Duxbury votes to shift Town Meeting Day business, elections to paper ballots
Nov. 19, 2022 | By Lisa Scagliotti
Lars Dickson addresses the meeting during the discussion. Selectboard members are seated on stage along with the meeting moderator and town clerk. Photo by Gordon Miller
More than 100 Duxbury residents gathered Wednesday night for a rare November town meeting and voted to change how the town will conduct business come Town Meeting Day in March.
The special meeting was held at Crossett Brook Middle School and lasted under two hours during which time those assembled voted three times with a show of hands to switch to voting on all town elections and business by paper ballot.
The decisions were:
73-30 to elect all town officers by Australian ballot.
70-31 to use Australian ballot to decide all budget articles.
65-40 to conduct all other business by Australian ballot.
If unchallenged, the decisions will end the town’s long-standing tradition of holding an in-person town meeting on the first Tuesday in March where only those voters in attendance decide who is elected to various town offices, what the town budget will be for the coming year, and any other questions put forth for a vote.
The topic is a familiar one across Vermont where the state’s revered custom of small-town governance relying on face-to-face decision-making increasingly is viewed as limiting and even disenfranchising to individuals who for many reasons such as work, transportation, or child care are unable to attend and take part in in-person voting.
That disparity has become apparent to Duxbury town officials who have seen voter participation spike during the past two years of the COVID-19 pandemic. Since spring 2020, all elections and Town Meeting Day business in 2021 and this year were conducted exclusively by paper ballot -- also referred to as “Australian ballot.” The purpose was to avoid large indoor gatherings to prevent the spread of the virus.
In Duxbury, elections officials even opted to set up their polling place outdoors both during summer elections and those held in November and March. The changes resulted in increased turnout by as much as threefold, according to tallies by Town Clerk Maureen Harvey shared with the audience on Wednesday.
On Town Meeting Day in 2021 and this year, 338-348 voters cast ballots. That’s more than a threefold increase in participation from pre-pandemic years when from 2017 to 2020, just 98-124 people attended and voted at the in-person meetings each year.
Next March, exceptions granted to municipalities by the state to put all of their local elections and votes on Australian ballot end. Those communities that pre-pandemic relied on voting at in-person town meetings are to return to their usual format.
Unless they choose to adopt the new paper-ballot practice.
That’s just what the Duxbury Selectboard asked its voters to consider on Wednesday.
In order to change a town’s voting format, state law requires that a municipality hold a vote using the town meeting format in place. That’s how the in-person meeting at the middle school came about.
Interestingly, Duxbury in the 2020 U.S. Census had a population of 1,413. Harvey said the town’s voter list as of last week’s general election had 1,203 registered voters on it. So the 105 voters who participated on Wednesday represented just shy of 9% of the town’s voters.
A civil, spirited debate
Once the discussion began, a spirited debate ensued with passionate calls for both preserving in-person Town Meeting and shifting to paper ballots to allow more to take part.
Women at the special Duxbury Town Meeting. Left to right from the top: Selectboard Chair Mari Pratt, Selectboard member Jamie Ervin, Town Clerk Maureen Harvey; Ann Harvey, Jo Carpenter, Torrey Smith; Maria Steyaart, Brenda Hartshorn, Andrea McMahan. Photos by Gordon Miller
“Town Meeting goes back to before the Revolutionary War. Once it’s gone, it’s gone forever. We’re never going to get it back,” warned Joe O’Hara.
Douglas Pratt said he appreciates how people are nominated and elected to town offices at the in-person meeting. “I like to be able to talk to these people and see in their face what they’re thinking,” he said.
O’Hara agreed. “Some are our neighbors, some are not. Town Meeting gives us the opportunity to learn more about them,” he said. “Keep Town Meeting.”
Brenda Hartshorn asked if there was a way to use a hybrid model – holding a meeting to discuss town business and meet candidates, and then later voting by ballot because “a small minority of our town is making the decisions.”
Several officials noted that the separate questions made it possible for the group to make different choices for elections versus budget questions if they preferred.
Speaking in favor of the proposed changes, Ann Harvey said she would have to take a day off from work in order to attend Town Meeting. “I suppose I could if I wanted to,” she said, adding that she would prefer not to use vacation time. She recalled attending Town Meeting as a child and seeing her mother knit while she listened. “That was 50 years ago,” she said. “I want to vote.”
