When it comes to town meetings, Deerfield Select Board member Rich Pitman thinks his town does it right.

Deerfield is one of many towns that adopted the SB2 format for its town meeting process, where residents attend a deliberative session to finalize their town warrant, then, on Election Day, cast their votes for the warrant articles and town officials behind a curtain, in private.

Towns that use the traditional format meet and vote on their town warrants at a single meeting in March. Changes can be proposed, impassioned pleas can be made, and decisions are typically made through a show of hands in an open forum. A secret ballot can be requested.

Pitman likes when the entire voting process done secretly, “so you don’t have to look over your shoulder and wonder who’s watching.”

But while four of six towns in the Suncook Valley – Deerfield, Epsom, Pittsfield and Allenstown – subscribe to the SB2 plan, some officials from those towns still feel the traditional format works best.

Of eight people interviewed in several towns, Pitman stood alone in support of SB2.

Only Pembroke and Chichester retain the traditional style. This year, Pembroke voters will be asked to make the switch. Out with the old, in with the new.

So it goes this time of year during town meeting season. Sometimes money is needed for a fire truck, other times for hiring an additional police officer, and still other times to invest in a capital reserve fund. Budgets and tax rates change each year.

But, somewhere along the line leading up to Election Day, the two styles of town meetings in the Granite State creep into the conversation. Which style makes more sense? Which is more convenient, more attractive to voters, more efficient.

As Kathleen Pelessier, the town clerk and tax collector for Allenstown, said, “I talk to other town clerks and the argument is always split.”

Jury is still out

Sources in the Suncook Valley often say that opinions of folks they talk are split on the two styles, near 50-50.

SB2 became a bona fide choice for towns in New Hampshire in 1995. Slowly, many towns made the change. Statewide, about 80 towns use this form of self-government, everyone else uses the traditional meeting system.

Pitman said that nostalgia is at work when people advocate to keep the classic town meeting. He said SB2 allows for increased participation, because it eliminates the weekday town meetings that often go late into the night. Voters can cast their ballots on election day at their convenience.

Yet others pan the SB2 format, arguing that just a handful of people can wield immense power over the town at a sparsely attended deliberative session. A traditional meeting give voters a chance to listen to arguments and weigh their decision alongside their neighbors.

Buyers remorse

Carl Anderson is a select board member in Pittsfield, an SB2 town. He made his feelings quite clear last week: “We mistakenly thought at least as many people who showed up for town meetings would go to the deliberative session. That has proven to be false. ”

The SB2 critics spoke with conviction, their thoughts coming easily through the phone. They say that the deliberative session attracts few voters.

“Almost no one shows up anymore,” Anderson said. “The select board, the moderator and the supervisor of the checklist. That’s about it.”

Virginia Drew is the chair of the Epsom Select Board. Epsom changed to an SB2 town. Drew said it has failed.

“We’re an SB2 town with almost no one coming to the deliberative sessions,” Drew said.

SB2 critics spoke about uninformed citizens voting, the result of people missing the deliberative session and entering the booth armed with little knowledge.

Karen Yeaton is a member of the Pembroke Select Board. The town uses the traditional format, and Yeaton wants to keep it that way. She sent an email to the Monitor saying a town’s residents are the equivalent of a town’s legislators.

“Would you be ok if your legislator that you voted into state or federal congress, showed up only on the final votes of bills and was not required to attend the committees and sub-committees where the essence of the bill is debated and understood?

“That is what SB2 does. Town meeting attendees are the legislature of the town. They should be held to the same standard.”

The petitioned warrant article to switch to SB2 was the subject of a public hearing earlier this month and will be decided at the traditional Town Meeting on Saturday, March 18, which starts at 10 a.m.

Allenstown speaksits mind

Allenstown, an SB2 town, had lots of criticism for the policy it follows. Pelessier said the SB2 meeting easily passed in 1997, 440-166. A move to repeal the format, which needed 492 votes, failed the next year, despite finishing with a 430-390 margin.

“Since then,” Pelessier said, “it comes up for vote every five or six years, and now it never comes close, which is kind of odd.”

Derek Goodine, Allenstown’s town administrator, said in an email that a deliberative session draws about 50 people, but that’s misleading.

“The SB2,” Goodine wrote, “erodes the traditional town meeting involvement and a chance to debate and discuss the articles and then vote on them. Out of the 50, about five or 10 are from the general public and the rest are employees of the town or school and the school board, the select board, or Budget Committee members.”

Apathy rose and attendance dipped, pushing some officials to declare that change was needed.

Whether that change has made a difference in fostering a voter and participatory climate remains to be seen.

Meanwhile, the debate continues. Armand Verville, a longtime Allenstown resident, balanced his thoughts as best he could.

“I see both ways, and again it is the turnout that we are disappointed with,” Verville said. “Either form has to find a way to increase attendance. A single vote can change the entire direction.”

]]>