Unwarranted And

Unfair Conclusion

To the Editor:

While I am generally loathe to use the Letter Hive as “chat room” responding directly to letters, one statement from Eric Steinkraus’s letter last week merits a response because, not only is its premise factually untrue, its conclusion is unwarranted and unfairly casts aspersions on the entire Legislative Council.

Mr Steinkraus wrote that the Legislative Council “[b]y” having their meeting Wednesday night less than 24 hours after the polls closed with no notice, it is clear that they don’t appear to want any input.”

The special meeting of the council was in fact noticed with the town clerk in advance of the budget vote. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the Town Center, moreover, is aware that the mandatory timeline compels the council to meet and act quickly after a first proposed budget fails. In deed, such meetings are traditionally scheduled to take place immediately after a failed referendum and this particular year I recall mentioning the anticipated date of our special meeting at regular, public meetings of the council at least two times over the roughly two-month-long referendum budget process. Fortunately, enough townspeople were aware of the meeting that significant public input was gathered at our special meeting.

Mr Steinkraus further wrote that the council “would make some token cuts and hope that the endless rapid-fire trips to the polls will wear down the electorate.”

The charter provides for a second automatic referendum in the event of  failed budget after the first. Two trips can hardly be called “endless.”

Mr Steinkraus’ remark implies that the council favors limitless spending; indeed, he states that the council “would like to pretend that the last vote was some kind of mistake.” That surmise is unwarranted and insulting. While I’m sure all the members of the council would like to think that a measly 22.5 percent turnout was some kind of mistake, no such conclusion can be drawn about the council’s feelings regarding the outcome of the vote. The council is not a monolithic body. Instead, its members, elected as they are, reflect the wishes and preferences of the town. At present the council is roughly evenly divided between those who generally support and those who generally oppose increases in spending. The first budget vote would indicate that so too is the town roughly evenly divided.

The council did not ignore the outcome at the first referendum. It reduced the budget a tenth of a mill by a 10-2 vote, clearly indicating that, to their credit, even most of those members generally more supportive of larger education budgets, for example, acknowledged the vote outcome. Though many inevitably will agree with Mr Steinkraus that the cut was a “token” one, it nonetheless appears commensurate with the margin of the budget’s defeat. Finally, let’s not forget that we live in a representative democracy wherein elected officials are expected to bring their energies, attention, and personal convictions to the tasks they perform, not simply serve as human Nielsen boxes.

I encourage everyone to vote at the next referendum. Budget referenda, more than any other public vote, directly impact household finances and municipal services.

William F.L. Rodgers

Chair, Legislative Council

208 Hattertown Road, Newtown                                   April 29, 2006