Her sister Patty Harvey agreed. “For someone who often doesn’t get to go to Town Meeting, it would be nice to have input,” she said.
Justin Blackman asked about changing the timing of the in-person meeting to attract better participation. “I can't make daytime,” he said. “Could we consider Town Meeting in the evening? Other towns do that and do that successfully.”
Ann Harvey said she would be inclined to attend on a weekend. “I probably would because I think it’s important,” she said. “But I do really think that having more people participate in voting for our town officials is important.”
Town resident Will Senning works in the Secretary of State’s office as Director of Elections for the state of Vermont. He said the town could switch its in-person Town Meeting to Saturday, Sunday or Monday before the traditional Tuesday Town Meeting Day in March. “But it would require a vote of all the town voters and you can’t do it tonight,” he cautioned because that wasn’t a question on the warning for the meeting at hand.
Selectboard member Mike Marotto said he likes the idea of in-person meetings, but not as a way to conduct a vote. He said he prefers to study the questions, research the issues and then vote.
Mark Morse disagreed. “I fully support continuing with Town Meeting the way we do it,” he said. “Town Meeting is the purest form of democracy you can have.”
He stressed the benefits of the discussion that comes during the gatherings that could shed light on decisions and change minds.
Torrey Smith served on the Harwood Unified Union School District School Board until March most recently as chair. She reminded the audience that “we have more experience with this than we realize.”
She pointed out that the school district conducts all of its voting across six towns by Australian ballot with an informational meeting beforehand on a budget of approximately $40 million. “Seven people show up out of 13,000 residents,” she said. “We do become pretty distant from the process.”
She said she appreciates the conflict between seeking better participation and having voters feel connected. There are benefits, she noted, to the in-person format that the school system does not use. “I enjoy hearing different opinions than mine,” she said, adding that it’s interesting to hear selectboard members explain the budget. “I’m reminded of the thoughtful, creative work that went into that budget,” she said.
Selectboard member Jerry McMahan told the audience that a shift to Australian ballot would require the town to hold an informational meeting prior for people to ask questions and town officials to make presentations on the budget and other questions put to the voters.
Morse wasn’t convinced that would be helpful. “Information meetings don’t work because people can't change anything,” he said.
Men at the Duxbury special Town Meeting. Left to right from the top: Selectboard member Mike Marotto, Mark Morse, John Murphy, Bob Magee; Lars Dickson, Justin Blackman, Moderator Dan Senning, Fred Collins; Life LeGeros, Doug Pratt, Will Senning, Selectboard Vice Chair Jerry McMahan; Mo Lavanway, Joe O'Hara, Selectboard member Richard Charland, Alan Quackenbush. Photos by Gordon Miller
‘Voting isn’t a club’
Still, other voices argued strongly for a change.
“Times change. It’s not representative when only 100 people attend,” John Murphy said.
Lars Dickson, who serves on the town Budget Committee, connected with the audience several times in his comments. He said he’s always been impressed with the impact one person can have at Town Meeting in making a suggestion that wins the support of the group, but that he’s also given much thought to those who are simply unable to attend. “I enjoy Town Meeting,” he said. “But voting isn’t a club … it’s a right that everybody should be able to do.”
He argued for residents to attend meetings early in the budget-building process to be able to comment and have a say as town officials put a draft budget together. Ultimately, though, he said holding “secret ballot” all-day votes would get the most participation.
Dickson broke the serious mood briefly with an aside that drew laughter from the crowd: “And I just don’t like – nothing personal against Australians – I don’t like calling this damn thing an Australian ballot. I want to call it a secret ballot.”
Selectboard member Richard Charland reminded townspeople who were advocating for citizens to have input into decisions that the Selectboard meets twice monthly and rarely has members of the public attend. An effort this summer to start an email list for the board to communicate with townspeople has so far attracted only about 120 people to sign up.
He said he supported Australian ballot voting on all matters because “There are a great many people who are being disenfranchised.”
Life LeGeros and others said an informational meeting before an Australian ballot vote has the potential to still have the spirit of traditional Town Meeting with “the doughnuts, the knitting, the poetry” if it’s organized well. “We can have it all. We can be creative. We can make it happen,” he said.
