As a result of running for a seat on the Salem, NH Town Charter Committee, I have been giving some thought to our town’s form of government – the “Town Meeting” format. Historically, this form of government is one of the purest forms of democracy. Recently, though, I’ve come to realize that - in the traditional sense, at least – this form of government encounters challenges brought about by changes in a town’s makeup.
Before going any further here, let me make a few points abundantly clear…
- I absolutely respect the Town Meeting government model in it’s intent. It embodies the spirit of community representation when it is used under the appropriate circumstances.
- There is nothing that prevents the spirit of the Town Meeting form of government from continuing in any community and still providing value. It will, however, require modifications from the original structure to be successful.
In order to clarify my feelings on these two points, I will need to elaborate a bit more.
The intent behind the Town Meeting form of government has always been to provide a more direct input by citizens in the decision-making process for a town. By having town meetings, it was the intent of this format to allow all citizens to participate in the process. In essence, the Town Meeting is intended (much like other election processes) to deliberate and vote on key issues relating to the town. It was, therefore, an extension of the concept of representative government, with the citizens themselves becoming direct representatives.
The Town Government format harkens back to times when -
- The town itself was smaller in population. This allowed for the actual town meeting to take place in a single gathering place with the expectation of all citizens attending and participating in the process.
- The town population base cold easily attend meetings. The town meeting format harkens back to a day when most citizens both lived and worked in their community, with little restriction on travel and availability. This would ensure as high an attendance for the meeting as was possible.
For some communities in our state (and our country in general), these two factors still exist. For them, the Town Meeting form of government in it’s strictest sense could therefore be effective. However, changes in our society have made these two prerequisites for the Town Meeting format come under scrutiny.
Salem, NH now has a resident population approaching 30,000. If a town deliberative session were held today and even 10% of the population attended, it would be difficult (at best) to hold a single meeting in a single location and accommodate all of the attendees. Of course, this has not been an issue up to this point. This leads me to the second change in our town’s makeup – the ability to attend meetings.
The original spirit of the Town Meeting form of government assumed there would be little difficulty for a citizen attending a meeting. Today’s society, however, is far different than the the society of even 50 years prior. Differing work schedules and work locations make for challenges. Work and personal obligations now dominate many schedules, making attendance a challenge. I don’t think this should serve as an excuse for community participation, mind you; it is a modern-day reality, though. The result, when combined with increased resident population, is a decline in the number of citizens who actually do participate in the deliberative process. This is where the potential lies for the Town Meeting form of government to go awry.
Remember that, regardless of the type of government used, an overriding goal of democratic process is representative government. It is why we have elections and elected officials. In addition to those elected to office serving as the voice of their constituency, these same people are accountable for their actions as the elected representative. If we do not like what an elected official is doing, we vote them out of office. If we feel the situation is dire, we have processes for more immediate action. The Town Meeting form of government, and more importantly the deliberative session, runs the risk of working in complete contrast to the representative government principle.
At a deliberative session, those in attendance were not elected in any way. They also have no accountability for their actions to any constituency. Yet they are afforded the same power as an elected body in that they can determine what can or cannot be presented to the voting population at large. When only 30, or even 600, out of a voter base of nearly 20,000 are able to control control and potentially manipulate what does or does not get to be voted upon by all citizens, then the spirit of the Town Meeting form of government risks being corrupted. While some may argue that this is similar to government today, the key differentiator is no accountability. Attendees are not charged with being representative of anyone, and there is no way to hold them accountable to anyone.This is one of the cold hard realities that the Town Charter Commission must address. As always, there are options.
I believe that in addition to the wholesale move to other forms of government, research should also be performed to determine the legalities and acceptance of modifications to the Town Charter in conjunction with the Town Meeting format. Here are just a couple of options to consider –
- Can the vote of attendees on warrant articles at a deliberative session be treated similar to the recommendations of committees rather than a “on or off the ballot” vote? In this case, the deliberative session still provides a value for the town population to discuss and debate these articles, but the vote does not deny the general population their right to vote on the article on election day. I am not saying that this is the only solution – I am, however, saying that those elected to the Town Charter Commission need to weigh all of the options here and (most importantly) consider the residents of Salem, NH as a whole when making these decisions.
- Can there be modifications to the voting process that would require a larger attending base to properly reflect the overall voting population (like a quorum)? If the voting base at a deliberative session has the ability to vote a warrant article on or off the ballot, can there be some sort of threshold for attendance that would better reflect the size of the overall voting population, thereby allowing for some greater chance of diversity in representation at the session and mitigating the chance of control by a small group or individuals.
I am certain there are many more creative possibilities to explore. This is what I would expect the Town Charter Commission to do, and I equally expect all Salem residents to hold those elected officials (including myself hopefully) accountable for. I still am open (and very interested) in hearing what you have to say on the matter as well. What do you think?