The Sun Journal reported Nov. 6 that two Hartford selectmen proposed to cancel a scheduled town meeting in favor of a secret-ballot vote on six important issues, including some that are quite controversial. The stated reason was “to get more people to vote by not having to sit through long discussions.”

This reason makes sense if we are talking about elections, where the necessary discussion has already happened during the campaign. But it makes little sense for other warrant articles where voters can benefit from hearing various points of view and where amendments can be made by the meeting.

Why should townspeople who are willing to “sit through long discussions” in order to make better decisions, be denied that opportunity? I am also bothered that the selectmen wanted to make this change on the basis of private polling they did. So, can important decisions for the town be made to benefit people whose identity is not disclosed to the public? Fortunately, that did not happen in this case as the selectmen eventually reversed themselves.

Arthur Harvey, Hartford

Copy the Story Link