33] the school district around the

[1:47:35] possibility of like what can they

[1:47:36] accommodate? If they know a year ahead

[1:47:38] of time, for instance, of when we're

[1:47:40] going to be wanting to use the gym,

[1:47:42] could they accommodate it by like not

[1:47:44] having a home game that weekend? So, I I

[1:47:47] see you shaking your head, but I'd like

[1:47:48] to

[1:47:48] >> I've just had those conversations with

[1:47:50] them. Yeah.

[1:47:51] >> Um and they were very clear.

[1:47:53] >> I understand. And

[1:47:56] >> and that fellow reports to somebody who reports to the

[1:47:59] board. So, I I respect where we've

[1:48:02] landed. I don't I don't I'm not

[1:48:04] quibbling that you've got a clear

[1:48:06] answer. And I think that if we're as a

[1:48:09] community trying to make something very

[1:48:11] challenging and complicated happen,

[1:48:13] maybe the school can be more of a

[1:48:14] partner in this. And if we keep getting

[1:48:18] a no out of the schools, then maybe they

[1:48:20] can't be more of a partner in this and

[1:48:21] we'll end up um needing to think about

[1:48:24] either rejecting an an idea because of

[1:48:28] that or looking at a different place to

[1:48:30] hold the meeting. I don't want to even

[1:48:31] get into speculating about all that

[1:48:32] tonight. What I'm saying is I think

[1:48:33] there's there's more questions to be

[1:48:35] asked on that point because that's a

[1:48:37] pretty fundamental aspect of the

[1:48:39] possibility of going to January. Um and

[1:48:42] the impact to town government in the

[1:48:44] preparation of the budget is a very

[1:48:46] significant um impact to to going to

[1:48:50] what otherwise if we're going to include

[1:48:53] a um

[1:48:57] meaningful authoritative AB vote on the

[1:49:00] budget. Um, having it align with tummy,

[1:49:04] have it be the one time instead of

[1:49:06] having to go to the polls twice each

[1:49:08] spring makes sense to me. I'd like to

[1:49:10] try harder to make that particular

[1:49:12] option work if there's a way to make it

[1:49:13] work. If there isn't a way to make it

[1:49:15] work, then to to work in the more

[1:49:17] complicated array of um multiple steps

[1:49:21] where it does become

[1:49:23] there's other factors to consider. But

[1:49:25] my point is we need a little time if if

[1:49:28] there's an willingness and an interest

[1:49:31] on this panel to dig deeper into this

[1:49:34] stuff and to have another discussion

[1:49:35] another night when we've got more

[1:49:37] definitive information in front of us.

[1:49:39] We need some time to put that more

[1:49:41] definitive information together. So, I

[1:49:43] don't think we ought to try to do this a

[1:49:44] week from tonight. I think we ought to

[1:49:45] do it hopefully at the next meeting

[1:49:48] after that, which is a couple of weeks

[1:49:49] on from there. Um, I would assume that

[1:49:53] in a two week or so period, we ought to

[1:49:55] be able to pull this stuff together so

[1:49:56] that we'd be ready for 3 weeks from

[1:49:58] tonight.

[1:49:59] >> So, that's I just wanted to suggest that

[1:50:02] as we continue to decide how we want to

[1:50:04] proceed because I think it'd be a big

[1:50:05] mistake to try to continue this

[1:50:07] discussion next week and be not much

[1:50:09] more informed than we are today. But it

[1:50:12] would also be really helpful to know

[1:50:16] what everybody's looking for.

[1:50:20] >> I can send you a list of my question. I

[1:50:22] was going to do that anyway.

[1:50:24] >> Send you a list of my questions.

[1:50:31] » We we should

[1:50:33] communicate here. Maybe. How about this?

