In Response to Last Selectboard Meeting

I keep hearing from proponents of this program that “there is no money” attached to this grant. That is true in the immediate sense, but untrue in the end goals of this program. What do you think all those “experts” were at the meeting for? This is about identifying projects that can be done in our town, then the VCRD will match us with funded grants, businesses, developers, etc….who are looking for the opportunities to implement this agenda in our town (and will support and guide the volunteer task forces that are formed).

Also to note is that, even for projects that require no resources, Eminent Domain, Multi-use land planning, land use restrictions, taxes, zoning, etc….. will be the enforcement mechanisms, all have an impact on housing cost, rent, liberty, property rights, etc…. NONE require any resources, just the swing of a gavel. It’s not only about ‘resources’…It’s about the will of the people and liberty.

It was said at the last selectboard meeting it is about Efficiency Vermont “giving free workshops”….do we really think that we would have such a huge dog and pony show so they could come down and give free workshops? I am also wondering where does the VCRD get its funding? I think if we follow that money trail we would find even more info about the agenda. If our tax dollars pay for VCRD then we absolutely should have a say in how their process is run. If it is developers and other non profits with a particular political agenda that fund the VCRD, that should also be made known.

My point is, this is NOT a neutral facilitator of community meetings. The only way we could have a neutral meeting is if it is run only by Pownal people. Trojan horse, moving target…..

What is interesting is that NO ONE will discuss this issue philosophically with us, or answer the questions directly. It is just “i loved the process 11 years ago” “I trust the VCRD” “you are acting hysterical” and gaslighting us “this process wants to hear all voices and opinions” all the while telling us what we can and cant say. Gaslighting is a form of manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or members of a group, hoping to make targets question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, it attempts to destabilize the target and delegitimize the target’s belief. -Miriam Webster

Also I saw reiterated at the selectboard meeting the illusion that there was a representative cross section of town that attended the first meeting. Itemizing demographic differences is not proof of a REPRESENTATIVE cross section of town. Yes, you did get young proponents, old proponents, white collar, blue collar, men, women etc…. What you didn’t get was young opponents, old opponents, white collar opponents, blue collar opponenets, men, women, etc…. The few opponents that were there were told to not speak to the negative or “debate”. Opponents will have no venue for saying NO at the dot vote. Opponents will not join volunteer task forces to support initiatives they don’t want to see implemented. Opponents and folks with concerns are given no voice, which is why we have had to take this conversation to social media, Front Porch Forum, and our elected and non-elected officials.

A cross section of Pownal voters is an ideological spectrum, not only demographic differences. I have a feeling they will continue to use this to push the illusion that this was a representative cross section. When the process does not allow for speaking a negative opinion (what you don’t want), voting NO on initiatives, or debating the underlying philosophical assumptions of this program, one large part of the idealogical spectrum is being silenced.

These kinds of programs (non elected regional groups who are used to facilitate meetings to achieve a particular agenda) frequently use this common deceptive tactic to spread the illusion of inclusiveness.

I want to hear from supporters of this program: how do you suggest we achieve more inclusion for opposing views and a full cross section of town? (just as I am sure you would want if this was regarding something you had concerns about)? If this was a program bringing in biomass, as Melissa said recently on a post, wouldn’t you want the ability to say no and speak to the negative?

 

Re: Empower Pownal – Discussion

Source of My Concerns

To understand the source of my concerns, it might be helpful to understand my thought process. I recommend you follow a similar process to see if you are alarmed also:

1. Read the 2015 Climate Summit report
2. Read the 2016 Climate Summit report
3. Read the ‘Ideas to Advance Vermont’s Climate Economy’ report
4. Read the ‘Progress for Vermont’ report
5. Read the examples of Climate Innovators put out by the VCRD (who is leading Empower Pownal), which yes include Front Porch Forum (a GREAT idea) but also some really bad ideas such as making hand tools for farmers and “replacing mobile homes” with an “efficient” alternative. These are being showcased by the VCRD as good examples of initiatives that could be similar to the ones that come out of Empower Pownal.

This will help you understand this initiative, how it fits into Vermont’s overall climate strategy, and put ‘Progress for Vermont’ in full context of the thought process used to develop the report. Section 6 of Action items is the Climate Economy Model Communities Program (Empower Pownal).

One response to my concerns was that Pownal did not choose smartgrowth as one of the subjects to consider. This is a misunderstanding of smartgrowth as a separate entity from the topics discussed at the kickoff meeting; trails and bike paths that use eminent domain; building a downtown with subsidies instead of free market entrepreneurship; Incentivizing development only in central areas is ALL smartgrowth.

