Most of the stuff on the Special Town Meeting was noncontroversial. There were two exceptions; a bit over 1 million dollars to buy properties adjacent to the fire and police station so as to provide parking when they're expanded, and an appropriation of money to the capital improvement fund. Both passed anyway, but not without questions and a few no votes, including my own. The concern with the former largely was because it was very expensive, and although the "free cash" (money collected in excess of the budget - because of the balanced budget requirement, there's some every year, but it was high this year because of no snow and a property tax settlement) allowed a fire truck to be purchased with cash instead of debt, freeing up some debt for this, that only applies to the first five years of a twenty-year debt financing. Many concerns were raised about the amount of 20-year debt used and the price of this purchase, including by the finance committee (which ultimately endorsed the article) and I voted no for that reason. Next was a small appropriation to the capital improvement fund; many disagreed with the town's emphasis on revolving funds, and this one in particular struck me and a few others as an unnecessary roadblock for things which could simply be funded by free cash, so I voted no. Finally, although this was non-controversial, the capital facility fund also had appropriations recommended; it was described as an "emergency" fund, so I asked if spending money from it still had to go through the normal process if a building was falling apart. (It does, but it's not used for that so much as general repairs, apparently.) This article passed unanimously.
Finally, there was a long argument over a resolution urging a constitutional amendment to overturn citizens united. I had initially sought to speak on this issue, however many others did as well, and I felt most of the points I would have raised (specifically regarding the historical context of the first amendment; the founders surely did not mean to give unlimited free speech to the British East India Company!) were covered. The proponents were more in number - something like 8-2 on who spoke, although surely there were others wishing to speak - and also I felt had better arguments, although I'm admittedly biased.
The arguments in favor of the resolution primarily discussed the historical role of town meeting as an upholder of democracy and the corrupting influence of unlimited corporate funds, while those opposed spoke of "free speech" by the definition of the Roberts court, concerns about town meeting discussing national business and it opening the floodgates, and a proposed amendment by congressman McGovern which they felt would have been overly broad. Because the resolution didn't advocate a specific amendment (and that amendment wasn't as broad as they were claiming anyway if I was reading it properly) that argument fell flat, and while no one wants the AARP or Sierra Club banned from advocating, I think people understood the definition between the AARP and a for-profit company and had faith in congress to write a decent amendment - the historical case they made wasn't very effective either, because all their examples were from the 20th century. (In most of the 18th and 19th, corporations were very narrowly regulated by states for a specific purpose and charters weren't given out like candy by Delaware.) As for national business, this is one issue, and not only does it impact local elections, but constitutional amendments often come from the bottom up, as the proponents effectively demonstrated. And the opponents didn't have an alternative, more narrow amendment proposed either; their solution to the concerns of a broad amendment was not to propose a narrow one, but to allow bribery (or "independent campaign expenditures") to run rampant.
I think given the choice, Town Meeting members would much rather see themselves as defenders of New England's tradition of democracy than a group of people dedicated solely to municipal governance, and arguing for the former is always going to be more effective than the latter. It passed without need for a roll call on a voice vote, and it seemed everyone was voting louder than usual. I, of course, voted for the resolution; as a citizen and an elected official, I detest when politicians are owned by big business. This is a democracy, not an oligarchy, and I for one am determined to keep it that way!
No comments:
Post a Comment