Special Town Meeting - Fall 2020 - Night Four

Welcome back to the fall special town meeting.  "It was a dark and stormy night."  At the start of the meeting, there were portions of Precinct 11 without power.  The Moderator made the determination that there was a quorum, and opened the meeting.  There were no new reports to receive.  There was a motion to table articles 15-22 to bring up articles 23 and 24.  This was proposed because there was an outside consultant available tonight to address questions on those articles.  There were a couple of objections, but the vast majority of the meeting was amenable.

Article 23 was a capital budget request for an additional $8.9M for the redevelopment of the DPW Yard.  There were several reasons presented for why the town needs to allocate additional funds.  The project was delayed in the planning phase to allow coordination with the high school project on an abutting property.  The method of contracting was changed to better contain project risks.  There was an unforeseen escalation in construction costs last year.  Finally, the IT and Facilities Offices were incorporated into the new DPW plan and removed from the high school project.  This was well presented in a video presentation played at the start of the discussion.  That video is available from the Town Meeting Website.

There were several questions about the project.  Here is a synopsis of the responses.  If approved, the work will start in the spring and continue for two years.  The site is contaminated and prone to flooding.  We have already redone the other major department facilities, so the DPW is due.  This will come out of the Capital Budget and will not increase taxes.  The town already has moved many of its IT server needs to the cloud, so the server area proposed for the new facility will be properly sized.  Moving to the Contractor-at-Risk contracting model is a sound proposal.

This was a welcome debate on an important topic.  When the inevitable motion to terminate debate was proposed, it felt like the right time.  The debate was terminated on a 217-22 vote.  Since the vote on the main motion includes bonding, it requires a 2/3 vote.  The final vote on the recommended vote, on which I voted in favor, was approved 237-9, well above the 2/3 required.

Next up was Article 24, approval of proposed CPA expenditures.  This is a followup to the same article at the Annual Town Meeting.  It comes with a video.  These projects were moved to the fall in order to keep the annual meeting as short as possible.  These projects fall under the open space (Minuteman Bikeway) and historic preservation (archeological and historic resource surveys).  There were a few questions about the schools included in the historic resource survey.  There were also questions about the archaeology survey.  There was then a motion to close debate which passed 210-27.  The conversation was all in favor of the proposal, so closing debate appeared to be appropriate at this time.  I voted in favor of the article, and I was joined by the vast majority of the meeting (236-6).

Power is back on in Precinct 11!  (9:00pm)

The previously tabled articles were taken from the table, and the discussion on Article 15 was resumed.  The Town Manager had circulated an FAQ earlier today.  There was a question of whether a different name would be better received than "Special Police".  Why should they be armed?  Why not flaggers?  These were asked rhetorically.  There were concerns raised about persons of color and the recent call to reduce the presence of police.  There was a call for using local officers who are familiar with the town.  It expands police presence, it increases pay opportunities to our officers, and it provides value to the town.  (I'm not sure I agree that having officers everywhere makes people feel safer or deters crime, but reducing response time in an emergency would be a net good.)  There was a correction to a statement made at the last session - savings from details don't revert to the town and are not available to be used for salaries.

The next speaker had experience with road work and felt there was a lot of value in having local police officers at work sites over civilian flaggers.  There was a point of order regarding whether it was appropriate to allow a prior speaker to speak a second time to make a correction.  The Moderator indicated that ordinarily this would be an issue, but since the speaker had spoke on behalf of the Town, it was important to have the error corrected.  There was then a call to end debate.  This was another article with a solid debate, and I felt that many points of view had been presented, so I voted to close debate.  For the first time, a closure vote failed.  The motion requires a 2/3 vote and it fell short, 143-90.

We took our break before the discussion resumed.

