[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.