Editorial: The RTM Vote

Last month, the Representative Town Meeting (RTM) held its first meeting of 2023. By all accounts no one came away from that January 17 meeting happy. While the conflict of the evening swirled around two votes to decide whether the town – specifically the registrar’s office – would accept two grants of $500,000 and $9,600 respectively; the more difficult question is whether the voting process that night was (a) accurate and (b) appropriately held in order to ensure all of our town representatives could vote as they intended.

Prior to the vote, and since, much has been written about the grant money. Needless to say, emotions were running high regardless of which side you were on. 

After the RTM meeting and its use of a new electronic system of voting, a larger issue emerged; that of transparency within the RTM itself. There was great anticipation for the vote that evening because of the anticipated vote. Many people had signed up to speak. It was also only the second time the RTM was using the new electronic voting system. There was bound to be a learning curve and of course, there was. Some members were unsure if their votes were counted correctly or counted at all. While we have all been assured that the new technology worked as it should, it is also clear that some member’s votes did not register. It is possible that this was due to “operator error” – the voting members were not yet sure of the process. Most notably Lucia Jansen, a District 7 representative who spoke on the topic of the grant and was in the auditorium at the time of the vote, said she voted – yet her vote did not register.

We applaud RTM Moderator Alexis Voulgaris for wanting to streamline the voting process, but it must be done in a way that will not potentially disenfranchise some of our representatives. Unfortunately, this appears to have been the case. Sometimes when we are dependent on technology events can occur too quickly to allow for everyone to adjust. It is important, especially with new technology, that clear instructions be given and that everyone understands when a vote begins and when it ends. With any new system there needs to be a little latitude as it gets established.

We put forth that holding open a vote for one minute, 60 seconds, as is currently the practice with the new voting technology, is not long enough. We would suggest two minutes with a one-minute warning.

And now that we live in a hybrid world, those members attending remotely should have the same experience as those participating in-person. In the confusion of the vote, we were told that several people participating remotely tried to be recognized but were not. Several people in person also raised concerns that ultimately were not addressed. There are questions whether RTM rules and Robert’s Rules of Order were followed fully.

The new voting system is provided by Meridia, which provides the same service for the U.S. House of Representatives and the New Hampshire legislature so the technology appears to be good –  after all, Congress is using it. Although the technology is outstanding, the RTM itself needs to utilize it better. For instance, the screens that show the votes are too small. They cannot be read easily by any viewer, remote or in person. When an RTM member votes, their name goes from gray to light blue but – and this is critical – it does not show the member how they voted. We believe this is an important double check for members and an important moment of transparency for those of us that elected them.

On the town’s website, there is a presentation of the Meridia voting system. When we read it, we were excited because as soon as the Moderator closes the vote, we get the vote tallies. This is especially beneficial for procedural votes which used to take much, much longer. It would be better if everyone, including the members themselves, could also see how our RTM representatives are voting in real time, like you can with our Hartford representatives.

With new technologies come new opportunities. We hope Moderator Voulgaris will use the experience of the January 17 voting confusion to improve the transparency and experience of the vote process to ensure our representatives are not disenfranchised. As our elected representatives, when they are disenfranchised, so are we.

Related Posts
Loading...