[1:50:35] Because we you shouldn't

[1:50:37] send us those questions because of the

[1:50:39] open meetings law. So, how about how

[1:50:41] about we do this instead? How about a

[1:50:42] week from tonight? We have some more

[1:50:44] discussion about this for the purpose of

[1:50:47] naming

[1:50:49] >> gaps, naming things you all need to see

[1:50:52] for us to have the

[1:50:55] more complete conversation that we need

[1:50:57] to have to get to a place. And then

[1:51:01] prior to the the next meeting after

[1:51:03] that, we try to be responsive to those

[1:51:06] >> which is the 18th.

[1:51:08] >> Hello.

[1:51:09] >> Which is the 18th.

[1:51:10] So, um, if it's helpful, um, for you

[1:51:14] all, I have a list of things that I

[1:51:16] think would be helpful for you all to

[1:51:17] consider so that you can think about

[1:51:19] going into

[1:51:21] >> next week. Yes.

[1:51:22] >> Um, so, um, I think the school, right,

[1:51:26] is a big question. We started looking at

[1:51:28] the latches. That's come up a bunch. We

[1:51:30] started looking at at some concerns with

[1:51:32] that. We're trying to reach out again to

[1:51:34] restart that conversation, but venue um

[1:51:38] and with the school district recognizing

[1:51:39] that they are a unified school district.

[1:51:41] So they don't just report to the

[1:51:43] Brattleboro voters. It's not just Brad

[1:51:45] taxpayers.

[1:51:46] >> Um so

[1:51:49] timeline of town report, um the legal

[1:51:53] questions, the budget timeline,

[1:51:56] um and just resources and budgets in

[1:51:59] terms of pulling all of these things

[1:52:01] off. And so I think that some people

[1:52:03] that would be important for you all to

[1:52:06] connect with and talk to um would

[1:52:08] certainly be um the town attorney

[1:52:12] um members of the select board um the

[1:52:15] communications coordinator specifically

[1:52:17] in terms of um the timeline of pulling

[1:52:20] off the town report. Um, I would say

[1:52:24] this school, um, whether it's the

[1:52:26] superintendent or the principal or

[1:52:29] whoever you all feel, whatever level you

[1:52:31] feel you need to go to, um, I know that

[1:52:34] we're absent an official finance

[1:52:36] director. Um, but whoever is playing

[1:52:40] that role, whether it's Bonnie or Sally

[1:52:42] or some combination,

[1:52:44] um, and the town manager's office. Yeah,

[1:52:46] >> I think those are key players that you

[1:52:49] really need to get feedback from. I

[1:52:51] think you're hearing from a select group

[1:52:53] of the public. Um, and we we have

[1:52:57] results of a ballot that we can

[1:53:00] interpret in whatever way we want. Um,

[1:53:03] y'all have talked to me. I'm happy to

[1:53:05] continue that conversation from my

[1:53:06] perspective and the logistics and

[1:53:08] timeline. Um, and so I think that I

[1:53:11] would be a great resource, but I think

[1:53:12] that there's a lot of other people that

[1:53:14] need to be brought into the conversation

[1:53:16] that can offer different perspectives

[1:53:18] and expertise. um on this discussion.

[1:53:22] >> Yeah.

[1:53:22] >> And I agree like the January one is

[1:53:26] totally different than what we're doing

[1:53:28] now,

[1:53:29] >> right?

[1:53:29] >> But the March one is also I mean you've

[1:53:31] got to think about you talked about

[1:53:33] timeline, but also budget and resources.

[1:53:36] Not just in terms of another

[1:53:39] >> ballot, but also in terms of what my

[1:53:41] staff can handle and do do we need to

[1:53:44] ask the select board to add another

[1:53:45] staff member to pull this off

[1:53:47] >> um in the town clerk's office. Yeah.

[1:53:49] >> So, those are considerations beyond just

[1:53:52] pulling off the election, right?

[1:53:54] >> Well, and part of part of it Yeah. Yeah.