With that base of knowledge, research the pros and cons of ‘Smart Growth’ from multiple sources. When researching the ‘cons’ take note the strategies used to push through these unpopular programs with as little resistance as possible. Unique to these smart growth centered initiatives are “community meetings” that are facilitated by non-elected boards that are spear headed by “experts”. A common feature of these meetings is to hold a form of “public input” that does not allow a “no thank you”. Compare what you learn to THIS process, and objectively conclude if there are any alarming similarities. Please keep an open mind as you educate yourself.

Dot-Vote

Now that you have the context of my concerns, please consider this in relation to the July 25th dot-vote meeting:

On Jul 25th, we will:.
1. Learn for the first time what we are voting on
2. Decide which initiatives we like and place a sticker on them, remain silent on the initiatives we don’t like due to no option for “no”
3. Debate pros/cons of each initiative unless the leaders don’t allow this as they disallowed it at the first meeting
4. RESEARCH the potential unintended consequences (bring your smart phones so we can research on the fly?)
5. Set the priorities for the town/ form task forces that will soon be backed by state and/or private entities that the VCRD “matches” us with to achieve these priorities

If the initiative with the most stickers is loved by 20 people, but HATED by 80, it still becomes our TOP PRIORITY, as the 80 who hate it will not be able to say NO. Citizens who are not able to make it to the meeting will not be able to have their “vote” counted, as there is no sticker voting absentee ballots. So, if you can’t show up, you lose your voice to object or support.

All of the above occurs in the span of a 2 hour meeting. Very disappointing that this is being referred to as democracy by both elected and non-elected officials.

Compare with a town meeting and election/vote.
1. The town warns an annual meeting that has to happen on a certain day per the town’s bylaws. It is warned in a way that reaches the entire community.
2. Citizens of the town attend the meeting, where any potential ballot items are discussed.
3. Public comment is allowed without being told that the input must be positive. All opinions are welcome.
4. Time is allowed before the vote to research the issue, ask questions and meet with others to learn more.
5. An election/vote is held at a venue where it is supervised by town officials to make sure that the integrity of the vote is protected.
6. Registered voters sign in, and only allowed to vote once. Residency is checked/confirmed.
7. Ballots are counted by an impartial party.

All I and others are asking is that we apply a legal vote at the town meeting or call a special vote to determine if Pownal citizens want to engage in any initiatives coming out of Empower Pownal before ANY action is taken and/or resources (financial or human) are spent. Let’s change the process so that it is inclusive to all opinions and a legal vote. If the town really wants them, we will see it in a town wide vote.

If you support this action to call for a town wide vote on any initiatives emerging from Empower Pownal, or if you want more information, please contact me personally. Also, there is a petition that you can sign at the Village Market asking for this -and you can support a local business while you do it!.

 

Re: Empower Pownal

With all due respect, the meeting of concerned citizens at the library this past week was invitation only, much like the first steering committee of Empower Pownal. So many of us felt like our voices were not being heard that we wanted to speak with others with the same concerns, not have a debate. Unlike the VCRD and Empower Pownal however, we are taking what we have discussed at our meeting and are bringing it to the Public sphere, openly and transparently for discussion both pros and cons. We are in no position to control other opinions the way the facilitators of Empower Pownal can. I won’t be marginalized because I hold an opposing opinion.

People need to research “Delphi technique”. From wikipedia:
The Delphi method (/ˈdɛlfaɪ/ DEL-fy) is a structured communication technique or method, originally developed as a systematic, interactive forecasting method which relies on a panel of experts.[1][2][3][4] The experts answer questionnaires in two or more rounds. After each round, a facilitator or change agent[5]provides an anonymised summary of the experts’ forecasts from the previous round as well as the reasons they provided for their judgments. Thus, experts are encouraged to revise their earlier answers in light of the replies of other members of their panel. It is believed that during this process the range of the answers will decrease and the group will converge towards the “correct” answer. Finally, the process is stopped after a predefined stop criterion (e.g. number of rounds, achievement of consensus, stability of results) and the mean or median scores of the final rounds determine the results.[6]

This reminds me so much of the methods and process used by the CARD with this program. We are being manipulated and “facilitated” to a predetermined end. The end may not have a specific predetermination, but you better believe it will fall under th category of smart growth. Smart growth impoverishes communities. We should all be very very concerned about this.

