DETAILS MATTER: VOTE TO REJECT THE FTR

As an original member of the FTM changes committee (FTMCAC), I am not against replacing the FTM. But if we are going to change a form of government that we’ve had for over two hundred years, it should be because it is an improvement over what we have and not because some are still angry over a FTM that happened over 1 ½ years ago. Emotions should not drive this decision (whichever side you are on). I am urging you to vote NO on the proposed FTR on November 8th because details matter and it introduces more problems than it solves.

Details matter. Voters can’t vote no; if you don’t like any of the budgets you have no vote. If the majority voting can’t agree on a budget the first time, then we are forced to have a runoff of budgets chosen by the minority (still can’t vote no). If there is only one budget, it wins by default but the town pays to hold a referendum anyway. How is this process more democratic if voters can’t reject budgets they don’t want, especially those chosen by the minority? Why would we waste thousands of dollars to hold an unnecessary vote?

Details matter. Unlimited budgets are allowed on the ballot. Citizens can propose budgets with just 50 signatures each and don’t have to attend any hearing to explain or defend them. Citizens can propose budgets with undefined cuts that will be determined AFTER the vote, we’ll find out the consequences later. There is no required notice of when the “citizen proposal” period begins (better be paying attention). Elected officials will be forced to adopt their budgets one month earlier when less accurate information is available. Illegal budgets that don’t meet state requirements for education or that propose unbalanced budgets (revenue doesn’t cover expenses) are allowed on the ballot. How does any of that provide a framework for a fair public debate and vote?

Details matter. The FTMCAC was advised by the town solicitor that language be included to specifically require or exclude a two council member veto of a majority vote. Language was written to exclude it and ensure that voters could NOT be overruled (see April 11th minutes). Yet the current FTMCAC rejected it. The result is that two town councilors will be able to overrule voter decisions. Why? Do they think the people of Tiverton need to be protected from themselves? Or is this a failsafe just in case they don’t like how the majority votes in the future?

As the old sayings goes…Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play? Surely we can adopt a simpler, easier alternative that preserves majority rule (similar to those already used in other communities). Vote to REJECT the FTR, Question #2 on the November 8th ballot.

Deb Pallasch
Tiverton, RI