By STEVEN JUPITER
In a representative democracy, the people elect officials to enact policies that reflect the people’s will. The theory is that the decision-making process will be simpler if a smaller number of people formulate policies than if the entire population must vote on every decision.
But the system works only when the elected representatives heed their constituents. Representatives who replace the will of the people with their own views can be seen as betraying the trust placed in them by those who voted them in, often leading to resentment and anger.
We’ve seen this play out on the national stage, when the federal government enacts policies that make one or more groups feel as if they haven’t been heard. And we’ve also seen this play out on the local level, here in our own community, when our elected Selectboard members make decisions that run counter to the community’s general wishes.
The Brandon Selectboard’s recent decision to eliminate the Brandon Police Department’s K-9 unit, and now the reversal of that decision, is a powerful lesson in the dynamics of representative governance.
A single vote, that of Selectboard Chair Tracy Wyman, ultimately determined the fate of the K-9 program. And Mr. Wyman reversed his earlier votes to eliminate the program after having heard from members of the community who were unhappy with the Board’s prior decision. Kudos to Mr. Wyman for recognizing that the Selectboard had denied the community something that it had largely expressed a desire to maintain. Whatever Mr. Wyman’s reasons for his initial votes against the program, he was able to put them aside and restore a program that many people in the community valued.
In a town as small as Brandon, where voters live side by side with their representatives, it’s impossible that those representatives remain unaware of prevailing sentiments and important that the community feel that those sentiments have not been dismissed.
That said, our representatives always retain the right to vote according to their own beliefs and judgment. Board member Tim Guiles, for example, offered his principled reasons for remaining opposed to the program, despite the public backlash against its elimination. Mr. Guiles has in many other contexts expressed his concerns about the amount and type of policing in Brandon and his opposition to the K-9 program is consistent with the policies he’s long espoused, policies that have won him re-election to the Board.
At the end of the day, the voters of Brandon will decide whether those who voted for the program (Mr. Wyman, Cecil Reniche-Smith, and Heather Nelson) and those who voted against it (Mr. Guiles and Brian Coolidge) should be rewarded or rebuked at the ballot box.
Along these lines, the Board voted to put to the public, as a non-binding advisory question on the March ballot, the issue of whether the town should hire another police officer in order to provide 24/7 on-duty coverage. The Board is seeking input directly from the community before it makes an official decision on the matter.
On the one hand, this is commendable: it’s a serious question and the Board should absolutely seek guidance from the community. On the other hand, the Board already had guidance in the form of six citizen advisors on the Budget Committee, where the decision to eliminate the K-9 program was first made despite protestations from the advisors. By the end of the budget process, the advisors were openly expressing their frustration at feeling disregarded. One of those advisors, Neil Silins, went so far as to call the process “not honest.”
One can’t help feeling that the last few weeks of public recriminations could have been avoided if the Board had listened when the advisors conveyed to them that the community at large wished to retain the K-9 program.
As for the additional officer, we’ll see how the voters respond to the advisory question on the March ballot. It may turn out to be vindication for the Board members who oppose expanding the police department or vindication for the advisors whose advice went unheeded.
Regardless of that specific outcome, it’s crucial for the Board to remember that its communal legitimacy rests in the voters’ belief that their views, wishes, and desires are being taken into account in the decision-making process. And it’s crucial for the Board to recognize that when the relationship between itself and the community has broken down over a particular issue, the Board may need to reverse course.
Even after several votes against the K-9 program, the Board did the right thing by reinstating it.
