To the editor:

In a recent letter, three candidates for the July 18 Charter Review Commission (CRC) election call themselves “fresh faces.” They claim the fact that only one budget proposal was on this year’s Financial Town Referendum (FTR) ballot supposedly means the charter has a “problem.”

Petitions in years past met the requirements without a problem. But this year the petitioners missed the deadline, and then they sued the town and lost in Superior Court. So the problem wasn’t the charter. It was the failure to follow clear rules.

When the FTR was created, a so-called “reject” option for budgets was carefully considered but dropped for a bunch of reasons.

Imagine what would happen if the Budget Committee’s proposal were rejected in a year without petitions. Would the Budget Committee then come up with a new recommendation to be voted on again? If so, meetings must be scheduled and noticed, plus a ten-day notice for a public hearing, new ballot printing, and on and on. Anyone familiar with the budget process would understand that such steps simply cannot fit into the schedule. And what if that next-round budget were rejected? It would be as bad as the old never-ending financial town meetings in the gym.

Starting the whole process earlier also would not work. All of the budget numbers would be premature rough estimates.

If a rejected budget proposal were returned to the Budget Committee to settle, but what bottom line would it use? How would the committee — or anybody else — know if voters wanted the budget to be bigger or smaller? That path would take away the direct voice of the voter, which is a key feature of the FTR.

Rhode Island General Law 45-2-3.2 addresses the need for budget “finality.” If a town fails to approve a budget, “the same amounts appropriated in the previous fiscal year shall be available.” Is that what people who wanted to reject the 0.5% increase this year wanted? A 0.0% increase?

At least the elected Budget Committee has reviewed the budget and reached majority consensus. If voters choose not to submit alternatives by petition, then that is actually a sign of voters approving what the Budget Committee came up with.

The recent letter also ignores the fact that the FTR also had nine resolutions to vote on which did have approve or reject choices, covering a range of important topics such as the old library and the industrial park.

In short, the FTR is working quite well.

Look for the FTMCAC Matrix link in the “Critics Corner” of TivertonFTR.org for many of the FTR’s finer points. The publishers include original FTR authors who are now part of a CRC slate endorsed by the Tiverton Taxpayers Association. Voters are urged to support qualified candidates who will protect your FTR.

Robert Coulter

Tiverton

The author is a former vice chairman of the Budget Committee, former town councilor, and is a candidate for the Charter Review Commission.