We resumed with an appreciation of allowing debate to continue.  It is important to hear all viewpoints, and terminating debate is overused.  (There was also an attempt to take a dig at certain members who serve on town boards and try to end debate on articles on which they have reported, but the Moderator turned that down.)  There was a speaker in favor who felt discussion of flaggers was out of scope.  There was a question of whether special officers could be called to serve on ICE checkpoints.  The Chief confirmed that the APD does not cooperate with ICE on any actions.  In responding to another member, the Chief indicated that there are instances where detail officers are able to assist the duty officers.  However, the speaker asked for hard data, which the Chief did not have on hand.  The following speaker asked for confirmation that voting down this article didn't mean that there would be flaggers (confirmed).  There could be financial detriments to the town by impacting the types of work that can be undertaken by officers.  The next speaker felt it was important to allow the relatively new Chief to run her department as she feels is at the benefit to the town.  There are 20 detail requests a day, and the Town is only able to find 15 officers on a usual basis.  Other towns are using their own officers more, so they are not available to Arlington.  Having locally trained retired offices available to the Town is preferential to outside police.

There was a question regarding the percentage of details that are private versus municipal.  The Chief estimated that approx. 75% of those details are privately financed.  There was a question whether retired police officers could serve as civilian flaggers.  (They can, but that is far outside the scope of this article.)  There was a question about the state law references that was asked and answered at the last session.  There was a question about what kind of details are able to be served by civilian flaggers and which require officers.  Why does the town not utilize civilian flaggers today?  The Town Manager answered that the state law governing flaggers makes it so difficult that fewer than 10% of towns have civilian flaggers.  The proposal asks to use locally available retirees to fill positions they have expressed interest in filling.  There was a question about why this warrant article is so specific when other articles are more broad.  The answer had to do with it being home rule legislation.  This was followed by a second motion to end debate.  I was a little reluctant to vote yes this time as there were still a number of speakers.  Looking at the list, I believe several of them are looking to speak for a second time, so I did vote to end debate.  This time, it passed 185-53.

I am voting in favor of the main article.  I do feel it is a little tone-deaf in this current political climate, but I do not believe that outweighs the benefits to the town.  A no vote will just preserve the status quo, where we have active out-of-town officers filling details that are not filled by active APD officers.  Having special officers from the ranks of retired officers in good standing will be a net benefit.  The motion passed 158-78.  It only needed a majority, but it made a 2/3 vote.

Article 16 is a vote of no action, passed 228-7.

Article 17 is a substitute motion for a recommended vote of no action.  The motion is to add a line to the Zoning Bylaw referring to a section in the Town Bylaw enacting the "Good Neighbor Agreement".  The proponent rightly notes that the agreement has not been well implemented or enforced.  The cross-reference is being added to improve compliance.  I don't see how this will accomplish what the proponent is trying to accomplish.  The first speaker thought it wasn't the best solution, but it shouldn't cause harm.  The ARB Chair explained that they had issued their recommended vote of no action because it creates a circular reference between the codes and definitions of terms do not align completely.  The proponent was advised to return with amendment to Town Bylaw.  The next speaker read a statement from a town resident encouraging the adoption of this article because compliance has been so weak.  The next member had a question as to whether the town has a checklist for compliance.  The Building Inspector thinks it is not being ignored and having it in both bylaws could lead to confusion.  He does not know of any instances of when it would have been ignored.  Compliance is on the checklist for being issued a permit.  The proponent only spoke to the Building Inspector in regards to a specific project that had emergency work being performed.  The member encouraged a no vote and encouraged the proponent to work with Inspectional Services to improve the compliance and possibly file a revision next spring.

(I was on the speaker list for a while, because I wanted to ask the ARB for some context to their decision.  Once that was asked for by others, I withdrew my name from the list.  I really don't see how this will address the concerns raised by the proponent.  I believe the issue is really that residents want the agreement to apply to many more projects than it is required to under the Bylaw.  The list of project types is fairly limited.  The agreement form is also hard to locate on the Town Website.  The Building Inspector says that his department includes a review of whether the agreement needs to be filed and has been filed on every building permit checklist.)

