In November of 2024, Barrington voters approved a significant change to how our town makes budget decisions. For generations, residents gathered at an annual Financial Town Meeting — a New England tradition where anyone could show up, propose amendments from the floor, and vote on the town's budget. Starting this year, that process has been replaced by a Financial Town Referendum, where residents vote on the budget throughout the day at the polls, more like a typical election.

The change was meant to solve a real problem: the traditional FTM format attracted only a fraction of Barrington taxpayers, leaving enormous decisions in the hands of just a few hundred people who could attend an hours-long weeknight meeting. The referendum promised broader participation — vote anytime during the day, no need to sit through hours of discussion.

And that promise has real value. For parents managing childcare, for people working evening shifts, for anyone who couldn't commit to sitting through a multi-hour event filled with sometimes tense debate, the FTR removes a genuine barrier. The Charter Review Commission spent months studying options, holding public forums, and crafting a proposal they believed would strengthen our democracy. The prior Town Council took that work seriously, debated the details, and put the question to voters. And Barrington residents approved it — a democratic decision about how to be more democratic.

But as with any significant change, implementation revealed complications that weren't fully visible when the change was still theoretical. At the April budget hearings, residents raised thoughtful concerns about aspects of the new process. Under the FTR, residents who want to propose a budget amendment of more than $50,000 must collect signatures from 20% of registered voters — approx. 2,800 people — in about two weeks. To put that in perspective, a candidate for Rhode Island governor needs only 1,000 signatures from the entire state. While this is a clear challenge, warranting reconsideration, it was clear before the town voted overwhelmingly in favor of the change.

Something less clear is that the FTR ballot would offer voters only one option: "Approve." This is not actually a divergence from the budget approval process of the past, when taxpayers voted on motions at a single meeting. For decades, each FTM began with a budget put forward by the Committee on Appropriations, and from that starting point, amendments were approved or rejected. The ballot works in the same way, but it certainly feels different when “Approve” stands alone in print.

The power to override the state's 4% tax levy cap, which used to require a vote of all residents at the town meeting, now rests with the Town Council. This is something that was not presented to the public when we voted in 2024 to enact this change. The majority of the current Town Council was not part of that ballot process, and the deliberation that the current Council had regarding this showed an unease with that aspect of the process. This unease seemed to be overcome by the awareness that the reason for such a significant tax increase now is the direct result of another decision voters made, overwhelmingly: to fund a $250,000,000 school renovation project.

At the second budget hearing, when the final ballot-ready budget was presented, several members of the public spoke up regarding these issues and other objections to the budget process.

Dan O'Mahony, a member of the Board of Canvassers who had been deeply involved in the transition, candidly spoke of working through "the initial gut punch" of realizing the new process had gaps that needed addressing. Multiple residents vocally wondered if the FTR was achieving its goal of increasing engagement and pointed out the tension: a process designed to expand participation had created new hurdles for ordinary residents to shape the budget. More people may cast a vote, but fewer people realistically have the opportunity for putting forward substantive amendments on which those cast votes will have an impact. Yet, as Janine Wolf, who frequently challenges town government decisions at public meetings, demonstrated, people still have an opportunity to have a large cumulative impact. More on that later.

Here's what impresses me about this process: many of the critics and the officials they were questioning stayed engaged with each other, treating the conversation as problem-solving rather than combat. And this has been the case throughout much of this new process, whether at Town Council or Committee on Appropriations meetings. Our brand of democracy was never intended to be perfect. It was intended to create responsive government with the awareness of its own imperfections. Engaging in the process with eyes toward a better outcome is how we fulfill our roles in this 250-year-old experiment in self-governance.

This is where Jewish wisdom offers a useful lens. The Talmud teaches about machloket l'shem shamayim — disagreement for the sake of heaven. Not every argument is created equal. Some conflicts stem from ego, self-interest, or the desire to win at all costs. But other disagreements — like the famous debates between the scholarly houses of Hillel and Shammai — are driven by a genuine, shared pursuit of what's right. Those arguments, my tradition has taught me, lead us somewhere constructive. Their outcomes endure because they make us better.

The budget process discussions in Barrington qualify. Town Council members, and the many others who supported the FTR, genuinely believed it would increase engagement and make the budget process more accessible. They weren't wrong. For many residents, all-day voting will be a real improvement. The critics raising concerns about signature requirements and ballot options aren't wrong either — they're identifying real barriers that deserve attention.

Even some of the most charged and contentious rhetoric, such as the back-and-forth during the Budget Hearing between Janine Wolf and the town’s Solicitor regarding legal interpretations of our Town Charter, is a pursuit for the right outcome for the town. I personally disagree with Wolf on many of the issues on which she speaks at public meetings, but it is evident to me that she believes she is pursuing what she views as right, or better.

People with different views can all care deeply about Barrington and work for a process that works.

