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.