Good evening and welcome back to Town Meeting. We started the evening with a lovely playing of the National Anthem. There were no new members to be sworn in. The Moderator showed a video with introductions from the division heads in town government. Mr. DeCourcey then put forward the standard motion to continue the meeting upon adjournment to Monday, May 3.
Article 3 was removed from the table to allow receipt of new reports. No new reports were offered, so it went right back on the table. We then returned to Article 7 regarding a proposed rock removal ordinance. Town Counsel started with answers to questions asked Ms. Memon at the previous session. There were ten permits over the past ten years for blasting spread over seven sites. Other towns have different approaches to regulation. Under state law, more stringent regulations are implemented in denser communities. Mr. Yontar moved to terminate debate. We were introduced to a new "Second" button on our console allowing all members an opportunity to second a motion. The motion was seconded by many, many people. I would like to hear some more debate on this article, so I voted "no". The motion failed to reach a 2/3 vote (134-86), so we will have an opportunity for additional debate.
Ms. Band asked if the town has ever denied an application for blasting. The Fire Chief was unaware of any denials. She further asked if there is such a thing as an un-blastable lot. The Chief didn't know how to answer the question. Mr. Lobel thought this is a well intentioned article, but it is not the right solution. He wanted to know how expensive the blasting report is to prepare. Counsel didn't know an exact figure, but thought it would be a few thousand dollars. Mr. Lobel noted the ongoing project on Brunswick Road which is causing concern in his precinct. He noted that there is concern about permanent damage to homes in the area with blasting. While long term and annoying, chipping would cause less permanent damage.
Ms. Carlton-Gysan asked if the environmental impact of the two removal methods had been or would be evaluated. Counsel indicated that if there wasn't a wetland or stormwater issue, it wouldn't be evaluated. Mr. Jamison noted that blasting sites he has seen have mats to control the dispersion of material. He is OK with the notification requirement. He is OK with it entering the bylaw, but he doesn't think it will end chipping. Ms. Butler had great concerns as there are a significant number of subterranean water features that are forgotten or undocumented. They could be ruptured. Ms. Culverhouse was concerned that the 30 day period to file damage claims was insufficient. Mr. Worden wanted to know why residents have to be faced with blasting or chipping at all. He would like a more comprehensive study to determine how to protect residents and outcroppings. "When people had brains," they knew better than build on these sites. These projects should not happen. Mr. Moore moved to terminate debate, and the motion was seconded. I think the debate has been better, so I will vote to terminate. It passed 189-27. This is a really difficult decision for me. Passage will require a contractor to consider blasting, but it would not be required. It is possible that research will help them make a better decision, but it might also just mean it is that much easier to choose blasting. In the end, I voted against the article, since it doesn't really seem to get at the root of the issue. Rock removal is noisy, dusty, and annoying, and there is no way around that. We need a proposal that will offer more protection regardless of the manner of removal chosen. I wasn't alone in this opinion; the article failed 62-172.
Next up is Article 15 regarding Domestic Partnerships. (Articles 8-14 were disposed of in the Consent Agenda.) Mr. DeCorcey noted that the Select Board is recommending a version of the article that limits partnerships to two people rather than more individuals. His concern is that the Attorney General will have a concern about plural arrangements, and this could lead to the article being invalidated. Mr. Meeks provided a video introduction to the proposal, explaining why the Town needs to explicitly include domestic partnerships. He also referenced his amendment that would include partnerships with two or more people, but it would remove language equating partners with spouses to avoid state scrutiny. The bylaw would not cause any financial impacts; it will just provide parity for partnerships. He takes this personally, as he has two long-term domestic partners, and he is seeking to have protections extended to his family.
Mr. McNeill thinks the main motion has broad appeal, so he wants to address the amendment. This is a civil rights issue for people in polyamorous relationships. Mr. Hamlin asked for a positive vote for the main motion. He further explained why it is important that the town extend protections to plural partnerships. There could be issues at the AG, but we should not let that hold us back. Mr. Harrelson wanted to know why there appears to be a narrow definition in the motion. Assistant Counsel noted it was included to not conflict with state law. Ms. Stone spoke in favor of the article, but she had questions regarding the termination language in the amendment. It says any member may terminate the partnership. Does that only exclude the person seeking to leave, or would the entire partnership be dissolved? Assistant counsel thought it would dissolve the entire partnership. She was also concerned about the language used to direct notification of such termination. Mr. Dunn supports motion and amendment. He is so relieved by the protections he is able to now enjoy as a gay man, and he feels it is time to extend those protections further. Mr. Yontar passed. Mr. Goodsell also supports both the main article and the amendment. He wanted to know how the state might act. Mr. Cunningham indicated that the future is unclear. The communities that allow for plural partnerships are cities, and they have special disposition in regards to how their bylaws are approved. Mr. Jamieson wanted confirmation that Cambridge and Somerville have plural partnerships. Mr. Cunningham has confirmed that Somerville allows plural partnerships, but city ordinances are not state reviewable. (Mr. DeCourcey cut in to indicate that Cambridge has voted recently to so as well.) Mr. Jamieson wanted to know if the city ordinances would work in the town's favor, but that was unknown.
Mr. Gast moved to terminate debate, and the motion was seconded. (I voted in favor, and it passed 202-29) I really appreciated the full debate on this article, and it really helped to clarify the issues involved. It is a great thing to allow multiple forms of long-term domestic partnerships to flourish and be recognized. The amendment was adopted 192-37, allowing the main vote to advance plural partnerships. The vote on the amended main motion was 221-11, and it was approved. Off to our break.