Barrington’s elected officials are treating these concerns seriously, and that gives me confidence. They're listening to feedback about the FTR and actively working to refine it. That's exactly what we should expect: leaders who are willing to implement change, monitor how it works in practice, and adjust based on what they learn. And to not do so before learning what works or does not.

This connects to another teaching that guides me, from Pirke Avot: "It is not incumbent upon you to finish the work, but neither are you free to desist from it." We inherit imperfect systems, we work to improve them, and we pass them along to the next generation — still imperfect but hopefully better than we found them. The work is iterative, not finite. Humanity, like the Constitution, has an elastic clause.

The Financial Town Meeting had real flaws. The Financial Town Referendum is better in some ways, and it is not without its own flaws. That doesn't mean the change was a mistake and it doesn’t mean those shaping the details of our first attempt are wrong or ill-willed. It means we're in the process of democratic improvement, and that process requires exactly what we're seeing: measured implementation, honest assessment, and responsive adjustment.

Consider what's already working: the Committee on Appropriations continues to hold public hearings where any resident can speak. Town Council meetings are open and accessible, with residents engaging in their processes. Budget documents are posted online. Residents like Robin Bacon can — and do — stand up and explain how proposed tax increases affect seniors on fixed incomes. Neile Hartman can challenge the BPS and Town officials to tighten their belts. These voices shape the conversation, even when they don't immediately change the outcome. That's democracy functioning. Slowly, as intended.

And officials are responding. When residents pointed out that the trash contract "savings" mostly just moved money to other line items, the Council engaged that criticism directly and explained their rationale. When the School Committee faced questions about adding a dean of students position during a year of significant debt service increases, they had to articulate and defend that choice publicly. And the COA was able to respond with reductions to the district’s budget request. Transparency creates accountability, and now voters will have the opportunity to approve or reject the amendment proposed by the School Committee to further increase its budget.

The signature requirement for amendments may need adjustment — and there's already conversation about alternatives. The "approve only" ballot may not be the final design — and the Council is exploring options. This iterative process reminds me of the Lean Startup method: build, measure, learn; repeat. This is how democratic systems improve: implement, assess, adjust, repeat. (It’s just not done as quickly as it is with start-up companies or building software.)

What matters now is that we all stay engaged in the process. To residents frustrated by aspects of the referendum process: your voices are being heard, and your advocacy is already producing results. Keep showing up to budget hearings. Keep asking questions. Keep pushing for improvements. Your engagement makes our officials better and our town stronger.

To our elected officials: thank you for taking on the difficult work of democratic reform. The willingness to try something new, knowing it won't be perfect, takes courage. The willingness to listen to criticism and adjust takes even more of it. You're modeling what responsive governance looks like.

Barrington is fortunate to have both engaged residents and responsive officials. We're better off with a budget process that includes O'Mahony's attention to access and fairness, Hartman's insistence on austerity, and Town Council members who are willing to experiment with new approaches and refine them based on feedback. These are the kinds of disagreements that make us stronger — not because everyone agrees, but because everyone is trying to get it right.

One note of caution: while engaging in the process is what participatory democracy is all about, exploiting weaknesses is an act of self-harm that does not advance our town. In the former process, a taxpayer wanting to reduce a line in the budget had to stand in front of their neighbors and plead its case. The people who would be negatively impacted by a cut — whether by employees losing their jobs, flowers wilting in their pots, or the Barrington Preservation Society being unable to maintain the Town’s historic artifacts — had the opportunity to defend it. There is protection against this at large scale, as noted by long-time engaged Barringtonian Peter Clifford, “Barrington went from zero signatures needed to propose a budget change last year, to 3,000 signatures needed this year.” This refers to a requirement that applies only to changes of $50,000 or more. There is no such protection for small amendments that can add up. The current process allows a single person to submit dozens of small budget cuts that will appear on the ballot without community discussion — a vulnerability that is already being tested in year one.

The public should remember that the most vetted, rigorously debated and well documented version of the budget is that which was passed by the COA following several public meetings during which they questioned municipal and school district administrative and elected officials. There are dozens of hours of video and scores of pages of meeting minutes to inform you about those expenses. We should only cast votes for alterations — whether up or down — if we are informed about the impact of those changes.

The FTR is better than the FTM in important ways. And it will continue to improve as we learn from this first year, listen to feedback, and make thoughtful adjustments. That's not a failure of planning — it's democracy working exactly as it should.

Build. Measure. Learn.

Keep improving, for the sake of heaven.

The work is not finished. We shouldn't expect it to be. But we should take heart that it's moving forward, with good faith, toward a process that serves all of Barrington's residents more fairly and more effectively.

Jacob Brier (they/them) is an HR consultant, independent insurance agent, and community organizer, living in Barrington with their wife and son. Jacob is also the vice chair of the Barrington Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Committee.