[1:53:56] I won't I won't I won't make my comment

[1:53:58] now. I'll wait. So, one of one of my

[1:54:02] questions um

[1:54:05] bes besides the ones that

[1:54:08] some of them were were Hillary's

[1:54:10] questions, but I don't understand what

[1:54:14] a reduced overhead election

[1:54:18] is. Can somebody explain that to

[1:54:21] >> I can explain what we meant by that and

[1:54:23] Hillary's going to have an opinion about

[1:54:24] it. And so what we wanted to do was

[1:54:27] float a possibility in the consideration

[1:54:30] here subject to lots of details needing

[1:54:32] to be worked out. But um there have been

[1:54:35] times in the past when the town held

[1:54:36] elections in these two rooms and holding

[1:54:39] a an election that has a more complex

[1:54:42] ballot attached to it when there's three

[1:54:44] districts that was very complicated to

[1:54:46] do here. Problematic I would even say

[1:54:48] and uh we've got a great system set up

[1:54:50] that we do it time and again now over at

[1:54:52] the Legion. And the question that we're

[1:54:54] raising is if if it was AB otm AB and so

[1:55:00] there's a second AB each spring could

[1:55:04] that second one where it's going to be

[1:55:06] the town voters coming out to vote on

[1:55:07] the budget it's going to be a very

[1:55:09] simple ballot. Could that election be

[1:55:12] held in these two rooms with a smaller

[1:55:14] logistical challenge and a smaller group

[1:55:16] of people having to manage it?

[1:55:18] So I would say that yes um that is

[1:55:22] certainly a consideration and I would

[1:55:24] say in terms of the cost of that we

[1:55:27] don't pay anything to hold the elections

[1:55:28] at the region. That's part of but we

[1:55:30] have a 10-year with them um to hold

[1:55:33] every certainly regularly scheduled

[1:55:35] election um at at their space and that

[1:55:38] helps them with their community

[1:55:40] involvement and 503 status. Um and so

[1:55:44] there's no charge for that. The savings

[1:55:47] might be in terms of how many people do

[1:55:50] we need to hire.

[1:55:52] >> We pay minimum wage, so it would be a

[1:55:54] small savings. It's not, but we're also

[1:55:58] closing our office, so any revenue we'd

[1:56:00] be bringing in is lost. Um, and so there

[1:56:03] are pros and cons to that. The other

[1:56:05] question becomes, are we using a

[1:56:08] tabulator or are we hand counting? um we

[1:56:11] save money by not using a tabulator, but

[1:56:13] if there's 6,000 people that show up, we

[1:56:16] need to hire enough counters to be here

[1:56:18] and physically be counting. And so I

[1:56:20] don't know yet what what that cost

[1:56:24] savings or or loss is because we don't

[1:56:27] have anything to go off of.

[1:56:29] >> Um and so might it save us money by

[1:56:34] holding it here? Yeah, maybe. But it's

[1:56:36] not going to be a significant amount

[1:56:38] because we're not paying rent. we're not paying a fee to use the Legion

[1:56:43] and so it might be some staff savings,

[1:56:45] there might be lost revenue. Um I I

[1:56:48] don't know that I don't know if that's a

[1:56:51] significant savings or not.

[1:56:52] >> So would the cost of using the

[1:56:56] tabulators

[1:57:00] be more than hiring some people to

[1:57:04] count? You know,

[1:57:05] >> you don't know how many people are going

[1:57:06] to show up yet.

[1:57:07] >> And so it's hard to say. It might take

[1:57:09] us three years to know how many people

[1:57:11] we actually need to hire to do that or

[1:57:13] how long it's going to take us. Um, and

[1:57:17] doing a tabulator for one yes no

[1:57:20] question might be less money because

[1:57:22] it's it's programming for one district.

[1:57:25] It's fewer words than our regular

[1:57:27] ballot. I just I don't have the answers

[1:57:29] to those questions at this moment in

[1:57:32] time. Okay.