I wonder how many of our selectboard, planning commission and even the few who applied for this grant have actually read “Progress for Vermont”, which is the foundational document for Empower Pownal. I have a feeling almost no one has. Shame on the selectboard and planning commission if they signed us onto this without reading about in depth first. I will tell you, I have read it. And so have many of us. They keep telling us to contact the PR guy for this program to dispell our concerns, instead of listening to those of us that have Done our research.

In any other situation anecdotal evidence would be looked down upon, but we are supposed to be calmed down and concerns taken away by anecdotal participation in an 11 year past VCRD program? Please, give us some credit that maybe we are informed and are speaking from our experience of this present program. This empower pownal program is a completely different animal than what rolled into town 11 years ago. Wake up. Please. Before it is too late and we have given our power and voice to others who have their own agenda.

For anyone who has responded to any of my concerns, it would be really helpful if you could you answer these questions:

Why can’t we say no as well as yes to these suggested initiatives?
Why are people with concerns being marginalized by a process that doesn’t allow negatives?
Why was only the grand list used? Why won’t the originators of this program apologize for leaving out a significant and important portion of our population?
Why didn’t the applicants and supporters of this program read the program materials in their entirety?

 

Empower Pownal

I have been trying, trying so hard to not speak publicly regarding the Empower Pownal program. I am in a unique position to be able to count folks on both side of the fence as friends. I KNOW that people who support it, and applied for it, etc…only want what they think is best for Pownal. I do not ascribe a sinister motive to anyone. I also KNOW that the people who have concerns (of which I would include myself) also want what they think is best for Pownal. I know that I love it here, and so anything that I say here, I say because I want unity, understanding and a real conversation coming from both sides. Ultimately, I hope that we can move past “sides” and just be neighbors who care about each other.

I attended the original steering committee meeting, the first Empower Pownal Meeting and also the meeting of concerned citizens this week at the library. I have spoken personally to many people regarding their impressions of not only their experience in participating in this program, but also their opinions as “insiders”, their past experiences with the VCRD community meetings and also their perspectives after reading the program materials, which are available for everyone to read online on the VCRD website. From these relationships and conversations, I have the following thoughts, which I hope will be well received by both the pro folks and the con folks:

1. I have communicated to the program leaders, several visiting team members the day of the meeting, and our local officials that the inability to say “no” to any of the initiatives creates a major feeling of marginalization with people that have concerns. I have said it again and again: people want to be heard. If you cant say “no”, you are not being heard. Your choice is “yes” or silence. At a public meeting, where both a yes and a no are welcome, an abstention means an active choice to not participate. When only a “yes” is allowed, abstention becomes non-participation. When you express a concern about the initiatives you refused to place a sticker on (“yes”) you are told that you shouldn’t complain because you didn’t participate. I do not understand why we cannot simply add a “no” option to this dot vote. Perhaps a different colored or shaped sticker, or people can write “no” with a pen? This won’t diminish the importance or efficaciousness of dot voting. On the contrary, it will enhance it to give even a clearer picture of what the town wants. It will show not only support, but opposition; which I think is very important information to have before embarking on any endeavor with a task force.

2. I do NOT want to silence any opinions or voices. I have spoken personally to people, and I want to hear all opinions regarding this program. I spent an enjoyable day attending those workshops listening to my neighbors. However, when people are told that they cant talk about what they don’t want, they feel silenced. Whether the program leaders feel this is the best way to achieve good results or not does not matter. When you have a population of people who feel marginalized, the best way to handle that is to listen and accommodate, not tell them they need to just show up, or “participate”. Certain kinds of participation don’t seem to be welcome, such as dissent and statements to the negative. This program is said to be Pownal led, Pownal powered and Pownal centered. So, this program and how it is run, should flow from the bottom up, not top down. If Pownal citizens are participating in the “process” but with concerns and negatives, the process should change to accommodate them.

3. Perhaps we could have a town wide meeting that allows all residents to speak freely, and without “facilitation” from outside entities regarding the principles and goals of these programs. Then, we could go into any Empower Pownal initiatives with a full and complete participation from not only supporters, but those who hold hesitancy as well.

4. Ultimately, we cannot find unity and move forward in unity without relationships. Having been married nearly 20 years now (which may seem like a lifetime to some of you, and make me look like a baby to others!!) I know that in a relationship I am not always in agreement; we certainly do not always see eye to eye. I hold some basic assumptions about life, etc…that my husband sometimes does not share. But it doesn’t matter. We know we want to live together in unity, so we push through and try to really and truly HEAR each others opinions, “sides” and perspectives….even if those perspectives seem to be from an opposite world. We have to be able to hear each other, both positive and negative. Only then will we truly know “what Pownal wants”.

