2021 Annual Town Meeting - Night Three

 Good evening and welcome to Night Three of the 2021 Annual Town Meeting.  We were a little slow at last Wednesday's meeting, and I hope we can pick up the pace.  I hope we will have fewer network issues than last time.  I see we have another voting option to exercise (vote by text), so maybe that will help.  We are still working our way through the warrant articles that propose changes to the Town Bylaws.  We still have zoning articles, budget and appropriations, and resolutions to go.

 We should be starting with a pair of articles that have a recommended vote of "No Action" by the Select Board.  This recommendation means that the Select Board has decided against recommending passage of the article, and there isn't a matter to discuss.  However, both proponents have submitted a Substitute Motion, so there will be something available to discuss.  We then should move on to Ranked Choice Voting and a Real Estate Transfer Fee.

After our attendance vote, there are 237 members in the meeting, so we are ready to proceed.  The Moderator called the meeting to order.  A prerecorded rendition of National Anthem by Mr. Helmuth was played.  There was a notice displayed from the Council on Aging and the Department of Health.  They are looking to identify any seniors over the age of 75 who have not been vaccinated.  They are encouraged to call (781) 316-3400 for assistance with receiving the vaccine.

The Moderator noted that Monday, May 10 will be Budget Night at Town Meeting.  We will start with the Operating Budget (Article 55) and then move on to the Capital Budget (Article 56).  This is announced ahead, since it requires all division heads be in attendance to address questions regarding their individual budgets.

The following session, Wednesday, May 12 will start with the presentation on the Minuteman Regional Vocational Technical High School appropriation (Article 61).  The presentation from the superintendent is available online on the Town Meeting Warrant page.

The moderator was perturbed that someone was implying that the Town was trying to hide material from a resident regarding Article 35.  This person has created a video that they would like presented at town meeting.  However, their appearance must be at the behest of a Town Meeting Member.  As of this time, no member has stepped forward.  As such, the video is orphaned on ACMi.  The resident who made the video needs to find a meeting member to sponsor the video on their behalf.

Mr. DeCourcey moved that the meeting will continue to Wednesday night upon adjournment this evening.  The Moderator called for announcements, resolutions, and reports.  Seeing none, we start into the Articles.

Article 21 is a proposal to limit spending through the Affordable Housing Trust Fund to projects serving residents earning 60% Area Medium Income (AMI) or less.  The bylaw passed last year set the limit at 100% AMI to align with the language in the Community Preservation Act (CPA).  However, this level is significantly higher than the AMI of black and Latinx households.  Ms. Kiesel, a resident of the town, presented a substitute motion, as the recommended vote was for "No Action".  She was introduced by Ms. Garber.  Ms. Worden spoke in favor of the article while taking shots at the ARB and the DPCD.  She was reminded by the Moderator to stay on scope.  Ms. Kelleher spoke in favor of the message conveyed by the proponent.  She spoke how there has been little private development of affordable housing.  It was her amendment last fall that established the 100% AMI threshold, and she is concerned that the proposed bylaw amendment will not lead to more affordable housing.  There are two paths to affordable housing:  public subsidies and private developers can use it to couch excess profits.  [The Moderator steered her back onto scope.]  She wants us to allow the Trustees to actually start doing their job.  We need to be honest about supporting a proactive policy.  Mr. Dunn also salutes intent but opposes the motion.  We need to customize a solution to our community.  The Trustees need to be allowed to meet for the first time before tying their hands.  Ms. Murray had a question about the "area" in AMI.  Town Counsel deferred to the Director of Planning and Community Development, Ms. Raitt to respond.  The area is Boston-Cambridge-Newton region, not just town.  Mr. Meeks noted there are two types of affordable housing, deeply affordable and more modestly affordable.  He sees this trust fund as needing to focus on subsidizing the deeply affordable housing.  Since the proposal only requires a majority go to 60% AMI or below, other projects can still be funded.  Mr. DeCourcey, Chair of the Select Board salutes the intent, but noted that neither the Trust nor the Trustees exist yet.  Of the other communities with trust funds, none of them have an income restriction in the bylaw.  These are usually included in the trusts rules and regulations.  All CDBG funds go to housing below 50% AMI without a bylaw requirement.  Imposing a figure in the bylaw limits the flexibility of the trust to operate.