[1:57:32] >> Um,

[1:57:37] » was there other things on your list

[1:57:38] final?

[1:57:40] >> You don't have to have them all now, but

[1:57:45] » Oh, that those were my big questions.

[1:57:48] >> Okay. So, our plan for next week would

[1:57:50] be for everybody to come with your

[1:57:53] questions so that we can have time to

[1:57:55] get them answered by the 18th.

[1:57:58] >> We would start working on this sooner.

[1:58:00] Yes, we

[1:58:01] >> and we would hear whatever you have to

[1:58:03] say next week and make sure that we also

[1:58:05] cover that to

[1:58:06] >> Yeah.

[1:58:07] >> bring back as complete a

[1:58:10] >> set of answers as possible for the

[1:58:11] >> because

[1:58:12] >> 18.

[1:58:12] >> Yeah. Because we are we already have a

[1:58:15] list of questions that we have put

[1:58:17] together when we were putting this

[1:58:19] together.

[1:58:20] >> Yeah,

[1:58:21] >> there are lots of questions.

[1:58:22] >> Yeah,

[1:58:25] I may just ask one simple question. is

[1:58:28] Timothy Bellnap, uh, District 9

[1:58:31] homeowner, voter, taxpayer. Just one

[1:58:34] quick question regarding

[1:58:37] how would a January

[1:58:40] OTM followed by a March Australian

[1:58:43] ballot compare price-wise to what we

[1:58:46] just done this last spring? To me, I

[1:58:49] don't see any difference there.

[1:58:51] >> Right. And I mean, that's one of the

[1:58:53] considerations. I mean, that's what's we actually wrote that down. Yeah. that

[1:58:58] it's already in this embedded in the

[1:59:01] system.

[1:59:02] >> So, we believe that it'll be the least

[1:59:04] expensive of any of the options because

[1:59:07] it doesn't include an extra step.

[1:59:09] >> Yeah.

[1:59:10] >> Right. I'm just speaking to that the

[1:59:11] simple ballot here is kind of taking us

[1:59:13] down the garden path of option three or

[1:59:16] four when really option one is like I

[1:59:19] would say there's probably no price

[1:59:21] difference there, but I would defer to

[1:59:22] Hillary on that.

[1:59:23] >> Right. But there are logistical

[1:59:24] challenges there. So then the question

[1:59:26] becomes like fleshing out each

[1:59:28] sufficiently to be able to weigh those

[1:59:30] logistical challenges. Maybe they don't

[1:59:32] end up being so daunting.

[1:59:33] >> Yeah.

[1:59:33] >> Versus the extra cost which maybe

[1:59:37] doesn't end up being very much right.

[1:59:38] But so but we don't know the answers to

[1:59:40] those questions. So we want to come back

[1:59:41] with

[1:59:42] >> just for clarity

[1:59:43] >> more data.

[1:59:44] >> Yeah. because the because part of the thing and and I wrote it

[1:59:47] down because I I agreed with Hannah when

[1:59:50] she was talking about

[1:59:52] we have to function effectively. I mean,

[1:59:56] what we want is to go through a pro a

[1:59:58] budget process where we come out with a

[2:00:00] responsible town budget. And if if the

[2:00:03] town staff tells us, if you want us to

[2:00:06] have a budget ready by December, we're

[2:00:08] just going to be making numbers up, you

[2:00:10] know, to get a budget done by December

[2:00:12] to be voted on an open town meeting in

[2:00:14] January.

[2:00:15] You know, I think we have to weigh is

[2:00:17] that being effective? You know what I

[2:00:19] mean? So there there are other things

[2:00:20] besides what the dollar amount is to

[2:00:23] cost to something. We still have to be

[2:00:26] really run a responsible town. I think

[2:00:29] that's what we all want. So that's got

[2:00:31] that's part of the factor of with a

[2:00:34] January

[2:00:35] can we come out with a responsible

[2:00:37] budget by the time that we want to vote

[2:00:39] on it, you know. So those those are the

[2:00:42] different things that I think we have to

[2:00:43] think about. Understood.

