Long time resident now supports SB2

I am a traditionalist at heart.

However, there are some points they make that are fraught with misunderstandings. I respect their right to their opinion; nevertheless it would appear they have been misinformed by some of the same fear mongers that first had my attention. First, SB2 changes "where" (private voting booth) and "when" (30 days after the discussion and amendments) you vote. It does not change the governance of the town. We still have the selectmen and school board. We still have a moderator and the opportunity to openly discuss, learn and amend all the same as it is today. There is 30 day separation between amending and voting to allow people to, if they are so inclined, educate themselves and rationally form an opinion. It does not take away the rights of the citizens to "discuss the issues before the town as a whole" and it does not "block the ability of citizens to know what they are voting for." SB2 gives all voters the right to vote in privacy or by absentee ballot if needed.

Second, those of us that support SB2 are not … I repeat … not, a special interest group. I believe that with a vote of 56% and 58% (Town and School District respectively in '08) in favor of SB2 we are part of a majority of voters. (SB2 needs 60% to pass) MCA, a group of truly bi-partisan and diverse people, has led the effort for SB2. Our mission statement is clear. We want fair, open and transparent government in Moultonborough. All we are looking for with SB2 is the ability to truly have a consensus of the town when it comes to spending issues. If, with a consensus of all the voters, the town chooses to spend millions on a project, then so be it. And, we have nothing personal to gain by supporting SB2 except our right to vote … in privacy.

Additionally, they have been horribly misinformed when they say that SB2 "will create confusion and promote the ability of small, special interests to allow ideas be present(ed) in ballot form without the ability to question the public body as a whole before the vote". (Their words not mine) Nothing could be further from the truth. It does eliminate the auction-like atmosphere of amending the amendments, motions to reconsider late in the meeting after the opposition has gone home and the stacking of the audience with those who have the most to gain. If my memory serves me right it was this past town meeting where the moderator ordered the chief of police to remove a citizen from the meeting for attempting to read a piece that expressed his opinion. That is the "purest form of democracy"?

Finally, they speak of a "requirement" to be aware of every special interest and be "duly informed" before one casts their vote. Here is where I agree, voters should be informed albeit this is not a requirement. I must confess SB2 does not educate the uninformed … but neither does the town meeting. The average IQ of the participants of the two venues will likely remain the same. One is not "required" to be educated on all aspects of an issue before one votes … there is no test. The 30 days between the final amendments and the voting, citizens do however have an opportunity to study what they are going to be voting on.

Last year at town meeting, 9 articles with $375,000 in appropriations were voted on BEFORE LUNCH by 454 voters … AFTER LUNCH, 28 articles with over $9.1 MILLION in appropriations were voted on by 285 down to 172 voters. With SB2 there would have been 1307 voters casting votes on ALL the articles.

Rick Heath,

Moultonborough

HOME