Expanding the Killington Select Board: pros, cons

By Polly Mikula

Voters in the town of Killington will be asked to consider expanding its current three-member volunteer Select Board to five at Town Meeting Day this Tuesday, March 4. 

The question has been on the ballot before, and the measure failed, but there may be more appetite for it this time. Unfortunately, there hasn’t been much of any community discussion on the topic (there’s been only one letter to the editor, organizers of the petition have not returned our requests for comment, and even Select Board candidates at last Tuesday’s forum provided little beyond “yeah, more participation is good” when asked directly about it).

Over the past few weeks, we’ve had casual conversations off the record with folks in town as well as experts with experience in area towns and hope to provide a bit more context for voters to make informed choices on Town Meeting Day.

Let’s explore the pros and cons. 

More participation

First, more participation is generally good. Five thoughtful, engaged volunteers who are driven by a selfless passion to improve the town could better direct the multitude of ongoing projects and could bring creative/diverse ideas to future decisions in the decades to come.

Additionally, given the $80 million infrastructure investment over the next decade, having two more decision-makers at the table would help ensure that the town’s needs are prioritized throughout the process.

And, with two of the current board members invested in Killington Resort’s new independent owners group, a five-member board would allow them to appropriately recuse themselves if/when conflicts of interest arise.

It also allows the formation of information-gathering committees to divide workloads.

But the decision may not be quite that simple or straightforward. It’s worth considering the potential downsides, too.

Contested elections are good for democracy

Moving to a five-member board is likely to make an already long meeting even longer, candidates for Selectmen have stated. Longer meetings, in addition to the frequency of meetings currently required (multiple times a week, days and nights), put limits on the application pool. If the schedule is such that only those who are retired or have extremely flexible work/home schedules (or don’t work or have families) have the time to fulfill the role, then most residents will be logistically excluded. And those who can run may not represent the majority of Killington residents or their visions for the future.

Limiting the pool of potential candidates in an already tiny town is not good for democracy. It likely means less choice, not more. In the last decade, only about half of the elections for Select Board have been contested. And that’s with only one seat to fill each year (this year, the remainder of Steve Finneron’s term is up for election, too, which is why there are two seats open). With a board of five, the town would need to fill two seats most years.

Contested elections are good for democracy as they give voters a choice about who will represent them and the vision for the future of the town they support.

If we had a robust population interested in serving the town and could consistently field enough candidates to ensure two contested elections each year, then a five-member board would make sense.

However, the reality is that volunteerism is low and decreasing across the modern world, including in Killington (hence the move to a paid fire department in town). Couple that with the thankless nature of serving as a Select Board member, and it’s understandable why we don’t see folks flocking to fill these seats.

With a five-member board, it’s not hard to imagine a scenario where most elections are not contested and whoever throws their name in will get in. No choices. A candidate’s platform wouldn’t even need to be shared in advance, as the only name on the ballot will certainly be chosen. Then, whatever has led them to run — it could be “cut government 75%” or “let’s make Killington fancy (and drive out those that can’t afford it)” — will be a driving factor on the board for three years.

To be clear, there have been and always will be members of the board each of us may personally disagree with. It’s not about preventing any particular person or platform from being elected, only that they are, in fact, elected — that’s democracy in action. 

If the past is any indication of future interest (and it may not be), we’ll have to work hard to encourage enough folks to want to serve on the board in order to give voters a choice on election day. With two seats to fill, this becomes harder. 

A five-member board made up of folks who got in by default, no longer feels like better representation.

That being said, it’s worth noting that all four current candidates (Chris Karr, Rob Hecker, Patrick Cushing, and Rick Bowen) seem to have a genuine interest in helping the town grow and prosper for its residents in the most efficient way possible. The concern is not about the current slate of interested leaders but rather the prospect of continually fielding such a slate in perpetuity. 

Transparency does not happen behind unknown doors

Two other related arguments in favor of a five-member board are that it would limit any one member’s power and that the board would become more transparent. Both are questionable assumptions.

Currently, the three selectmen are not supposed to discuss matters related to the town outside of a warned meeting. With a five-member board, two could meet anytime and discuss anything without the public knowing — and one could meet with each of the four separately and could garner support for their cause in advance of any/all meetings. One member could, in fact, go into every public “discussion,” knowing in advance that they had the support of at least two others before a vote was called.

While this is common in politics and occurs in the state house among much larger bodies, the change in our small town does not increase transparency.

It also may not have the desired effect of decreasing one member’s power on the board, although it could appear that way to the public who will never know about the one-on-one meetings behind the curtains.

Conversations held out of public view can now include non-transparent dealmaking, i.e., trading support for each others’ issues to ensure majority support. Such efforts will not be equally made, as some board members will inevitably work harder at dealmaking than others, thus garnering greater influence — and it will all be out of the public purview, no records required. 

Some may contend that a lack of transparency is the status quo with the board’s current overuse of executive sessions. But at least there are legal limits imposed on what executive sessions can be called for (real estate and personnel have been commonly cited recently), and the board has to publicly announce the topic and come out after to say what actions, if any, were taken.

Executive sessions will continue in this same way with a five-member board.

Consider pros and cons, then vote Tuesday

It’s also possible to try out a change to a five-member board and go back to three if enough candidates do not come out to give voters the choices that they deserve — although going back to three is probably harder than increasing to five, so again, it’s best to choose carefully.

In summary, the change to a five-member board could be beneficial or harmful — most likely, it’ll be some of both. As the election nears, consider these (and other) potential outcomes and whether or not you think the pros outweigh the cons or vice versa — not just for this current election cycle but as a better structure for the town for decades to come. It’s worth taking the time to fully consider the potential of any new structure.

Most importantly, please vote on Town Meeting Day, March 4. Your vote is your voice; we decide our future together by participating in democracy.