[2:00:45] >> Thank you.

[2:00:46] >> Yeah. Spoon.

[2:00:52] I'm going to surprise you. Um, having

[2:00:56] spent my life studying democracy and

[2:00:59] being totally devoted to it, even though

[2:01:02] I might as an aside, as far as I know,

[2:01:05] the only really pure social system is

[2:01:08] anarchism.

[2:01:10] But for practical purposes, uh,

[2:01:13] democracy is the best that I know of.

[2:01:17] and transparency which goes right along

[2:01:20] with all that is very very important etc. All that said, as I sit here

[2:01:28] listening to the proceedings,

[2:01:31] I'm not sure you're running this like

[2:01:34] you should be. I honestly feel

[2:01:38] you should have an open part of the

[2:01:40] meeting where people can come and talk

[2:01:43] maybe the first half of your meeting and

[2:01:46] then go in be yourselves. find time for

[2:01:51] yourselves as a commi as a commission

[2:01:55] alone.

[2:01:57] Um I don't I'm asking myself you know

[2:02:01] does it diminish the democratic ideals

[2:02:06] if I am not physically present to listen

[2:02:10] to how you make sausage.

[2:02:14] And the fact of it is it is being

[2:02:16] filmed. It is being recorded. So all of

[2:02:19] the information is available to people.

[2:02:23] And the more important expectation

[2:02:26] again is that when you finish you have a

[2:02:31] good explanation and reasoning for

[2:02:34] everything that you are proposing.

[2:02:37] But I don't I think you would be more

[2:02:41] effective if you take your input

[2:02:45] and then work it out.

[2:02:48] where you have time and peace and no

[2:02:51] interference and uh

[2:02:55] become I think a more a more solid uh

[2:03:00] commission.

[2:03:02] There is open meeting law

[2:03:03] >> spoon you've surprised us and yeah it's not the most comfortable thing

[2:03:10] you've been on this dish um

[2:03:13] >> both sides

[2:03:16] >> it's hard to have um conversations

[2:03:20] especially when you're exploring

[2:03:21] unknowns and trying to like name the

[2:03:24] uncertainties sufficiently that you can

[2:03:26] then get a handle on those uncertainties

[2:03:28] sufficiently to make a good decision.

[2:03:30] Those are not the most comfortable

[2:03:33] processes to do

[2:03:35] in public and it's the public's work. I I

[2:03:40] aside from legal questions of whether or

[2:03:41] not we could excuse everybody from the

[2:03:45] room, I think it would just be an

[2:03:46] enormous mistake for us to excuse

[2:03:47] everybody from the room. I think we need

[2:03:49] to do our work, the public's work,

[2:03:53] hard as it may be in in in this

[2:03:57] setting. And I'll just note that I don't

[2:03:59] think we've done any sort of like

[2:04:01] drafting on the fly in this room. It's a

[2:04:04] lot of

[2:04:04] >> That's right.

[2:04:04] >> here's what we think and then someone

[2:04:07] usually me writes it and then we come

[2:04:09] back and talk about it the next time.

[2:04:10] >> Yeah, that that's right. So, the

[2:04:12] drafting has happened outside, but the

[2:04:14] getting to the place where we can name

[2:04:16] what we'd like to see drafted has all

[2:04:18] happened here and that's why it's taken

[2:04:20] us years.

