How We Vote On Budgets

Newtown began the process of revising its charter this week when the Legislative Council appointed a seven-member Charter Revision Commission on Wednesday and drafted a charge for the new panel to examine and, perhaps, revise the way Newtown votes on its budgets. The hope is that this latest charter revision will address the widespread frustration Newtown’s electorate feels in establishing funding priorities through a simple up-or-down referendum votes on a single budget package.

Informal surveys conducted by The Bee leading up to budget referendum votes last May showed that people were voting for or against specific budget proposals for a variety of reasons, often agreeing with each other on an outcome — approval or rejection — for diametrically opposed reasons. The result this year, as in years past, was that the electorate was sending muddled messages to its elected leaders. The newly appointed Charter Revision Commission is expected to adjust the process to bring some clarity to the muddle, either by requiring separate votes on school and municipal budgets, or allowing advisory questions on the referendum ballot — or both.

Discerning what voters are saying these days requires two things: modulation among those speaking, and a lack of tone deafness in those listening. With so much spin and stridency about too much government, or too many taxes, or not enough liberty, it is easy to overlook the obvious — that state and local governments and school districts are cutting back services, lowering expectations, and generally exhibiting all the traits of government in retreat. And with the propensity of elected officials in such a defensive mode to look for validation primarily among those who agree with them on any given issue, the unorthodox viewpoint and the authentic objection that might point the way to better solutions are too often dismissed out of hand as just so much background noise. The combination of intransigent speakers and intransigent listeners greatly increases the probability of miscommunication and unrepresentative government.

Nothing reconciles both sides of the speaking/listening ledger quite so effectively as the ballot box. So it is important to make that reconciliation definitive. Any efforts by a Charter Revision Commission to better parse the results of budget referendums should help both the cause of better communication and better representative government. And depending on how well people speak and listen to each other on this issue in the course of the commission’s work, future budget votes in Newtown may be ones that we can all understand and trust.