A speaker asked if there was a survey made regarding compliance with the bylaw.  The Planning Director noted there was a survey in 2019 that found among people who should have been contacted, there were equal numbers of those who recalled receiving the notice and those who did not.  (There was a small number who could not recall.)  The member asked if there could be elaboration regarding the nature of the inconsistencies between the Zoning Bylaw and the Town Bylaw.  The ARB Chair noted that the definitions in the Zoning Bylaw would expand the scope of those projects under the scope of the agreement.  The member thought adoption of the motion would not necessarily improve the situation, but it will not hurt.  A member of the original working group who proposed the original article spoke in favor of the substitute motion.  A member offered anecdotes regarding how projects near her home hadn't provided notice that she could recall.  (From her description of the work, "gut renovation", the agreement didn't apply.)  The next member thought the Town Bylaw was clear and didn't see how the motion would make it clearer.

That was the last comment, as we reached the end of the night, and the meeting was adjourned.  It was  a much better night for discussion.  I felt that I learned a lot about the articles from the discussion, and I hope others found it valuable as well.  We will all be back on Wednesday to do it again. 

Special Town Meeting - Fall 2020 - Night Three

[This blog was started many years ago as a way to answer the question posed by voters, "What did you do at Town Meeting."  It is a personal question, and this blog reflects that.  It is a catalog of my votes, my reasons for voting as I did, and my impressions of the meeting.  It is not and has never been intended to serve as a definitive or authoritative record  of Town Meeting.  I understand that there are new readers to this blog.  Welcome!  Please be aware that your reason for reading this blog may differ from my reason for writing it.]

Welcome to Night Three of the Fall 2020 Town Meeting.  There were a few improvements put in place to assist with the running of the meeting.  The most visible was that votes taken over the phone or in writing were no longer announced publicly; they were entered off-screen.  Not hearing how certain people were voting during the vote was a great improvement.

If we don't finish tonight, we will come back next Monday.  We are not going to be threatened with coming back on Wednesday, the night before Thanksgiving if we don't finish.  Hopefully, we will make some great strides tonight.

After announcements, resolutions, and receipts of reports, we had a brief explanation of why we cannot start earlier than 8:00 pm.  (This was also addressed last week.)  We are starting this evening with 229 members ready to discuss Article 4.  This was postponed from last Monday so a substitute motion could be filed.  The previous discussion included many questions about why there are hours when the bike path is closed.  It is used at all hours, and the bordering towns do not have closed hours.  The originally proposed vote maintained hours, and did not have an option to eliminate hours.  The substitute motion would eliminate the maintaining of hours.  There were several comments from the membership both in favor and in opposition to the substitute motion.  Those opposed to the motion did support the original article to allow the Town Manager to set the hours.  A letter from a previous meeting member in opposition to the motion was read into the record.  There were concerns raised about whether an inconsistently enforced bylaw can lead to inequitable enforcement.  Chief Flaherty indicated that the bylaw is not strictly enforced, and there have been a declining number of complaints regarding late night use of the bike path.  A point of order sought to clarify whether the substitute motion was within the scope of the article, which the Moderator reiterated it was.  The question was called, and debate was terminated by a 217-19 vote.  I voted in favor of the substitute, because in the pre-Covid days, I was a frequent bike path user, and I would sometimes need to use the path late at night.  At those times, there were always few people out, if any.  The substitute was accepted 211-29, and the article was approved 228-14!

This brings us to Article 9, to extend the term of the Election Modernization Committee and modify its name, composition, and function.  Debate was terminated immediately (195-39), and the vote on the article passed 234-5.  Congratulations to the fine work of the committee.

Article 10 is a vote to accept a portion of state law to allow reducing the property tax burden on the parents of military servicemen and servicewomen killed in service of the country.  There was a brief introduction to the article, followed by a question as to the financial impact on the town.  The Town Manager confirmed this would apply to one family, and there were funds available in the tax exemption overlay to cover this expense.  The next speaker terminated debate.  I was on the speaker list, because I was seeking clarification as to whether the exemption is 100%, whether it is permanent, and whether it would reduce the amount of exemptions available to seniors.  (Based on a statement from the Asst. Town Manager, it appears that it is complete and permanent.  No answer on the impact on seniors.)  The town already offers a similar exemption to surviving spouses, so extending it to parents seems appropriate.  After watching the Moderator nearly blow a gasket over the points of order raised regarding the article, the vote was taken and the article passed 229-6.  (A point of order is very limited, and there were lots of questions and requests for clarification that would have been appropriate for general discussion.  This is the problem with forcing an early end to debate.  I feel that people just want to be done.  Debate is important, and letting questions be asked is essential.)

