Wells’ new approach to Town Meeting has encouraged voters to take a scattershot approach to budget cutting.

By a relatively narrow margin on June 8, voters unexpectedly rejected $5.54 million budgeted for salaries. Until this year, such Town Meeting decisions were made on a motion from the floor, with an opportunity for explanations and debate. This year it failed on a ballot vote.

Acting without much information, economy-minded voters have left town government in a difficult spot, while not effectively cutting costs. We’re sure Wells has many budget experts who could have pointed out a better way to save money.

It is easy to empathize with those who voted against the $133,000 increase. No doubt the same thought ran through the minds of many as they pondered Article 5 on the Wells ballot: “I didn’t get a raise this year, so why should they?”

In a traditional town meeting, anyone would have been entitled to voice this objection. There could have been discussion about the problems such a cut would cause, and the alternatives for holding down expenses.

Under the new system, a “No” vote holds the rejected budget at the amount approved last year. There is no way to make more substantial cuts, and savings elsewhere in the budget cannot be used to make up the difference.

The salary budget in Wells was marked for an increase because of agreements negotiated with employee groups, and the raises won’t be rolled back as a result of the vote. The town’s plan appears to be to postpone hiring key personnel, including a police officer and code enforcement officer.

Selectman Richard Clark said he was surprised by the vote, since Article 3 was never criticized in public hearings before the referendum. Other towns that rely on a referendum approach to town meeting have learned to expect such surprises from this hybrid approach to governance.

When a town gets too big to settle its affairs in an open town meeting, residents should seriously consider putting their trust in a town council. Making budget decisions is a big responsibility that shouldn’t be delegated to the voting booth.

Discussion and debate often leads voters to an informed consensus at a town meeting. In this small legislature, there are opportunities for leadership, persuasion and creative thinking. None of that happens when 2,458 voters (the number participating in Wells on June 8) make individual decisions in the voting booth.

The electorate can be either wise or foolish, it often depends on how they issues are placed before it.

Contact Managing Editor Nick Cowenhoven at nickc@journaltribune.com.