I look forward to seeing everyone on the 25th, and if other people might want to have an open conversation regarding both sides of this issue, please contact me. I would be happy to host something,

 

Re: Empower Pownal – Next Meeting

“Pownal residents will lead any initiatives that come out of the Empower Pownal meetings and “Smart growth” just means encouraging new development in our town centers where there is already water and sewer.”

This definition of smart growth is grossly over simplified, and not consistent with the concept as discussed in the ‘Progress for Vermont’ report, which is the blue print for this Climate Economy Model Communities Program. How exactly does a government entity ‘encourage’ anything? Encourage from the government means financial incentive, which also puts on the table financial disincentives for not building/living where central planners believe you should live. Smart growth always raises the cost of housing, impacting the most medium and lower income families; exactly the opposite of how it is sold.

“No one will be forced off of their property or made to pay higher taxes because of this program.”

The Climate Economy Model Communities Program falls under section 6 of the action plan as outlined in ‘Progress for Vermont’. This document, in my opinion, is a state-wide smart growth implementation plan. When some Pownal residents are forced off their property (and they will be), it will be of little comfort to know that it wasn’t because of section 6 – Climate Economy Model; it was because of section 3 – codes are regulations, or section 5 – carbon pricing, etc… Part of my concerns, still not addressed is how does this program fit into the larger vision for the state? Taking each of these as a separate, unrelated initiative is short sighted and irresponsible. This program and how it fits into the larger ‘vision’ at the state level should have been discussed, debated, and mostly voted on BEFORE we entered into this initiative.

My experience so far is that all concerns are answered with vague responses like this, or a regurgitation of some of the marketing material for this program, or ‘go ask someone else’.

Empower Pownal Next Meeting

I do look forward to going to the next meeting to go over some of the ideas, I enjoyed reading the notes from the different sessions and yes there were some good ideas. And yes there are still concerns about the overall motive of this program and there are people that want to proceed with caution and they should not be derided for their caution, they actually should be applauded.

Smart growth is an urban planning and transportation theory that concentrates growth in compact walkable urban centers to avoid sprawl. The term ‘smart growth’ is particularly used in North America. In Europe, similar concepts are called ‘Compact City’ or ‘urban intensification’.

So that statement alone you can see where people would be concerned. If this is not about Smart Growth, then they need to stop using that term. Smart Growth means ripping people out of their homes and off their land and stuffing them into stack and pack housing that is predetermined by an outside entity. This can be done by “encouragement” or via raised taxes and eminent domain.

There are ideas that came up at the steering committee that were shot down as “not for the greater good” and that is another term that is very ambiguous.

Trails, playgrounds and farmers markets sound great, but we must be sure that is all it is about and it is not about raising taxes to pay for it, or use eminent domain to implement it.

Telling people to talk to Jon Copans about it I feel is a cop out. He is not from here and he was not elected by the people of Pownal. I’m not sure if our elected officials are just abdicating their authority to an outsider or they truly do not understand the goals of this program, either way it is no good.

And I did speak to people after the meeting and there still was not a true representation of the fabric of our town at that meeting. Some people are still not even aware this is going on or they hear we are getting a bike path but have no concept of how these changes are implemented, again this is a problem and with this program being fast tracked I don’t believe we are getting a good sense of what people really want.

But let me say I am looking forward to the meeting and seeing neighbors and meeting new people and discussing ideas. But I, like others, do not want to be told how to live, where to live and the fact that we will be paying for it with our tax dollars.

I hope that we will be able to do some good for our town within realistic goals.

Empower Pownal Concerns

I believe that Mr. Jarvis’ concerns were oversimplified to the point of distortion. In reading his letter, how can someone discern that he was concerned about playgrounds, hiking trails, and farmers markets? It is clear to me, in fact, that Mr. Jarvis was expressing concerns about the process that seems to be unfolding through which the voice of Pownal citizens who have an opposing vision of Pownal’s needs and it’s future can be brushed aside as irrelevant. The claim that “ALL” the ideas came from Pownal residents is untrue, and I must ask how would anyone know for sure? I know of at least one participant who was absolutely from Bennington. No one had to prove residency to participate, and they wont have to at the dot voting either.

