The Authoritarian Cudgel In the Live Free or Die State

 

February 5th, 2024 is the day where small town democracy is scheduled to be on display in Hampton, New Hampshire. 

The town, now grown to a population of 20,000 no longer holds the old "town hall meetings"--the numbers simply would not permit it--and these have been replaced by two "Deliberative Sessions," held in public school buildings in town, where "warrant articles" are presented and discussed. 

These warrant articles range from whether or not Mrs. Jones can plant her petunias on that strip of grass which belongs not to Mrs. Jones but to the town, on the far side of the sidewalk crossing her front yard, to questions of whether or not to spend money on repaving High Street or whether or not to use taxpayer funds to pay for computers, office supplies or, possibly, crucifixes at the town's Catholic church school, Sacred Heart (SHS).

These warrant article ballots run to 20 pages and each runs from a single paragraph to several paragraphs and most, if not all, are followed by two boxes below the article and directly above the boxes where you check off "Yes" or "No." In the box is a statement: "Recommended (or not recommended) by the School Board" and in the box below that, "Recommended (or not)" by the Budget Committee." 

Last year's Ballot looked like this:

4. Shall the School District vote to raise and appropriate funds in the amount of $57,503 to provide child benefit services, in accordance with RSA 189:49, for students who are residents of the Hampton School District and attend Sacred Heart School located in Hampton, New Hampshire? 

BY PETITION. (Majority vote required.) 

Recommended by the School Board 4-1-0. 

Recommended by the Municipal Budget Committee 8-0-1. 

YES                   NO

Voting on these articles is preceded by meetings of the relevant committees--in the case of the SHS by a meeting of the School Board and another of the Budget Committee.

One might ask what Americans would say if they saw a ballot for the election of President Putin with a "Recommended by the Politbureau and Recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff," just over the voting space. Well, comrades, you know so little, just follow the recommendations of those officials who have really studied the choices and who are wiser and more intelligent than you.

It's All About 

We are told, these "Recommendations" must be provided and printed on the ballots because of "state law" and the reasons the state requires these may have to do with the sheer volume of warrant articles and the practical reality that most voters may have little idea about the impact of these proposals on their taxes or other factors. So the voters are told, virtually, "You don't know about this, but trust just us, just vote 'yes.'"

The Kids

This, of course, raises the whole issue of whether as a society we should be encouraging people who have not followed relevant issues to show up and vote for stuff they really know nothing about, as a sort of sham participation in a sham democracy.

When you are told you can vote on something, but here is the recommended way to vote, does anyone not think you are being manipulated?

It's All About the Kids

But the other feature of the nuts and bolts of "democracy" in Hampton is what happens at the meetings of the committees which make these recommendations.

The rules there are no citizen, "member of the public" (proletarian) may speak for more than 3 minutes, even if there are only 3 or 4 speakers, and no citizen may question any elected official on the stage or attempt a "back and forth" (i.e. a question and answer or a dialogue) with said officials, who are seated on the state above the audience. "Any back and forth should happen at the Deliberative Sessions," we are told. Of course, by the time the Deliberative Sessions occur, it's all over but the shouting as the committees have already voted their recommendations.

It's All About the Kids

Even during the School Board meeting this year, speakers with whom the chairperson of the school board disagreed were not allowed to speak freely: she cut off any detractor with a booming, "Okay, wind it up, now!"  

This happened just after one speaker had pointed out a fact  embarrassing to the chairperson, namely that the chairperson had voted in favor of granting $52,000 to the SHS on the grounds that this money supported town children, Hampton residents, who chose to attend the Catholic school) but only 25% of the children in the school receiving these public funds reside in Hampton--the vast majority coming from surrounding towns. And what made it particularly embarrassing to the chairperson was she had never mentioned that demographic fact. It was "all about the kids." 

Note also, NB: the way the warrant article is worded it sounds as if the town funds are only given to the children at the school who come from Hampton, but, of course, if the computer is set up in the classroom to show the Christmas mass from St. Patrick's cathedral, all the kids in the school (75% of whom do not live in Hampton) are benefited from the town's largesse, the town's purchase for the entire school that computer. So there's a lot of winking and nodding going on here.

It's All About the Kids

Others who spoke against the article were similarly cut off and shouted down from the stage by the chairperson. 

We have all heard about the "bully pulpit" but this was the bully from the pulpit.

On February 5, there will be a "moderator" putatively in charge to be sure speakers remain civil and do not talk too long--presumably the 3 minute rule will be in place again. The School Board Chairperson will, once again, be on the stage, her glowering presence and her microphone looming large.

Always done it that way...

Oddly, at the school board meeting, because speakers were cut short at 3 minutes, the full 30 minutes for discussion--which the superintendent of the SAU schools noted is required by state law--had never been met. There was 15 minutes left for "discussion." Somebody had to talk. 

So the speaker who the chairperson of the school board had cut off was asked if he had anything more to add. He stood at the microphone and asked: "I don't understand. First, I am cut off during my remarks, presumably for speaking too long. Now, I am asked to speak longer. How much time am I going to be allowed now?"

Three minutes, he was told.

"Will that fulfill the 30 minute requirement?"

"If there are other speakers, maybe."

But then a member of the School Board asked the speaker a question and so his question, which took some time to ask, put the session well toward the goal of the sacred 30 minutes. 

"Why, after all these years, during which we have always voted Sacred Heart this money, are you only now objecting? When did you move here anyway? And what's the problem. We have always done it this way and nobody's ever objected before."

The speaker replied, "Well, as I said before, there is a principle which has apparently been ignored or thought to be unimportant: Separation of church and state, but perhaps that sounded too abstract to you. Maybe you could not really believe I would rise on principle when there is $50,000 at stake. 

But, to your next point, I grew up in the South, and when I caught my bus to school, waiting across the street from me was a Black boy, about my age, maybe 7 or 8, and he waited for another bus to come to take him to the Black school, while I went off to the White school. I asked why he went to a different school and I was told, 'We've always done it that way. Nobody's ever objected.' And so, I think, sometimes we have to think anew. 

Did I take more than three minutes?"