To the Editor:
I asked this question three months ago. If you publish this, maybe someone will answer.
With the resources of the town's (taxpayers') three votes, what I
perceive to be many deceptive and some completely false statements and
letters, the water bond passed.
However, I still have not found an answer to my question as to why the
town does not have to comply with the state statutes. The following are
the statutes (in part) that I refer to. If anyone has an answer, post
it here or email me
"Title 24:
"Chapter 53:
"Indebtedness
"§ 1786a. Borrowing for public improvements and capital assets
(c) If the improvements or assets are to be financed for a term of more
than five years, the procedural provisions of sections 1755, 1756 and
1757 of this title shall apply. A vote on the question shall be held at
a duly warned annual or special meeting and shall be by Australian
ballot.
The ballot shall be in substantially the following form:
"§ 1756. Notice of meeting, authorization
"The clerk of the municipal corporation shall cause notice of such
meeting to be published in a newspaper of known circulation in such
municipality once a week for three consecutive weeks on the same day of
the week, the last publication to be not less than five nor more than
ten days before such meeting. Notice of such meeting shall also be
posted in five public places within such municipality for two weeks
immediately preceding such meeting.
"When a majority of all the voters present and voting on the question
at such meeting vote to authorize the issuance of bonds for said public
improvements, the legislative branch shall be authorized to make such
public improvements and issue bonds as hereinafter provided. Blank and
defective ballots shall not be counted in determining the question.
(Amended 1969, No. 193 (Adj. Sess.), § 1.)"
Vic Dumas
Waitsfield
{loadnavigation}
