I’m not usually surprised by the outcome of elections, but this past run at the polls really stumped me. Two items in both Windham and Gray respectfully threw me curveballs and I “whiffed” at bat. I did manage to call all the other referendum questions correctly however. Under normal circumstances, by November 2nd, I can pick who is going to win a seat, large or small, or what issues and referendums will pass or fail. This is not due to some supernatural power that propels me to heights of consciousness and understanding unknown to mere mortals. No, I base my choices on mundane observations and history.
For example: Mainers love to approve bonds, one cannot doubt this fact, for the evidence of it lies in every election since 1995. Each time we go to vote on town or state issues sure enough, there will be a finely worded bond package nestled within the ballot. Its old news to be sure. Everyone knows that any bond proposal for roads, bridges, water quality, or just about anything else will pass here in Maine; after all don’t bonds come with matching funds? What could be finer than a bit of “free money” as those funds are commonly called? So bond packages are pretty much an easy guess when it comes time to decide. They get a hearty “thumbs up”, or at least they used to.
Even though the 71 million dollar state transportation bond was given the voter’s blessing, the Clark Farm bond proposal was turned down in Windham. The one and a half million dollar proposal was rejected by the voters 3,515 to 3,164. It was a close one but a huge surprise to me. I thought for sure it was a lock because when it comes to borrowing money most towns and definitely the state just can’t say no. Stunned does not begin to express my reaction, but happily so, for it seems the voters of Windham understand that their community cannot afford to incur that kind of debt at this time. I wonder if perhaps this decision is some kind of indicator which shows that fiscal responsibility in government is becoming a real voter concern. I can only hope it is, and I applaud the fine people of Windham for exercising prudence and foresight on this issue. I’ll happily take the loss on this pick.
The other ballot question I missed on was the proposal to eliminate the annual Gray town meeting. This one really threw me for a loop as I thought for sure this bit of nonsense would have been rejected out of hand. Yet in a landslide decision of 2,633 in favor to 809 opposed, the people of Gray eliminated this very old and very important part of their government.
I am sure that many were confused by the wording of proposal itself, which was in essence nothing more than a part of the town charter with lines crossed out. I personally had to read it twice to be sure my vote was cast (against) correctly and I had known ahead of time what I was going to do! However confusion alone cannot explain the overwhelming numbers in favor of eliminating open and accountable government. Perhaps it is a lack of understanding of the importance of the institution itself that caused so many to call for its demise? Maybe if we couple this ignorance with the apparent apathy of the citizenry we might begin to scratch the surface of why this came to pass.
Regardless, what happened in Gray this past November 3rd, is shameful.
The loss of town meeting means less accountability not more, as some would say. It means the Town Council can no longer be “compelled” to amend the budget at the request of the people, it means they can accept or reject at whim any suggestions one might put forth. And I ask where are we the people to go and act the part of supplicant, rather than legislator?
To the budget workshops where we will be welcomed, I am sure, with open arms and hearts, all voices will be given fair hearing, well maybe, if that voice exceeds not three minutes. Oh wait! I’m talking about Town council meetings there sorry, separate discussion.
I missed hard on the issue of town meeting, by misjudging my neighbors and fellow citizens. Don’t worry though, I’ll not fall prey to such foolishness again.
Sláinte
Allen Butler
* This article was written for and published in the Lakes Region Weekly newspaper*
1 comment:
I think you nailed the reason for the town meeting issue.
If the text only reads something like "on page 23, paragraph (c), strike through sentences 1, 2, and 4" people aren't going to go through the trouble you did to find out what exactly happened.
The Farm Bond was probably just a case of "it doesn't help me at all" so they voted no (mostly).
I'm not familiar with the wording of either issue, but you shouldn't beat yourself up for mis-predicting the outcome. Your logic was sound in the face of history on the bond, and you just assumed people would actually research what the other was doing.
Keep predicting, you're still doing ok.
Post a Comment