Moderator Dan Senning reacts during a vote count alongside Selectboard Chair Mari Pratt, seated, and Town Clerk Maureen Harvey, counting. Photo by Gordon Miller
When it came time to vote, the article asking if town officers should be elected by ballot had the most support with 73 in favor.
“I believe the selectboard and officials should be chosen by the vast majority of Duxbury residents who can vote,” said Mo Lavanway in expressing that sentiment, adding that he’d support keeping the budget as a floor vote.
The back-and-forth among speakers during the meeting showed the strongly held preferences for both options.
Craig Gibbs served briefly on the Duxbury Selectboard in the past year in an interim appointment and ran unsuccessfully for office in March. He’s lived in Duxbury for several years and said one reason he and his family chose Duxbury was because of the in-person approach to local government. “Australian ballot kills the Vermont vibe whether you’ve been here 10 years or 55 years,” he said.
He added that he’s looking forward after the pandemic to getting back to normal Town Meeting. “It’s nice to see your neighbors,” he said. “It’s my vote to keep the traditional meeting.”
It was a full house inside the Crossett Brook Middle School cafeteria for the special meeting. Photo by Gordon Miller
A statewide debate
The debate and even the vote in Duxbury are not new in Vermont.
A report in Seven Days newspaper in February provides an overview of the status of Town Meeting Day participation and formats today. It lists a number of examples of Vermont towns where voter participation on Town Meeting Day increased markedly in 2021. That was when the state made it possible for towns to switch to voting by Australian ballot on all business without formally changing their process.
It also points out that even before the pandemic, the trend was moving toward towns using Australian ballot instead of in-person meetings:
“In 2013, the Vermont Secretary of State's Office started surveying the state's 251 municipalities with questions about turnout and voting methods. About 130 responded that year, and 76 said they made all their decisions on the floor at Town Meeting Day. By 2020, with about the same number of towns reporting, that number had dropped by 14 percent to 67. Town meetings that year weren't affected by the pandemic.”
It goes on to share observations of town officials from around Vermont discussing the universal conundrum communities face to preserve the personal connections between voters and elected leaders in shaping local government decisions versus the glaring challenge of making voting accessible to as many voters as possible.
Similarly, the issue has bubbled up in Duxbury. Writing in a commentary on the Waterbury Roundabout in February, Duxbury Selectboard Vice Chair Jerry McMahan brought the dilemma to the forefront calling in-person Town Meeting a “voter suppression problem.”
“It occurs on a workday for most people and often lasts the entire day. Many citizens who want to participate in the government of their town would have to sacrifice a day’s pay, or even their jobs in extreme cases, to take part. These voters have effectively had the right to representative government taken from them,” he wrote. “In most towns, less than 10 percent of voters decide how the town is governed. This entrenched minority generally does not mirror the demographics of the town as a whole.”
He also pointed out that it’s problematic that voters can alter proposed budgets and questions up for consideration, some of which took weeks for town officials to formulate. “Changing something on the fly after a few minutes of discussion can result in mistakes, unintended consequences, and possible legal issues,” he writes.
On Wednesday, a clear majority of those at the special meeting in Duxbury agreed with McMahan.
After voice votes that were too close to discern a majority, voters were asked for a show of hands. Photo by Gordon Miller
Looking ahead
After the meeting, state Elections Director Will Senning confirmed that the votes taken on Wednesday are subject to the usual 30-day window during which time voters can petition for reconsideration. Once that time passes without a challenge, however, the results of the votes go into effect.
That doesn’t preclude anyone in the future from petitioning for the town’s voters to consider additional changes to the format or timing of its Town Meeting voting. But given the decisions made this week, any future votes would have to be held via Australian ballot, not at an in-person meeting.
Wednesday’s meeting may have an impact on the March elections, too. Earlier this fall when the Duxbury Selectboard debated whether to put the question of changing Town Meeting format to the voters in November, board Chair Mari Pratt voted against the idea. She argued for making the question a topic of discussion at the 2023 Town Meeting with any changes going into effect in 2024.
On Wednesday, Pratt was the only member of the Selectboard to vote no on the three articles and afterward, she said she was unhappy with the results. She said she values the input and involvement that citizens have at Town Meeting saying it provides an important check on elected officials. She said she worries that future selectboards “will take advantage of their power.” Noting that her term is up next March, she added, “I won’t be running.”