Residents listen to discussion during town meeting on Tuesday, March 4. Photo by Glenn Russell/VTDiggerIn the small town of Winhall in the northeast corner of Bennington County, beneath the shadow of Stratton Mountain, a debate has ensued over the number of residents who should serve on the selectbo ard and steer the town forward. On Town Meeting Day last month, Winhall residents, after a lengthy dialogue on the meeting floor, voted 47-27 to expand the three-seat selectboard to a five-member board. Residents got to vote on the question despite a December decision by the selectboard, when the three members voted down a motion, 2–1, to place the expansion question on the ballot.After the board’s rejection, Winhall resident Mike Cole circulated a petition to place the question on the Town Meeting Day ballot after the “narrow majority of one vote.” He said the slim margin should not decide the future of the local governing body.“My biggest motive here is just increasing civic engagement and participation in our town level government,” Cole said. “Regardless whether they supported it or opposed it, (signatories) felt that this was appropriate for their group of town voters to discuss and decide on rather than two selectboard members blocking that on their own prerogative.”But soon after the decisive vote on March 4, Town Clerk Beth Grant created and filed another petition, seeking to reconsider the vote, which 46 voters signed. Grant asserted that not enough residents attended the town meeting to validate making such a significant shift.“I felt that if Winhall was going to make such an important change in our town government that more than 8% of registered voters should make that decision,” Grant wrote in an email. The special town meeting for the revote is scheduled for Saturday, May 3, at 10 a.m. at the Town Garage to accommodate more voters, and Grant encouraged all to attend. Ted Brady, executive director of the Vermont League of Cities and Towns, said Vermont statute, 17 V.S.A. § 2650, requires a selectboard to be composed of at least three members, but the statute allows towns to create additional seats. Brady added that it is not uncommon for a group of citizens to ask a town to reconsider its vote. Julie Isaacs, the sole board member in favor of the expansion, said the duties of selectboard members are significant and managing town projects like a public safety facility upgrade, culvert projects and the implementation of a short-term housing ordinance requires significant amounts of time.Isaacs said it would benefit selectboard members and residents if more people carried the workload and provided more perspectives on the board as it stewards the town’s $5 million annual budget. “I think that having a deeper bench, having more voices, is always a better way to govern,” Isaacs said. “We are doing a lot of things as a town, and I believe to have two more people would be beneficial.”Selectboard member Bill Schwartz wrote in an email that he opposes expansion because a five-member board allows two members to speak about town matters privately outside of meetings. On a three-member board, that would constitute a quorum and require a public meeting with advance notice.Schwartz also said the current board has encouraged public comment and can manage town projects like upgrading the fire and police station and a sewer extension.“We have always welcomed input, no need for additional members and neither of those two matters could be decided by the Board alone as they both require funding and a Town Vote,” Schwartz wrote in the email. “I strongly believe in the transparency of the Open Meeting Laws and five would effectively end it.”Isaacs said selectboard members cannot make decisions or enact policy outside of a quorum, so the ability of two members speaking about town matters on a five-seat board outside of warned meetings is not a problem. Brady said two members would be allowed to discuss town matters on a board with more than three members, but all members would still be required to abide by the state’s Open Meeting Law.“Selectboard members only have authority when they’re in a room together acting as a selectboard. A selectboard member has almost no authority on their own,” Brady said. Winhall resident Nancy Yates said she supports expansion because many residents moved to the area during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, and for younger, newer members of the community, local government can feel “insular.” “It is definitely to expand voices, to open up to generational change, and have some people who are younger to be a part of it,” Yates said.Along with greater representation in town government, Cole said he favors the board expansion because it helps develop future town leaders who understand local governing functions and responsibilities. “There’s a benefit to the town 10 and 20 years into the future by having a larger selectboard that has been onboarding, training and mentoring junior selectboard members who will come into the fourth and fifth seats,” Cole said. Cole noted that several towns in recent years have looked to expand their boards from three to five members. The town of Killington voted last month to expand, and the town of Westmore voted down a measure to rescind its previous expansion the year before, according to reporting from The Mountain Times. Revote is legal, regardless of confusionIsaacs said voters were left bewildered after the revote was granted and felt that their voices were negated. Yates said she is among the confused cohort of voters, because there was no clerical or technical error with the vote, and there were other measures voted on with similar attendance. Isaacs confirmed the revote is legal with the Vermont Secretary of State’s Office, but said voters who were present on Town Meeting Day feel “disenfranchised” by the action.Seán Sheehan, director of elections and campaign finance for the Office of the Secretary of State, said Vermont Statute 17, VSA, 2661 permits the rescission or reconsideration of votes for 30 days after votes are counted. Doing so, however, requires a percentage of over 5% but under 20% of registered voters to sign a revote petition and specifies the type of votes that can be reconsidered. Sheehan said the statute attempts to strike a “delicate balance” by creating a process to seek redress for problematic votes while also establishing safeguards to prevent misuse of the statute. He said voters should reach out to their representatives if they feel the barriers for reconsideration of votes should be amended.“The way the statute is written (is) to allow voters to petition for a reconsideration and try to have the threshold be significant,” Sheehan said. “If they feel that threshold is too low or too high, that’s part of what the state legislature can look at, so voters can certainly contact their legislators.”Both Isaacs and Yates expressed concern that the scheduled revote in a new location on a Saturday morning may be challenging for residents to attend and could lead to low voter turnout. But, Cole said he is hopeful the date of the revote, coinciding with Green-Up Day, will encourage civic engagement from residents and allow more voices to be heard.  “The best situation is that there’s the largest number of voters there to cast their votes and then the will of the voters will be clear,” Cole said. Read the story on VTDigger here: Winhall to revote on selectboard seat expansion after decisive Town Meeting Day vote. ...read more read less