| Online: | |
| Visits: | |
| Stories: |
| Story Views | |
| Now: | |
| Last Hour: | |
| Last 24 Hours: | |
| Total: | |
LFDA members oppose eliminating SB2 deliberative sessions (67 responses; 3/10/15)
By Jacquelyn Benson
It's a complex issue that strikes at the heart of traditional NH politics: SB2, the provision that provided towns with the option of dividing the town meeting process into two steps. First, towns hold a deliberative session where warrant articles can be discussed and amended. Next, the articles are put on the ballot on election day. The deliberative session has been the subject of some controversy. While it most closely resembles the traditional town meeting, some have argued that low attendance at these sessions allows a radical minority to drastically change warrant articles, exercising undue influence on town politics. On March 10, the Live Free or Die Alliance put the issue to Facebook members, asking, “Should NH SB2 towns – those who reject town meetings and vote by ballot – eliminate the preliminary deliberative session?”
A 72% majority of those directly answering the question were opposed to removing the deliberative sessions, with only 28% in favor. A further 44% of total respondents opted not to give a yes or no response, instead addressing their comments to broader issues, with nearly a third of those commenters calling for complete elimination of SB2. In sum, the LFDA received 36 specific comments plus 31 concurrences for a total of 67 citizen responses.
Those opposed argued that the deliberative session was an important opportunity for voters to get informed and have their say. “People who can't attend still can vote on the ballot; yet the deliberative session is a great opportunity for voters to be educated through exchange, discussion,” one respondent said. “We have too many uninformed voters as it is,” another argued.
Supporters of the change cited the high potential for a minority to exercise undue influence over town politics. “For far too long, such small town meetings have been “stacked” with special interest groups or union members who just go ahead and vote for additional spending while many voters who work opposing shifts or are too elderly to sit through lengthy meetings get no say at all unless it is for major issues which require a ballot vote. This is long overdue.”
Many of those addressing their comments to broader issues called for elimination of SB2 and a return to town meetings. “SB2 is for lazy people who think primetime is more important than what happens in their town,” one argued. “Must a town level decision be imposed upon by the State?” posed another.
The nonprofit, nonpartisan LFDA takes no position on this or any issue, as this report is presented as a summary of citizen testimony. As New Hampshire’s Virtual Town Hall, the LFDA community, numbering over 58,000, provides objective information on state issues, promotes the civil exchange of opinions, and communicates views to elected officials. To learn more about this issue or the LFDA, visit www.LFDA.org.
Jacquelyn Benson is an Editor with the Live Free or Die Alliance.
Live Free or Die Alliance
www.livefreeordiealliance.org
Source: http://townhall.livefreeordiealliance.org/xn/detail/4091641:BlogPost:70561