[2:04:21] >> Yeah. Um, and we can we'll hopefully get

[2:04:24] to a point where this is on the ballot

[2:04:26] and we will go through an educational

[2:04:28] process and explain to people why we've

[2:04:31] done certain things and certain I mean

[2:04:34] >> I we have a really good I we have to

[2:04:37] remind people we didn't just talk about

[2:04:40] open you know representative town

[2:04:41] meeting there's a lot of things in this

[2:04:43] charter that we're very happy with joy

[2:04:48] I would like to

[2:04:51] make it known that amongst the title uh

[2:04:54] topics the highle topics that have

[2:04:57] already been stated um Hillary first um

[2:05:01] and then others that

[2:05:04] would fill in

[2:05:07] a lot of my concerns. So I do hope that

[2:05:09] like it's not waiting for next week to

[2:05:12] get the question the very specific

[2:05:14] questions that I hope like one or two

[2:05:16] become

[2:05:18] almost lynchpin and of course we won't

[2:05:20] know until the answer is it a legal

[2:05:22] question is it the is it venue question

[2:05:25] is it efficiency question um so the the

[2:05:31] high level view of those absolutely

[2:05:35] would fill it like the any hesitation of

[2:05:38] Yeah, no one does it in January.

[2:05:41] Why?

[2:05:43] That could be the legal question.

[2:05:46] >> Well, you have to.

[2:05:47] >> Yes, we can amend with charter.

[2:05:49] Absolutely. But I just, you know, is

[2:05:52] that a legal question? If it's not,

[2:05:54] fine. Um but just um I acknowledge that

[2:06:00] the topics that cause hesitation

[2:06:04] that cause confusion

[2:06:07] have been the higher level have been

[2:06:09] stated. So as they get flushed out, yes,

[2:06:11] to consider

[2:06:13] >> hearing um from the subject matter

[2:06:16] experts, whether it's just in a memo,

[2:06:20] they you know, I'm not demanding anyone

[2:06:22] show up in person, but

[2:06:24] >> yeah,

[2:06:27] » I want to make sure I understand your

[2:06:30] point. So you you made a very specific

[2:06:34] >> example and that's if it's if it's just

[2:06:36] an example and you're making a broader

[2:06:38] point. I want to make sure I've got your

[2:06:39] broader point. So why does nobody do it

[2:06:41] in January is a question you asked that

[2:06:44] deserves an answer. Um

[2:06:47] if we can learn one. Um are there other

[2:06:51] similarly specific questions or was that

[2:06:53] meant to send us on a path towards the

[2:06:58] kinds of things you're concerned about?

[2:06:59] because I I don't know what other

[2:07:02] specific things might be on that kinds

[2:07:03] of things list.

[2:07:05] >> Right. Um

[2:07:10] today I meant it as an example and I

[2:07:12] have no doubt that more details would

[2:07:15] give

[2:07:17] potential but I wouldn't want to stop

[2:07:19] the investigation for two weeks

[2:07:23] >> because some of some people might be

[2:07:25] available earlier than later.

[2:07:27] >> Totally. We actually have some meetings

[2:07:28] already set up for next week in case

[2:07:31] this was continuing to move forward. And

[2:07:33] so we will follow through on those and

[2:07:34] we'll do some more work together.

[2:07:36] >> But um

[2:07:39] I think it's important that you all get

[2:07:42] a chance to say to us

[2:07:45] next week that you know upon further

[2:07:47] reflection this this this and this or

[2:07:49] you know I need answers to this this and this. And it may be that we've

[2:07:53] already gathered answers to that by the

[2:07:55] time you name it, but it may be that we

[2:07:56] haven't and then we would have some

[2:07:58] additional time to go and do that.

[2:08:00] >> Yeah.

[2:08:06] » Does it feel okay about that?

[2:08:08] >> Yeah,

[2:08:08] >> we'll move forward.

[2:08:10] Okay. So, next week we will continue

[2:08:13] this. Peter and I will continue our

[2:08:15] work. We'll put together what we can and

[2:08:18] then next week everybody come with some

[2:08:21] other thoughts

[2:08:23] and then we can have a full-blown

[2:08:25] discussion on where we want to go and

[2:08:28] how we want to do it on the 18th. Is

[2:08:31] that the day?

[2:08:32] >> Is that our next meeting?

