To the editor:

On Nov. 3, Barrington voters will see four local questions, Questions 6 through 9. All four amend the section of our Town Charter that governs the Financial Town Referendum. As a member of the Town Council, I voted to put them on the ballot, and I’m asking you to vote yes on all four.

These changes didn’t come out of nowhere. The Charter Review Commission that recommended the FTR noted that other towns shifting away from a Financial Town Meeting had to adjust after putting a new process in place. In its report, the Commission urged the Council to watch our FTR process closely and be ready to bring any needed fixes to voters. That is what these questions do. Barrington’s first FTR in May drew about 1,700 voters, far more than the old town meeting ever drew. That turnout is worth protecting and building on. The vote also showed us where the rules are unclear or uneven.

Question 6 applies the same signature requirement to every voter-proposed amendment: 300 registered voters. That number comes from the Commission itself, which recommended 300 signatures for budget amendments. It recommended the same number for petitions to propose or overturn town ordinances, reasoning that 300 is high enough to deter frivolous petitions but not so high that it shuts out legitimate ones. Tiverton, a town similar in size to Barrington, moved to require 300 signatures after a flood of competing petitions made its referendum unwieldy. Today, smaller amendments to Barrington’s budget need no signatures, and larger ones need nearly 2,900. For larger amendments, Question 6 cuts the requirement by almost 90 percent. For smaller amendments, it asks the sponsor to show that a modest number of neighbors think the idea deserves a place on everyone’s ballot. At the Financial Town Meeting, a proposal had to win support in the room before it was voted on. Signatures are the FTR’s version of that step.

Question 7 spells out what happens when the votes are counted. The budget with the most votes takes effect. If no alternative wins, the Committee on Appropriations budget does. A budget vote should never leave anyone unsure of the result.

Question 8 limits each voter to sponsoring one question. That does not mean one line item. A single question can be as broad as the sponsor wants, up to and including a complete alternative budget. However long it is, it still asks voters for one decision. Under the current rules, though, one person could file a separate no-signature amendment for every line item in the municipal budget. This spring’s ballot carried 36 amendments. Because each voter had to work through all of them, the line at Town Hall stretched down the stairs to the back door. Imagine a ballot with 100 amendments, or 300. Every voter keeps the right to sponsor a question, as modest or as sweeping as they choose.

Question 9 limits voter-proposed questions to the bottom line of the municipal budget, the school budget, or both. State law already prohibits line-item changes to the school budget, and this applies the same rule to the town side. It also matches how the Charter already works. During the year, the Council can move unspent money from one department to cover a shortfall in another, on the Town Manager’s recommendation. I understand why some voters valued the line-item amendments this spring. But a ballot, unlike an in-person meeting, offers no opportunity for a sponsor to explain a cut, or for anyone to explain what it would affect. Voters keep the decision that matters most: how much the town spends and taxes. The officials you elect make the line-item choices in public meetings, where you can watch, comment, and hold us accountable.

These questions don’t take power away from voters. They make the FTR clearer, fairer, and closer to what the Commission envisioned. Please vote yes on 6, 7, 8 and 9.

Kerry O'Neill

Barrington