It's amazing when you think about it.
Each February, the Brattleboro Union High School District holds an annual meeting to vote on its budget. And, each February, only a relative handful of voters from the five member towns come out for the meeting.
The Valentine's Day meeting this year was no exception, as a $27 million budget for the 2013 fiscal year was unanimously approved by 89 voters - or just 0.6 percent of the 14,736 registered voters in the school district.
That's not a typo. A $27 million budget was considered by fewer than 1 percent of the eligible voters - mostly school administrators and teachers - and that has been the case for several years now.
Why? Maybe because too many voters believe their vote doesn't matter and the budget is mostly a fait accompli.
There is a certain amount of truth to that. Nearly all of a given school budget consists of programs and expenses mandated by the state and the federal government, negotiated contracts with school personnel, and inflexible expenses that always increase, such as health insurance or energy costs.
But the biggest problem is that a budget vote in an open meeting, where the fear of intimidation is real, might keep people from attending.
Shortly before his death in 2008, Brattleboro Selectboard member Joerg Mayer floated the idea switching to an Australian ballot for the BUHS budget.
Writing on iBrattleboro.com, Mayer pointed out that that the BUHS district is one of the largest in Vermont that still conducts its budget deliberations in a open meeting with a floor vote, instead of opening a polling place and using paper ballots. Casting those ballots in a day-long election instead would “give[s] people a whole day to get to the polling station and vote, thereby increasing the participation enormously.”
Mayer also pointed out that, according to Vermont statutes, “a paper ballot is allowed (it is not in Brattleboro's Town Meeting, but that is another story) as long as seven people request it right after the vote is called for. Even if the auditorium (with some 700 seats) will be filled with voters they may still vote for the budget but at least it will be slightly more indicative of the people's wishes.”
It would be easy to make this change, Mayer wrote.
“All that is necessary is that the school board add a special article to the annual meeting warning the necessary motions,” he suggested.
Then, he continued, citizens would have to file a petition no less than 40 days before the next annual meeting with signatures of at least 5 percent of the district's voters.
“That means, of course, that the Australian ballot method would not be in effect until next year's budget, but at least there would be a change in this age-old system which is fraught with significant problems,” Mayer concluded.
* * *
Many New Hampshire towns use a system called the Official Ballot Law, or SB2, after the Senate bill adopted in 1995. It authorizes any town, school district, or cooperative school district that raises and appropriates funds at an annual meeting to adopt a process whereby all warrant articles are given their final vote by official ballot.
Towns that use SB2 divide their school and town meetings into two sessions.
The first session is called the deliberative session, usually held in late January or early February. It is where residents have the opportunity to debate and amend the meeting warrant.
Under this system, budget articles are required to have two dollar amounts: the budget as agreed to at the deliberative session, and a default budget that is usually the budget from the previous year, plus whatever mandated increases are needed.
The second session, held on Town Meeting Day in March, is conducted by paper ballot all day long. Voters can say yes or no to what was done at the first session, but they can't amend or change it.
Supporters of SB2 say the law removes the ability for a minority of voters to control meeting decisions and gives more voters a chance to weigh in. Opponents say that most voters don't attend deliberative sessions and the law enables these voters to go the polls without the information needed to cast an informed vote.
It's an imperfect system, and still a source of controversy in New Hampshire. But it is an attempt to solve the biggest problem with the Town Meeting form of government - too few people making decisions on behalf of the many.
A similar system is worth considering in Vermont.