Some points of view in a recent article in the Times Record (“ Woolwich library vote in June?” The Times Record, March 24) need a response. A group of petitioners succeeded in having an article placed in this year’s town meeting warrant that would move the vote for Woolwich’s contribution to Patten Free Library to the November general election. The selectmen ended up making the potential change to the June election, to better accommodate the library’s funding cycle.

I am a strong supporter of our public library, and happily so, but that’s not why I am writing at this time. Rather, I am here to defend our traditional, effective, and time tested system of local government and local control that has served Woolwich and small New England towns for centuries. I have been going to the Woolwich annual town meeting for 30 years. I most always leave it with the feeling that town business is being done well and, most importantly, reflects the will of its citizens.

Why? Because it is a process in which any and all registered voters can speak to an article under consideration, be it buying a new fire engine, building an addition to the town hall, accepting a new road or zoning ordinance, or any other of the many issues that are local government. Questions can be raised; opinions offered; answers given. The town officials can often explain some issue in more detail, but the final decision comes with a vote of all attending the meeting. It’s really a very pure form of democracy. Having been a school board member for ten years, and sitting in front of fellow citizens while presenting the school budget, I can attest that it’s a humbling experience not taken lightly by anyone in that position. The same would go for the fire chief or road commissioner, or anyone who is responsible for presenting their budget to the voters. Anyone asking for an article to be passed best have their facts ready to explain. In short, it is a very efficient and effective form of governing. It is open, honest, and transparent.

The petitioners have asked that funding for the library be moved to an election day. Why the library? Why is it being singled out for special treatment? Why not have similar, separate votes for the selectmen’s pay? Hiring a new town hall assistant? You could have a ballot going on for many pages, as the town meeting warrant contains dozens of items that need votes. And there would be little or no chance to become informed before voting. There is nothing like the chance for give and take that happens at town meeting.

The petition drive leader, Don Adams, states that the town is cutting the fire and EMS budgets, while the library would get a 3 percent raise. Wouldn’t the town meeting be the perfect place to find out why these changes are proposed? And whether or not they are related, or not at all? He also states that many people (but doesn’t offer numbers) work second shift and can’t easily get to town meeting, which is held on a weekday evening. We used to have the town meeting on a Saturday, during the day, but that got moved to make it more convenient for more people to attend. It’s a participatory democracy, and our democracy belongs to those who participate.

Mr. Adams is quoted that “they don’t want to come here and get shouted down.” In the 30 years that I’ve attended the Woolwich town meeting, I can’t think of a single instance of that happening.

Granted, the discussion can get heated, and you may not be on the winning side on a particular question. But the process is always orderly and civil, as democracy needs to be. And our moderator, John Chapman, has done an admirable job of seeing to that.

No, singling out the library vote, or any other item of regular town business, and taking it out of the town meeting is not a good idea. The town meeting is democracy at its best, and needs to be kept that way.

———

Charles Durfee lives in Woolwich.