You say that the way to have your voice heard is to show up, and speak. That’s all well and fine for those who feel particularly adept at public speaking, and are able to make their voice heard in spite of Mr. Copan’s loud voice from way across the room. I for one had a great deal of difficulty hearing most of the people who were speaking due to the multi-group format. Talk about a dumb idea. Speaking of bigger fish to fry, I agree there are some big ones waiting in the background. “Empower Pownal” is absolutely about bigger things than playgrounds and trails. Things like Big Power endeavors such as solar farms and wind turbines on the west mountain; that beautiful, oft photographed and painted Taconic ridgeline is specifically targeted as an ideal site for wind.

Now, let me diverge a bit here as well. I find it very interesting that many of the select board tapings I have viewed break into executive session to discuss “legal” issues regarding “access” to the town owned land at the top of the Taconic. Lots of time and attention is going into providing “access” for “recreational purposes” to that land behind closed doors, while there is no activity towards recreation for easier access areas we already have. The word “access” was used multiple times by the experts at this meeting. Bigger Fish indeed.

FRED MILLER

Is Empower Pownal Truly a Local Initiative

I have written to Jon Copans numerous times throughout the past couple of months. I know personally that others have as well. Often, he doesn’t answer questions directly, or his answers are vague. Ultimately, talking to Jon Copans is not what needs to happen. Jon Copans is the head of this program, and a defender of it. Any opposition I (or others) may have to it is not going to change the way the program is led. I have read all of the program materials, including “Progress Vermont”, the narrative you wrote about Pownal to apply, and notes from the climate summits that helped form this program. All of my concerns come from my research and understanding about this program. I do not have an issue with bike paths and playgrounds, but with the VCRD coming into our town to set up a manipulation community process that really is just about bringing in its own agenda. If we want bike paths and playgrounds, we should be able to say yes or no to those things before work begins on them.

You say that the program is not led by town officials. This may be true, however, town officials have welcomed it into our town without asking what the town thinks, and without knowing what the program is even about. (I know this is true because I watched the select board meeting where you presented it and they signed a letter without you explaining much about it at all). Some town officials were not included in the decision to apply for this program. The town officials are the ones that I helped to elect to represent me and the rest of us. We should all continue to ask our officials to look into this program more deeply, and also to hear and address the concerns that many of us have. I didn’t elect Jon Copans, and he has no authority in this town. He is only a spokesperson or PR guy for Empower Pownal.

You say that this is community led. I heard from many attendees that potentially town altering ideas were strongly encouraged by the visiting team. Some I heard were the building of a downtown, building of subsidized housing and the building of a rail station. None of these things are bike paths, recreational opportunities or playgrounds. The paths and playgrounds are simply the carrot being dangled in front of us to bring it what could be huge undertakings for this town.

I am not against huge undertakings as a town per se. I am against task forces being formed to start huge undertakings that haven’t been brought to the town for a real vote.

I will end with this. If I went and applied for a grant to help bring in a biomass facility to Pownal, and got the grant, would you want the right to be heard that you don’t want it? Would you want this to go to a town vote? Or, would you want the organization giving the grant to put three poster boards up on a wall for dot voting with stickers? These poster boards would say “small biomass plant”, “medium biomass plant” and “large biomass plant”. The experts would tell us that we cant vote “no biomass plant” because this is just a way to set priorities about what Pownal wants, and we know what Pownal wants because it says so on the application that I sent in. Say 100 people show up to dot vote, and most of them don’t want ANY biomass in Pownal. But, three people do, so two put their stickers on medium plant and 1 put their sticker on large plant. According to the dot voting model, Pownal wants a medium sized biomass plant.

Sometimes it is easier to see how absurd, rigged and undemocratic something is when you insert an idea that might not be to your liking. All I want is for fairness to preside, and for everyone to be able to say yes or no. After all this is a democratic process, isn’t it?

 

Empower Pownal – Concerns About Program and Process

First, regarding process:

• Why is this being fast-tracked, and without a democratic process? This program is a multi-year initiative targeting several towns per year. However, I learned from watching a video of the Pownal Selectboard meeting held on March 16, that there was only 2 weeks to apply to meet the deadline for applications. For a plan that is, by its own stated goals, ‘transformative’, I would think a town vote is absolutely required. Initiatives emerging from this program are likely to have a substantial impact on every Pownal citizen for generations to come.
• All initiatives of this magnitude have pros and cons. This program is now approved without a single ‘cost’ or ‘con’ being cataloged, communicated, or discussed. By its own goals, this will ‘transform our economy’; impacting every citizen of this town. Shouldn’t there have been a cost/benefits analysis on this initiative before proceeding? Without this, how do we clearly state to Pownal residents what is really at stake in terms of taxes, regulations, and required lifestyle changes?