Mr. Jamieson is looking for clarification of what funds are being limited.  Counsel determined it would be non-CDBG  funds.  He encouraged keeping the limits in the regulations, the Trust Plan, which has yet to be established.  Ms. Rowe made a point of order as Chair of the CDBG Committee.  It was determined that it was not a point of order by the Moderator.  Mr. Ciano asked if Trustees have been chosen.  (No)  He is in favor of the amendment.  Ms. Henkin is in support.  It is only a majority that needs to be spent at 60% AMI.  She is concerned that we are reluctant to put this into law.  We should be thinking about different solutions for upper and lower level need.  Ms. Heigham moved the question.

I agree with many of the speakers that it is essential to support affordable housing to a great extent.  However, to determine that the Trust and Trustees need to be limited in their actions before the Trust is even established is premature, and honestly micro-managing.  I am also concerned about what happens if a great project appears at 70% AMI, and it is the only project being presented, does that mean that the fund will be unable to act on the project?  The motion to terminate debate passed 174-62.  [The Moderator misspoke about what we were voting on, and when it was pointed out to him, he loudly uttered an expletive.  It was very funny.]  Mr. Worden had a point of order asking if his "machine" won't get to the portal, can he still call in his vote.  The Moderator indicated he had given the information to his wife, and he reissued the phone number.  I voted against the substitute motion, and it failed 84-154.  The main motion before the meeting is a vote of "No Action" which passed [The Moderator took offense to the charge that he was blaming the voting issues on the Members.  He noted that it is an issue with the system, and he is merely asking the members to space out the timing of their votes so the system doesn't freeze.]  The vote of "No Action" was approved 190-49.

Mr. Holland raised a technical point of order noting that the portal has an understandable failure mode, and we have a workaround.  The system isn't perfect, but it does work.

Article 22 is an article to have the town provide email addresses to Town Meeting Members if they request one.  The recommended vote of the Select Board is "No Action".  The proponent has asked for a motion to table the article to allow time to work with the Select Board on a resolution.  The motion to table the article was approved unanimously.

Article 24 is the proposal to allow for ranked choice voting (RCV) in Arlington.  Mr. DeCourcey noted the Select Board was unanimous in its approval of using RCV for single seat elections, and 4-1 in favor of using it for multiple candidate elections.  Mr. Dennis, Chair of the Election Modernization Committee made the presentation.  Vote splitting can lead to lower preference candidates being elected.  RCV allows preferential voting to make sure that all elections are won by candidates with majority support.  Since there won't be vote splitting, more candidates will run, and it should lead to greater civility.  This is a home-rule petition, so if this is approved by Town Meeting, it still needs a positive vote of the state legislature to allow it to be implemented.    He also cautioned against the proposed amendment since it would lead to some elections being held differently in different years.  He thanked the members of his committee.  It is 9:30, so we are on break.

---------

We are back, and Mr. Schlichtman has a slide presentation for his amendment.  He is now asking for a vote of "No Action".  He feels the committee did not live up to its mandate, and it was openly proactive regarding RCV.  He says it doesn't end gamesmanship, it just changes the game.  He will now need to ask for #1 votes.  He doesn't think this will make things more civil; it will be a detrimental change.  He wants his amendment adopted and the main motion voted down.  Mr. Levy has a point of order asking whether his amendment is within scope.  The Moderator says it is in scope, and just because he wants the main motion to fail, doesn't mean he cannot propose amendments.  Mr. Levy hopes other such amendments will be reconsidered, since they appear to be raised to change something that the proponent wants to be defeated anyway.  Ms. Friedman has a simple amendment requiring the Town Clerk to publish the tabulation of the voting for all rounds.  This will make is clear how the tabulation was conducted.  There are many people on the speaker's list.  Mr. Ciano supports the Schlichtman amendment, but doesn't understand how RCV works.  He would like someone to explain how it works.  Mr. Dennis patiently explained how it works for single and multi-seat elections.Mr. Ciano is not in favor.  Mr. Worden feels similar to Mr. Schlichtman, if it ain't broken, don't fix it.  RCV leads to slavery.  [Lincoln would have lost the 1860 elections, the South wouldn't have seceded, and slavery would have remained in place.]  He doesn't think RCV is fair.  It can take days or weeks to figure out who won.  Mr. Worden doesn't trust computers.  [Lots of obfuscation]  Mr. Deyst had a point of order requesting that the speakers be held to scope.  Mr. Levy moves the question.  The motion to terminate debate, which I supported, was defeated 115-118, so we go back to the speaker list.