[2:08:33] >> Yeah,

[2:08:34] >> the 18th.

[2:08:35] >> Okay.

[2:08:35] >> I think it's the 18th.

[2:08:37] >> Yeah, we're gonna look it up because it

[2:08:39] is okay. Um

[2:08:40] >> I looked it up but I can't remember.

[2:08:42] Given that I unless anybody disagrees,

[2:08:47] um, we were going to talk about

[2:08:51] the finance committee and the human

[2:08:53] services committee,

[2:08:55] but we should maybe wait until we know

[2:08:59] what we're doing.

[2:09:01] One of the the only thing the human

[2:09:02] services committee wants is we have them

[2:09:05] in our charter now having 11 members and

[2:09:07] upon reflection they want us to have

[2:09:10] nine members. So it's not these are not

[2:09:13] big things. These are just two of the

[2:09:15] things because they came out of

[2:09:19] um

[2:09:22] you know they were in representative

[2:09:24] tummy. We put them on open t. want to

[2:09:25] make sure we're still comfortable with

[2:09:27] the language, but it's nothing. We we

[2:09:29] haven't been asked to do anything major.

[2:09:31] So, we can hold off on those if we want

[2:09:34] until we're comfortable with what we're

[2:09:36] doing with the Australian ballot. Um,

[2:09:41] so we can

[2:09:43] >> just on that point, I think that that

[2:09:45] this whole

[2:09:48] dual vote thing needs to to be discussed

[2:09:52] with them because this would also affect

[2:09:53] their timelines.

[2:09:55] Well, the finance committee

[2:09:57] >> and the human services committee.

[2:09:58] >> Yeah.

[2:09:59] Especially if we switch when

[2:10:01] >> especially if they're getting elected in

[2:10:02] March.

[2:10:03] >> Yeah.

[2:10:03] >> And then they're expected to do all of

[2:10:05] their work by December. Is that

[2:10:07] realistic?

[2:10:09] >> Yep.

[2:10:14] » Okay. So, and let's have anyone Does

[2:10:18] anyone have any other business? Well, we

[2:10:20] can we will come back next Thursday

[2:10:24] here at 6:15.

[2:10:26] >> Are we not talking to the quorum?

[2:10:28] >> Well, do we want to talk about it now or

[2:10:29] to go on?

[2:10:30] >> I mean, I Bob again can't be here

[2:10:32] tonight, but he

[2:10:35] wanted to make it clear that he does not

[2:10:38] think that it is legal to do a quorum

[2:10:41] because everyone has the right to vote.

[2:10:43] And by having a quorum, you're telling

[2:10:46] people that they can't vote.

[2:10:49] This only came up from it was actually

[2:10:51] Dan Gartenstein that was the one that

[2:10:54] made the suggestion that do we need a

[2:10:56] quorum. So that's why we put that on our

[2:10:59] >> So if you want him to do that memo for

[2:11:01] next time, it would just be good to know

[2:11:02] if you need more information or if

[2:11:03] that's sufficient to end that discussion.

[2:11:10] >> No, I think a memo from here would be

[2:11:12] good.

[2:11:13] >> I think for backup documentation.

[2:11:16] Yeah.

[2:11:19] So,

[2:11:22] >> okay.

[2:11:22] >> I did an agenda for next meeting.

[2:11:24] >> Just one sec.

[2:11:27] >> Okay. Is there any other business that

[2:11:29] anyone has? Otherwise, we'll see

[2:11:32] everybody back here a week from today at

[2:11:34] 6:15.

[2:11:35] >> Yep.

[2:11:36] >> Does somebody want to make a motion to

[2:11:37] adjurnn?

[2:11:39] >> So moved.

[2:11:40] >> All those in favor of adjourning? Hi.

[2:11:43] >> Thanks everybody for coming and offering

[2:11:45] your opinions. We appreciate it.

Brattleboro Charter Revision Committee Mtg 5/28/26

Transcript