-----
Back from break, we start in on Article 20, a recommendation to create a study group to consider how remote participation in meetings can continue after the Covid restrictions are lifted. Mr. DeCourcey introduced the article. Mr. Auster introduced his amendment to have the committee also consider how information from public boards can be better disseminated. Ms. Dray has two amendments. One would have the committee recommend actions that would not require a bylaw or an expenditure of funds be implemented immediately. The other would include a member from the Council on Aging and two from Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion on the study committee. The three seats would be taken away from Town Meeting. Mr. Berkowitz spoke in favor of the motion and the amendments, as they serve to be more inclusionary. Mr. Varoglu spoke in favor as well. He thought that the added transparency could help with the upcoming discussions on an override. Ms. Smith strongly supports the main motion and the Auster amendment. She has noticed the increased participation since we have gone remote. She had concerns with DEI having undo influence over the discussions. Ms. Migliazzo supports motion and amendments. She wanted to speak up for handicapped residents who have had problems attending in-person meetings who were able to participate online. Mr. Holland is in support of the motion and the amendments. He has researched collaborative environments for government participation, and picked up social science wisdom. They are successful when each role can do what they believe they need to do.
Mr. Jamieson thanked Ms. Dray for her article and amendments and Mr. Auster for his amendment. He encouraged an extension of the time period to January 15, 2022 to allow the committee additional time to work and still report to Town Meeting that spring. (There was a question as to whether the amendment was appropriate at this time, and the Moderator confirmed that simple changes that are easy to understand can be made from the floor.) Ms. Gruber tried to ask a question of the proponent, but the Moderator denied the request. She is anxious that we move as quickly as we can, and she would like to know what the implication would be of extending the work of the committee to January 15. The Moderator indicated that should the amendment be adopted, the committee can still report early. The Manager stated that the town is committed to implementing a hybrid practice, and there will not be a quick turning off of online participation. The Moderator reminded the members that we are discussing the forming of a committee, not the possible impacts of the results of that committee. Mr. Schlichtman wanted to know how much authority the Select Board as over directing the format of meetings by other committees and boards. Mr. Heim noted that we can only hold the meetings online due to executive order. The Select Board can help determine how resources can be expended in support of the recommendations of the committee. Mr. Schlichtman supports the first two amendments but strongly opposes the second Dray amendment since it removes elected town meeting members from the committee. Ms. Henkin, as a disabled person and a graduate student spoke strongly in favor of the accommodations provided by a hybrid model, and she encouraged swift action. Ms. Heigham is in favor of the main motion but against the second Dray amendment. It is important for elected officials to have a voice in determining policy that impacts our ability to best serve our constituents. Mr. Yontar strongly supports the study and looks forward to the results. He questioned whether the Auster amendment was in scope since it doesn't relate to the operation of public meetings. (The Moderator found the amendment in scope.) Mr. Franzosa moves the question and all matters before it. It feels like time, so I vote yes. Debate is terminated 186-46.
[Mr. Goodsell raised a point of order asking that the texts of the various amendments be displayed during the voting so it is clear what we are voting on as we do so. The Moderator agreed: there are five votes under this article.]
We have four amendments and the main motion. Mr. Auster's amendment is an important addition, as it makes sure information is better disseminated to those participating by other means. (Approved 207-19) Ms. Dray's first amendment to encourage early implementation is a sound suggestion. (Approved 197-37) Her second amendment would be acceptable to me if it included one person from the CoA and one from the DEI. However, giving one point of view additional influence at the loss of almost all town meeting representation is too much for me. (Fails 98-131) I think Mr. Jamieson's amendment is innocuous, and it does allow the committee additional time should it be needed. (Approved 118-106) The final vote on the original motion as amended by Auster, Dray 1, and Jamieson passed 230-6.
Since it is 10:57pm, the Moderator called for notices of reconsideration and a motion to adjourn. It was seconded and held up by a point of order. Mr. Worden reported that he had the database error message multiple times. This has occurred to many people, myself included. He is disappointed that his votes have not been recorded. The Moderator has indicated that I.T. will research the issue and get back to us on Monday. We are adjourned ... almost. Mr. Marshall has a point of order. He asked whether it would be possible to receive votes by text. The Moderator noted that the receiving line is a land line and cannot receive text messages. Now, we are adjourned until Monday.
-----
This was kind of a slow night. These were very important articles, but we only got to 2 1/2 of them. This is the point where I get concerned that there will be a turn to expediency over deliberation. We were elected to properly conduct the town's business, "participate fully and ... fairly evaluate all matters before Town Meeting." We must resist the temptation to quash debate in favor of an early dissolution. We must also be selective in our deliberations and not spend excessive time repeating the remarks of prior speakers. It is a much harder balance to reach online that in person. On the floor of Town Hall, you can read body language, and speak with your neighbors to help determine if you should speak. We don't have those clues here, and I believe that is to our detriment.
I also hope we can work out the technical issues that have been plaguing us this spring. It has not prevented me from participating or voting, but there are members reporting this. I am hopeful that the Moderator can report back to us on Monday with some solid solutions.
My oldest son completed is Hampshire College Division III project review during tonight's meeting, so I think a little celebration will be forthcoming in our household.
Congratulations to the soon-to-be grad, Christian! My daughter finished her Div III last spring.
ReplyDeleteLove your notes Chistian! Go celebrate!
ReplyDelete