Apr
21
The “North American Union”
Filed Under Plainfield News | Comments Off
This is a global issue that certainly touches Plainfield (and everyone else!)
Google lists 86,700,000 articles on this subject.
To get up to speed you might read about it at: Eagle Forum
Apr
4
Anti-Pledge Resolution of 2007
Filed Under Plainfield News, Town Info | Comments Off
The following article by Margaret Drye was published in “Back Talk” of Valley News for 04-01-07
After Plainfield’s town meeting vote on the Granite State Fair Tax Coalition’s article urging candidates to forsake “The Pledge” against broad-based taxes, one of our state representatives asked me why I had a problem with the article. The resolution urges candidates to reject “The Pledge,” have an informed discussion covering all options (including broad-based taxes like an income or sales tax), and “adopt a revenue system that…relieves the unfair local property tax burden.” Although the GSFTC claims it is not advocating any particular solution, the article seems to be asking in a roundabout way for an income or sales tax. Aside from the fact that candidates should be free to make whatever stands or pledges they want when campaigning, I felt that a ‘pass’ could be construed specifically as support for either of those taxes. I replied that I was concerned about how the results would be reported – not for what would be reported, but for what would be left out. And I was right.
Did you read that it passed in 13 of 14 towns? Possibly.
Did you read that in at least half of these towns it passed with less than 10% of the eligible voters present? Probably not.
But these numbers are important. For example, Francestown had less than 7%, Hancock had less than 7%, Holderness had 6%, Plainfield had 9%, Henniker had 4% and Hinsdale had 3%. Peterborough had 2.8! (No one answers the phone in Harrisville.)
And that’s just voters signed in. When actual votes were taken, those in favor dropped to 3.7% in Hancock, 4% in Francestown, 7.5% in Plainfield, 5.6% in Westmoreland (where it passed by 3 votes), and 2.2% in Peterborough; many towns took voice votes or standing votes with no voter count.
Even in some SB2 towns allowing a whole day to vote, the article garnered only 16% (Amherst) and 19% (Milton) in favor.
While this idea may technically have “passed” in 13 towns, it certainly didn’t carry the day. What can we infer from a movement that in many towns 95% of the voters didn’t care enough to show up or stick around to vote on? Probably not that “there really is a crisis, and people are willing to accept change where they haven’t in the past,” as GSFTC executive director Paul Henle is quoted as saying.
Why should we accept as binding a vote by the same small number of people to do town business, like buying a grader, but cast a wary eye on a vote by so few on a referendum? Because town meetings are governed by statute. The town officers (selectmen) are instructed by the governing body (the voters) on how to spend town money. There is no set quorum and all votes are binding. The voters know who (the selectmen) are going to do what (buy a grader) and how (move money from a reserve fund or raise taxes.)
The only statute governing a non-binding petition article is that the selectmen must put it on the warrant if its sponsor collects a certain amount of signatures by a certain date. It’s doubtful that voters have a real handle on who runs the Fair Tax Coalition, what information the vote is supposed to validate or how they plan to use that information. Referendum questions are not like budget questions that have a straight up-or-down vote; they are more like poll questions, where the results often depend on how a question is worded. The Fair Tax article is taken word-for-word from a boilerplate article listed on their website – it’s not a home-grown, grassroots article in any of the towns.
Their website says that one of the Coalition’s goals in all this is to “encourage community dialog by placing the issue on the warrant of school districts and towns in the spring of 2007.” Did it accomplish its purpose?
In Cornish, it passed on a voice vote with no discussion. In Plainfield, it passed following some debate, in Sharon it passed with no discussion. In Holderness, the town clerk said the voter population started “dropping like flies” after the last important town item and few voters stayed for the article; the voters did likewise in Henniker.
And who can blame them? Most of these votes came at the end of five- or six-hour long meetings held during a nor’easter. In Sandwich, the article was #52 out of 55.
Passing in 13 out of 14 towns may seem like tremendous support, but what isn’t included in that statistic is as important as the tally. Presuming to speak for an entire town, whether on a vote to impeach the president or to change the tax structure, is a precarious position when the numbers don’t back it up.
The Coalition plans to try to put its resolution in all New Hampshire towns in 2008. Given that petition articles usually fall at the end of town meetings and given the dismal voter participation in this year’s try, perhaps the Coalition should find another venue to encourage public dialog. Otherwise, they will probably end up with 236 inconclusive results instead of 14.