Mr. Rehrig is interested in hearing the opinion of the minority vote on the Select Board.  Mr. DeCourcey noted that vote was in regards to the multi-seat elections, and the issue was with how the votes redistribute.  This is a point of issue with many systems for multi-seat elections.  The approach favored by the committee is unusual or unique.  It is possible to enact single-seat RCV without multi-seat.  Mr. Deyst passed.  Mr. Heigham asked to see the text of the main article.  What are "two or more sequential skipped rankings" as noted in Section 8.B(a)2.  Counsel noted this applies when a ballot has skipped preferences on their ballot.  A single skipped rank would promote the lower rank up that gap.  Where there is a double skip, it will treated as if the rest of the ballot was blank.  This is fairly standard language in RCV bylaws.  The voting machine will kick out ballots with improperly allocated votes as it does today.  The Moderator stepped in to control the debate and assign questions.  The committee does not have a definitive number of communities that use specific forms of RCV, but it is on the order of 2-12.  Ms. Muldoon, a member of the Election Modernization Committee and the League of Women Voters is in favor.  The League supports it as the most fair voting method, and she noted that the Town did vote in favor of the RCV ballot measure last year.  She noted that our tabulation machines are able to tabulate these votes.  We need to include a greater range of voices, and it will increase turnout if it promotes more candidates entering races.  It will hopefully expand diversity in government.  She also thinks there should just be one system of voting used, so RCV should be for both single and multi-candidate elections.  Ms. Brazile, the Town Clerk and TMM strongly supports RCV.  As Clerk, she does not see any issues in switching to RCV.  She anticipates receiving quick results.  She recommends voting against the Schlichtman amendment to avoid confusion over voting methods.

Mr. Christiana wasn't certain how Mr. Worden knew the second choice votes in the 1860 election.  He has experience working on campaigns and informing voters about CRV, and has noted that more candidates are more civil under RCV so as to not sink other candidates with similar views.  He would like to know if there are any challenges to reporting the tabulation.  (The question was not addressed.)  Mr. Foskett went back to Mr. Worden's comments noting that our current system has worked for centuries.  He is offended that he is being told that "bullet" voting is wrong:  he can vote however he wants.  He thinks it is too complicated.  Voting isn't broken.  Vote no on the whole article.  Mr. Curro has no objections to strategic voting.  He thinks voters may like the opportunity to rank preferences, but they are not required to do so.  The committee suggests RCV will increase turnout and candidates, but he is not entirely sure that will be the case.  He noted that in his last election, he won with 11% of registered voters (45% of votes cast).  Ms. Stone is very much in favor of the main motion and against the proposed amendment.  RCV for only single-seat races results in inconsistent elections for boards where they are majority rule some years and ranked choice in others.  That is not equitable.  The multi-seat proposal is the same procedure as the single-seat procedure.  There is no difference for the voters.  There is a delay in implementation to allow for the education of voters.  Eliminating the benefits of RCV for high-stakes elections, is not the way to go.  Mr. Jalkut thinks the core question is whether this proposal will make our voting system better or worse.  He had a mathematics class given by Tom Lehrer who noted that there is no perfect voting system or election strategy.  Even if there isn't a perfect system, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't move in that direction.  We should try for something better than winner-takes-all.  He is not in favor of the Schlichtman amendment.  Asking voters to rank their preferences is not so hard.

Ms. LaCourt noted that we are not voting whether to implement RCV, but rather whether RCV should go on the ballot for the rest of town to vote.  She feels RCV will improve democracy by increasing the participation in voting.  She asked whether Mr. Schlichtman's contention that the committee was improperly functioning was true.  The Moderator thought the question was out of order.  The Moderator closed discussion for this evening, called for reconsideration, and asked for a motion to adjourn.

--------

The moderator also noted that at tonight's pace, we have another 30 sessions ahead of us.  We voted on one article, tabled a second, and debated a third.  Granted, the discussion on RCV is important, and we need to make a well informed decision.  However, we are not getting a wide breadth of opinions.  There are many similar opinions on both sides, with a scant few in between.

In my opinion, this is largely a result of being online.  When we were meeting together in Town Hall, it was possible to read the temperature of the room.  It was possible to get a nearly constant sense of whether the discussion had come to its conclusion, or whether it should continue.  We had more speakers pass.  It felt more concise.  Now, while I respect the comments from all my colleagues, and I really appreciate the debate, we need to find a way to inform the debate rather than prolong the debate.  Unless we get at that, we will absolutely be meeting throughout June.

A quick shout-out to all the town staff who come in early and stay late to make Town Meeting work.  Your efforts are deeply appreciated.  I hope we don't overstay our welcome.