Article 11 is a request for a personal exemption for a resident who is 8 years past the cut-off age for applying for the civil service firefighter exam.  There was no explanation offered for the request.  The first speaker spoke about how the cutoff in the law is arbitrary, and encouraged a positive vote.  Another speaker felt it looked like we could be granting a personal favor.  She recommended that the town consider changing the underlying legislation to remove or increase the maximum age.  There were many other questions regarding the composition of the force, the retirement age, and other matters outside the scope of the article.  The questions were answered, and a motion to end debate was ended 221-20.  I was eager to hear from the individual, but it was noted that due to the format of town meeting this fall, he was unable to address the meeting.  I found the argument that the rule is arbitrary compelling, and decided to vote in favor of the article.  The vote was passed 214-24.

After taking a break, we started with Article 12, a home-rule request to consolidate the elections for town meeting members.  Currently, there are four members elected each year for a three-year term.  If a member steps down early, the remainder of their term will also appear on the ballot as a separate position.  Someone running for town meeting would need to decide which race to enter.  The proposal is to consolidate the vote for all open seats in a precinct under one vote, and the seats would be allocated with the longest available terms given to the candidates with the higher number of votes.  After the introduction, the first speaker voted to terminate debate.  Again, I find the frequent stifling of debate at odds with the purpose of town meeting to be deliberative.  We swear to "participate fully", and shunning all debate is anti-participatory.  The motion to terminate debate passed over my negative vote, and the final motion passed 213-29 with my support.

Article 13 is an article to allow ranked choice voting in town elections.  The initial vote of the election modernization committee and the select board was to move forward with a vote.  Before the start of town meeting, the committee withdrew the article, and the select board entered a recommendation of no action.  A point of order was raised to express displeasure that neither agency amended their reports to reflect the changes.  There were amendments submitted, but they were withdrawn when the recommended vote was changed.  A no action vote is not debatable, so went straight to voting.  There were a couple of points of order addressing how information was provided to town meeting or why it wasn't done so in time for the meeting.  The vote tally was 222-5.

Article 14 is a home rule petition to extend water rate discounts to more categories of our older residents.  There was a request to extend the discounts to all deserving residents regardless of age (by an older member no less), but no amendment was put forward.  Debate was then ended with eight members waiting to possibly learn more about the article. It does feel like this is a deliberate move to either rush ahead, or quash debate.  I note that the last two motions to terminate debate were raised by a member of the select board who put forward the recommended vote.  I strongly encourage allowing town meeting members to debate the articles as well.  I was with the majority in favor of the article 217-9.

Article 15 is a home rule petition regarding allowing retired police officers to serve as special officers to fill detail positions.  This was originally raised during union negotiations with the police unions.  The officers are inundated with requests for details, and there are times when the town is unable to provide a detail.  There were many good points regarding the seemingly poor timing of this article with discussions of reducing the presence of police around the nation.  There were also concerns about the reduced training requirements.  There was  a discussion regarding the use of civilian flaggers for details and the savings that might be realized.  I asked for clarification regarding several direct references to state law in the legislation.  Counsel explained there were exemptions from civil service protections, exemption from disability retirement, a reduction in indemnification, a removal of collective bargaining rights, and an ability to allow termination with or without cause.  Special officers are also exempt from the full suite of training required of regular officers.  I then made a plea to town meeting to allow more discussion of articles.  There are questions that need to be addressed on almost all articles.  Ending debate on the first or second speaker was never our practice when meeting in person.  We need to be allowed to participate.

There was a solid debate about the parameters on these positions.  The Chief noted that special officers would still be required to undergo training on their own time to qualify and maintain the positions.  The work performed by special officers does not impact any retirement account.  The special officers will not be salaried; they are paid directly out of the money paid to hire the detail.  Although civilians can be hired to serve in many of these positions at a lower cost, the difference is not as great as I would have thought.  We were going great with real debate when the clock struck 11:00pm, our evening cutoff time.  The speakers list is being held over to Monday, November 30.

