Town Meeting: January 2009 Archives
January 29, 2009
To the Editor:
On Jan. 14, we attended some hearings on proposed House bills that were sponsored by our State Representative Betsy Patten. Observing and participating in the hearings was certainly a learning experience and well worth the trip to
20 is very difficult to comprehend. A 1000 percent increase did not strike her as a bit over the top? But wait, there’s more. Oops, she did it again with HB71. This one will increase from $100,000 to $1,000,000 municipal bonds that would require a public hearing, another tenfold increase. For example, a bond of $950,000 would not require a public hearing. Outrageous, but at least she’s consistent. To me $950,000 is one fantastic pile of money. Rep. Patten introduced the house bill and said the $1,000,000 is a number she selected and it would be okay for the committee to drop it to $200,000 or what ever they wanted. See what I mean about consistency? Seems she puts out a very high numbermand hopes she gets at least something lower. Something is wrong with that method of proposing House Bills. We are hopeful both bills will be killed in committee.
On the last bill sponsored by Betsey Patten, HB114, she smartly threw in the towel and withdrew it.HB114 was an effort to weaken SB2 by eliminating the deliberative session. SB2 by the way is the way more than half the townspeople in
Jim Leiterman
Moultonboro
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
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
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
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
Editor, The Citizen January 22, 2009
Wednesday, January 14th was a red letter day in
Considering that all three bills were written and presented by Representative Betsey Patten of Moultonborough (also one of our Selectmen) it would seem that there was a plan afoot by a local group of officials to cripple voter's rights .....
The Meredith News January 22, 2009
SARAH SCHMIDT
LAKES REGION — A change could be coming for all Town Meetings next year, as the state considers whether or not to increase the number of people required for a secret ballot vote. The bill was sponsored by Representative Betsey Patten of Moultonboro, and went before the Municipal and County Government Committee last week to begin hearings. If passed, the bill would increase the number of voters required to request secret balloting and ballot recounts......
The Concord Monitor January 21, 2009
While Betsy Patten of Moultonboro serves as a selectwoman and a state representative, she is working to remove the right of citizens who attend town meetings. Her legislation, House Bill 72, would increase the number of voters required to request secret balloting and secret ballot recounts at meetings.
When I was in meetings with Betsy, when she chaired the House Municipal and County Government Committee, she said there was no need for SB 2. She wanted people to attend the town meeting and speak their mind. But what happens is this: The special interests want a quick meeting and don't want the ability of a secret ballot - so they can boo and hiss when someone doesn't give the special interests all they want.
Just Wednesday night here in
Is this what we call freedom of speech for everyone?
HARRIET E. CADY
The MCA was there....
A hearing was held today @ 11:30am in
You will recall that HB0072 would increase by ten fold to 50 the amount of people required to sign a petition and also be present at Town Meeting to request a secret ballot. The rule that requires the current five persons necessary to request a secret ballot was put in place way back in 1971 and amended in 2006 to requiring them to be present.
Since this would effect Town Meetings throughout NH including SB2 Towns, the public including the MCA showed up to voice opposition.
There were so many speakers in opposition, the hearing ran longer than scheduled.
ALL SPEAKERS WERE OPPOSED. NOT A SINGLE SPEAKER SPOKE IN FAVOR OF HB0072!
Who spoke? Well, two citizens from Moultonboro, but many more from around the state who are adamantly opposed to this bill including:....
The Citizen Friday, January 16, 2009
By BEA LEWIS
bwheel@metrocast.net
A bill to substantially increase how many voters it would take to call for a secret-ballot vote at Town Meeting will mostly likely be amended, the bill's prime sponsor reports.
State Rep. Betsey Patten, R-Moultonborough, initially sought to increase from five to 50 the number of people who must be present at Town Meeting plus sign a petition asking that a certain warrant article by voted on by secret ballot rather than by a show of hands. For towns with populations of fewer than 500 currently a total of three signatures are needed.
But following a hearing before the House Municipal and County Government Committee Wednesday Patten said it appears the bill will be amended to set the number at 10 or 15, or perhaps 5 percent of the voters on hand for the meeting. During the hearing process, Patten said, it came to the committee's attention that hamlets like Hart's Location in
"I know there is a lot of angst out there (about this legislation), but this hasn't been changed since 1971 when it was a lot more civil time," Patten said.
The fate of the bill will most likely be decided by the committee during a Tuesday, Jan. 27, session, she said.
Meanwhile, the Moultonborough Citizens Alliance which opposes the bill reports that no one spoke in favor of the proposed measure during the latest public hearing.
Opponents say the legislation is akin to stealing the rights of town meeting attendees across
Arguments against the proposed bill are similar to those made in favor of Senate Bill 2 that requires all town meeting articles to be voted on by secret ballot - that anyone who raises their hand against a particular article befitting those affected sets themselves up for intimidation by their neighbors, customers, friends and teachers.
Rick Heath of Moultonborough, who vehemently opposes the bill, questions why the voting booth or an absentee ballot is the norm for the election of town and state officials and state mandated articles on the warrant, but not for spending issues.
"This is bad legislation," he said stressing that lengthening a meeting to allow for secret ballot voting is no reason to make it more difficult to do so. Patten did not believe the bill would be voted "in expedient to legislation," a move that would essentially kill it for this session.
The Citizen, Letter to the Editor January 14, 2009
This is an open letter to Rep. Betsey Patten.
I have just learned of a bill (HB-0072) that you authored requiring an increase by 1000% the number of voters at a town meeting needed to request a private vote on any particular article, making it virtually impossible for a secret ballot/private vote. How duplicitous of you to make this covert attempt to essentially steal the rights of town meeting attendees across NH to petition for a private vote. As a representative of Moultonborough both as selectman and as a member of the NH General Court you have betrayed those who have supported you to date. If ever there was a need to have the voting initiative SB2, it is now. You have made clear the reason why
At last town meeting (March '08) a group of voters legally and reasonably petitioned to have each spending article over $100,000 voted on by secret ballot. The issues at that town meeting were huge and the consequences potentially disastrous, considering the present economic trends. The Moderator and those of you on the dais were obviously very troubled, even offended, as it posed a delay in your schedule. Is democracy, under your rules, to be set aside for a more expedient method of having your way with the taxpayer? No, Representative Patten, it is not. This is bad legislation and I hope that your constituents in Moultonborough, Tuftonboro and Wolfeboro are made aware of the actions you have taken against their voting rights. Further, as a consequence of this one incident at Moultonborough town meeting, you are attempting to push through legislation that would affect voters all across the State of
The good folks of the State of
To the voters and taxpayers of Moultonborough, Why is it that voting in a booth throughout the day or by absentee ballot is OK for election of town and state officials and state mandated articles of the warrant, but not for spending issues?
We all know the truth is that town meetings are stacked with those most affected by spending articles. Anyone that wants to raise their hand against a particular article benefiting those affected sets themselves up for intimidation by their neighbors, customers, friends and, yes, even teachers of their kids. Intimidation is the name of the game. They speak so emotionally against SB2 because they fear the power of the secret ballot. They fear SB2 so much they attempted to change the entire governance of Moultonborough by suggesting a "
Taxpayers and voters alike contact your state representative (even if it is Ms. Patten) and tell them this is bad legislation. You can find these folks and how to contact them on the web at www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house. This bad legislation may be coming to a town near you.
Rick Heath
Moultonborough
