Why Moultonborough needs SB2

Editor, The Citizen: January 20, 2009

The Moultonborough Selectboard met 1-8-2009 and their published minutes under the section Legislative Update states Rep. Betsey Patten (Selectmen and also State Rep.) "added that she is proposing a bill to increase the number of voters required to request a secret ballot during the Town Meeting. Presently, only five registered voters must request a secret ballot and are not required to be present at Town Meeting. Her bill would set the number required based on the municipalities population. The (Moultonborough) Selectmen expressed their support of Betsey's proposed bill and asked Carter (Terenzini, Town Administrator) to draft a letter of support. Hollis Austin asked the purpose of the bill. She replied that presently only five people can request a secret ballot and not have to be present during the secret ballot, in an effort to make the Town Meeting unnecessarily lengthy."

The above portion in quotation marks is per the Moultonborough Selectboard minutes of 1-8-2009. However our video of that meeting stated 50 voters and that was neglected in the above minutes but the number 50 appears on HB72. Chapter 40 Government of Town Meeting, Section 40:4-a states "5 voters who are present may make a request in writing prior to a vote by voice vote or division vote that the vote be taken by secret written ballot." In essence, it says the five voters must be present and that contradicts a portion of what is stated in paragraph one.

I vigorously state that the voters that submitted petitions did not intentionally delay the voting as implied in paragraph one. Also Moultonboro Citizens Alliance did not submit all the petitions that were presented to the moderator prior to the start of that Town Meeting. Other citizens, who are not members of MCA or proponents of it, collected signatures and signed them as well as they wanted the secret ballots for expenditures over $100,000 which makes sense to me.

The information we received at the 1-8-2009 Selectboard meeting prompted us to attend those house hearings in Concord on 1-14-2009; two of our MCA members spoke against the HB72 as is our legal right. Through MCA's own investigation we found out our Representative also submitted HB71 and HB114 that she neglected to inform us about. Passage of those three House Bills would also affect towns that already have SB2. We attended hearings on HB72, HB71 and HB114 on 1-14-2009.

On the evening of 1-15-2009, some MCA members attended the Selectboard meeting and were verbally criticized because we did not discuss our differences with Rep. Patten before voicing our opinion in Concord.

Rep. Patten, you have it backwards! You submitted HB0072 in June 2008 you waited until 1-8-2009, at the legislative update portion of the selectmen meeting, to let Moultonborough know you had submitted that bill. In true transparency you should have notified local voters you intended to submit a bill on this subject and ask for public input. Or at least notify your constituents after you submitted HB72 in June 2008. Instead you waited less than one week before the hearing in Concord to notify us at the 1/8/2009 Selectboard meeting. As a Selectman you have the opportunity and the platform to give your constituents regular legislative updates but you are very selective and your timing was way off.

Rep. Patten, why should we contact you when you are not fulfilling your responsibility to inform and represent those that have put their trust in you?

Jim Leiterman
Moultonborough

HOME