---

This was a successful night in terms of passing through articles.  Until the last article, it was a poor night for informed voting and informed debate.  I think the reason for the abuse of the point of order is the inability to move forward with debate.  As town meeting members, we were not elected to rubber-stamp the reports from boards and committees.  In order to fully understand the articles and the implications to those who may be different from ourselves with different opinions and different experiences, we need to be able to hear their questions and the responses from those in authority.  Without it, we are not able to serve the residents.

Enough preaching, time for a nightcap.  Happy Thanksgiving to everyone.  I hope you are able to find a way to share the holiday with those you are not able to be with.

Special Town Meeting - Fall 2020 - Night Two

Welcome back.  Try to stay awake.  At the outset, the Moderator noted that at the blistering pace from Monday night, we will be complete after 18 sessions.  We must do better.  The Moderator made sure we understood what actually qualifies as a Point of Order, which will hopefully cut back on superfluous comments.

We started back on Article 5 regarding restrictions on new fossil fuel infrastructure.  The vast majority of speakers were in favor.  As a practicing architect, I spoke about how my consulting mechanical engineers have switched to heat pump systems to avoid installing new equipment that are reliable on fossil fuels.  Given the typical 30 lifespan of mechanical equipment, reduction of emissions will be pushed out past 2050.  That is too long.  There was a voice in opposition, discussing how homeowners should be allowed to make their own decision regarding how they want to heat their home.  The question was called, debate was ended, and the motion passed with 93% support.  Yeah!

This brought up Article 6, the creation of a Police Civilian Advisory Board study committee.  Two amendments were proposed and seconded, both reducing the space for the police department on the committee.  The Chief spoke about the efforts the department is taking to establish a review board independently.  There were comments encouraging holding off on the study committee until the Police Department's committee has a chance.  There was support for the article and the amendments.  There was concern about how the discussion might influence department morale.  An early motion to terminate debate was proposed, which I opposed.  The motion passed 182-58, so debate was ended.  I do not agree with reducing the police department's impact on this committee, as the committee needs the members of the department to feel that their concerns were also taken into consideration.  I voted against both amendments, but they both passed 162-77 (Kelleher) and 148-90 (Dray).  I do support the main motion, and although I do not agree with the amendments, I believe we are better off with an imperfect study committee than without any study committee.  I am hopeful that the concerns of the Police Department will not be ignored, and that the committee can come up with a proposal that is acceptable to everyone.  The final vote was 205-36 in favor.

Article 7 is a revision to the bylaws regarding Envision Arlington (formerly Vision 2020), including updates to terminology.  After the article was introduced, the first speaker requested to terminate debate.  I think it is bad form not to allow some debate when there is a speaker list, so I vote no.  Debate was terminated 231-10, and the final vote passed 242-3.

Article 8 is a proposal to establish a Municipal Affordable Housing Trust Fund for the town.  This fund would be administered by a local board who would disperse funds in support of affordable housing projects in town.  This one has four proposed amendments.  One would prevent the trust from investing in 40B projects (G3).  I think this would unduly restrict the administration of the trust, so I oppose it.  I also oppose the proposed amendment that would prevent local experts who live in other jurisdictions from serving on the trust (G2).  The two amendments regarding the income threshold for consideration by the trust are more difficult.  One could possible raise the threshold (K), and the other would lower the threshold (G1).  It is tempting to leave the original language alone, but I think it is better to err on the side of supporting only projects with lower income thresholds.  After a couple of speakers, the question was called, 182-52.  In the amendments, I voted yes for G1 (failed 66-166), no on G2 (failed 56-179), no on G3 (failed 51-172), and no on K (passed 170-53).  I got 50% on that portion of the voting.  I voted to approve the amended motion, and it passed 221-13.

We then quickly adjourned for the night.  This was a much better session.  In general, although there seemed to be a steady stream of voting issues, they were ably handled in the background during the voting period.  There were only a couple of superfluous points of order.  We were able to move quickly from topic to topic.  I was a little disappointed at how quickly debate was terminated on several items.  It is hard to be a deliberative body when we are not allowing debate to occur.  Maybe we will be more chatty on Monday.