Brattleboro Select Board Special Meeting – February 6, 2026

Note on date discrepancy: The meeting transcript states February 5, 2026, but the provided metadata indicates February 6, 2026. This summary uses the metadata date.

An extended special meeting of the Brattleboro Select Board featuring two public hearings on charter petitions (open town meeting and Australian ballot), a presentation and debate on the representative town meeting (RTM) ballot question, and a detailed overview of the town's liquor and tobacco licensing process. The meeting included extensive public comment and closed without any votes on the substantive issues.

Charter Petition Hearings

Two charter petitions were taken up: one for open town meeting (OTM) and one for Australian ballot (secret ballot) voting on the town budget.

• Open Town Meeting petition (presented by Millicent Cooley): Cooley argued that OTM is the most widely used and trusted form of town governance in Vermont, allowing full participation by any resident. She expressed strong opposition to the Australian ballot option, claiming it would concentrate power with the Select Board, reduce public scrutiny, and eliminate the ability to amend budgets. She emphasized that OTM and RTM foster robust debate, informed decision-making, and community accountability.
• Australian ballot petition (presented by Tom Franks and Randy Bloggers): Franks and Bloggers presented slides showing that Australian ballot enables greater participation (over 20% turnout in towns of all sizes, compared to 1% in Brattleboro's size for town meeting). They argued that barriers such as childcare, work schedules, language, and personality types disenfranchise voters under OTM/RTM. They contended that Australian ballot is the only method providing a truly equal vote for all registered voters, and that public input can occur through other channels like Select Board meetings and informational sessions.

Public Comments on Charter Petitions

• Franz Reichsmann: Favored both town meeting and Australian ballot, suggesting a hybrid model where decisions made at town meeting are subject to a subsequent Australian ballot vote.
• Andy Davis (RTM member): Challenged the Australian ballot proponents' arguments, noting that representative bodies are fundamental to democracy and that the intimidation cited in the Australian ballot's history does not apply to Brattleboro.
• Mart (public commenter): Appreciated the research but noted that Select Board meetings are not more accessible than town meeting. Expressed concern that Australian ballot would reduce community interconnectedness and good-faith engagement.
• Ryan Larby: Supported a town meeting format, arguing that the same barriers to attending town meeting also apply to researching ballot issues independently.
• Mike Oscillborough (RTM rep): Praised town meeting for its civil dialogue and noted he had changed his mind on votes due to floor discussion.
• Kenneth Gutwine: Favored retaining RTM but also open voting, and raised concerns about non-binding referendums unrelated to town business.
• Beth (public commenter): Asked about the feasibility of a combined model with a moderated meeting and Australian ballot for the budget.
• Robin (public commenter): Argued that town meeting gives voters more power (ability to amend) than a simple yes/no on a budget, and that RTM is the most inclusive version.
• Trish Twining: Questioned whether Australian ballot could be used within RTM or OTM via secret paper ballots.
• Gary (public commenter): Asked about differences between roll call voting in RTM vs. OTM.
• Susan (public commenter): Strongly supported Australian ballot, emphasizing that voters can vote their conscience in private without pressure.
• Neil Manders: Expressed concern that RTM members may not fully represent their districts, and supported Australian ballot with more public deliberation beforehand.
• Kate O'Connor: Encouraged support for OTM as a second choice if RTM is eliminated, to preserve community discussion.
• David Gardenstein (town moderator): Defended RTM and OTM as participatory and deliberative democracy, noting that the Select Board proposes budgets and town meeting has rejected them.
• Gemma (public commenter): Clarified that Australian ballot originally meant secret ballot, not necessarily town-wide voting, and that it could be applied within RTM.
• Dick DeGray: Asked about the referendum process under OTM – the town attorney noted that a revote would be in the same form as the original.
• Tony Duncan: Argued that town meeting encourages informed participation and that Australian ballot would shift influence to media and social media.

Presentation on Representative Town Meeting (RTM) Ballot Question

Two presentations addressed the ballot question on whether to rescind RTM.

• Andy Davis (in favor of retaining RTM): Described RTM as a 150-member deliberative body that provides checks and balances on the Select Board. He noted that RTM can amend budgets and has rejected the 2026 budget. He argued that RTM is a system of participatory democracy that works alongside Australian ballot for elections and referendums.
• Tom Grasso (opposed to RTM): Presented three reasons: RTM is undemocratic (only 140 people vote), unrealistic for a $27 million budget, and unnecessary given the Select Board's year-round public engagement. He advocated for an open town meeting followed by Australian ballot to give the silent majority a voice.

Public Comments on RTM

• Peter O'Wall: Supported retaining a town meeting form (either RTM or OTM) to preserve community dialogue and amendment ability, warning that Australian ballot would increase Select Board power.
• Mayo (public commenter): Challenged the idea that voters lack time to educate themselves, arguing that if they want to participate, they will make the effort. Defended RTM as a representative system.
• Timothy Belknap (RTM 9): Argued that RTM and OTM create barriers and that defense of them is elitist. He claimed RTM members are not truly representative, citing absenteeism and abstentions in a recent roll call vote.
• Fred (public commenter, RTM rep): Praised RTM for fostering community and deliberation, and noted many young people are participating.
• Ken Faye: Noted low voter turnout for Select Board elections and suggested that RTM's higher attendance shows it is more representative than critics claim.
• Randy Bloggers: Criticized RTM for lack of voter knowledge about candidates, and supported Australian ballot with more informational meetings.
• Andy Davis (closing): Reiterated that RTM is an informed, diverse group and that democracy is always under construction.
• Gemma (closing): Reminded that the founders understood the dangers of pure democracy, and that Australian ballot removes the moral obligation to consider community interests. Called for better tools for respectful communication.
• Tom Grasso (closing): Rejected the idea that voters need to be informed by others, asserting that rational people can make their own decisions.

Liquor and Tobacco Licensing Process Presentation

Hillary Francis (Town Clerk) and Hannah (Town Attorney) presented the process for liquor and tobacco license applications, covering review by multiple departments, authority of the Select Board as local liquor commissioners, and the limited discretion for tobacco licenses. Cassandra Holloway (Director of Building a Positive Community) provided additional context on compliance checks, training resources, and the high rate of alcohol-related incidents in Brattleboro. She offered to assist with education, ordinances, and future trainings.

• Key details: Liquor licenses require a thorough vetting process; the Select Board can deny with good cause but cannot be arbitrary. Tobacco licenses are essentially a pass-through to the state. Compliance checks are done on a sample basis. Holloway noted Brattleboro has 66 liquor establishments, a high density, and suggested future discussion on alcohol density ordinances.
• Select Board questions: Members asked about the limits of their discretion, the utility of sending full applications vs. summaries, and the authority to condition licenses. It was clarified that conditions must be based on ordinances, not case-by-case.

Key Outcomes

• No votes were taken on any of the charter petitions, the RTM ballot question, or the liquor/tobacco licensing process.
• The public hearings for the two charter petitions were opened and closed.
• The board received informational presentations; no action was required.
• The meeting adjourned after the liquor licensing presentation.