Concerns

• Inviting residents to a planning session with clear marketing towards only one mind set is NOT a democratic process and does not adequately address the needs of our town.
• My understanding of ‘Smart Growth’ is that it uses a combination of multi-use land planning, zoning, eminent domain, and ‘incentives’ to get people to move to central locations (taxes, fees, restrictions on land use, etc..). Over time, these incentives become coercive as citizens can no longer afford to keep their property. The end result will be many Pownal citizens will lose their property, often homes and land that have been in families for years, decades, and generations. Pownal citizens need absolute and unequivocal assurances that this is NOT part of Vermont’s plan nor this program. If this IS part of the plan, that needs to be clearly communicated as well. Facilitators at the event on Saturday June 24 used the term ‘Smart Growth’ repeatedly.
• It is my opinion that we need to take immediate action to ensure all residents have a say in this program going forward. The statement of ‘This is not about we are aren’t going to do’ does not meet this objective. Again, the goals of this program are transformative to both our economy and our way of life. ‘No thank you’ MUST be an option. This applies to both the individual ideas that were generated by the small, non-representative subset of our town that this program was marketed towards, as well as to the entire initiative. This should be a town vote, not simply the non-representative ‘dot vote’ process planned for July 25th.
• How do we ensure that all citizen driven ideas expressed during the sessions make the vote? From what I observed in the 3 sessions I attended, the facilitators are not just driving the process, they are driving the ‘ideas’.
• If fossil fuels are on the chopping block, so to speak, what happens to the very strong preference of Pownal citizens who enjoy snowmobiling, 4 wheeling, and dirt bikes? We have many clubs in town revolving around these activities,and this is an integral part of the social fabric of our community, especially for those that were born and raised here.
• For all initiatives, the costs MUST be made clear to all residents. Cost include both monetary and lifestyle changes.

I believe we can be responsible to the environment while respecting individual property rights, and without destroying all that makes Vermont and Pownal such a great community to live in. From what I heard on Saturday, the facilitators do not share that view.

Definition of Democracy

From Miriam Webster

democracy:

1a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

2 : a political unit that has a democratic government

3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the U.S. from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy — C. M. Roberts

4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority

5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privilege

Respectfully, I would like to take issue with the definition of democracy as “Democracy means showing up. The information was posted in numerous places. It’s a community building process. If you don’t pay attention and turn up, you’re only cutting yourself out of the process.”

I would like to evaluate the Empower Program in light of the above definition. According to this definition, there is nothing democratic about the VCRD’s Climate Economy Model Communities Program (Empower Pownal):

• The VCRD is a not for profit, not elected by the people. Their goals are not representative of Pownal, as Pownal did not have a say in creating the goals of this Program. Our participation in this program happened because a member of the planning commission decided on their own to apply for this grant with a two week deadline. The selectboard signed a pre-written letter by this member without even knowing the goals of this program. The people of Pownal never had a say in whether or not they wanted to participate.
• The “common people” are the ones who are the source of local government’s political authority. Since participation in this program was fast tracked, there was no opportunity to put participation in this program on a town-wide ballot. A town wide ballot after a town meeting is the legal and democratic way to ensure that all voices are heard. Applying for participation in this program could have been postponed until the next year, so that it could have been placed on a ballot and presented at the town meeting. At the very least, it could have waited for enough time for the selectboard and all members of the planning commission to learn the goals of the program, and to ask for town input. Mailing invitations to only land owners is not reaching all of the common people, and only reaches a portion of our citizenry. To accuse people of just “not paying attention and showing up” shows a deep ignorance of the difficulties some of our fellow residents may have in participating in the way that others can. Also, mailing only to land owners goes against the definition of democracy “the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privilege”. When renters were excluded from the mailing, that is the creation of an arbitrary class privilege. Accusing renters of not going to the library to see the flyer, or not reading about this in the Banner is an example of why there is a wide spread concern that this program is being spearheaded by a “certain class” of people.
• A government “by the people” that involves “representation” and “free elections” means that we have the right to have a say in how our town is run. We have a right to vote against ideas and initiatives that emerge out of a non-democratic “process”. If we are only allowed to vote yes, this is not true representation, and this is not a free election.

I would encourage any other residents of Pownal who may be concerned about this program and its process to come to the next meeting, where dot voting will happen. I will bring stickers that say “no” on them for people to use so we can see a clearer picture of what the town wants.