2022 Annual Town Meeting - Night Two

 Welcome to Night Two of Town Meeting.  We made it through the introductory articles and the consent agendas on Monday, a total of 25 articles.  We're nearly one-third done!  From here on out though, things will be much more deliberative.  Members are a little slow logging in tonight, likely due to lag in the system.  The same thing happens while trying to register votes.  The Moderator has asked us to vote in waves to try and spread out the hits on the server.  We will have the odd-numbered precincts go first, followed by the evens.  Hopefully that will resolve the issue.

With the attendance vote complete, we proceed to the Star Spangled Banner played by TMM Tenaka.  The Moderator apologized for not allowing members to object to the motion to adjourn at our last session.  He noted he will likely make other mistakes, and he apologizes in advance.  He also gave great credit to all the staff who support the meeting and make it possible.  There are a few new members who need to be sworn in, so the oath was administered.  Select Board Chair (SBC) Diggins moved for the meeting to continue to Monday, May 2 upon adjournment.  The motion is seconded and a member has been noted as objecting.  It appears that it is only a technical glitch, so the motion is adopted without opposition.  This was followed by a quick video with introductions from all the department heads and principal town staff.

There was a call for announcements or resolutions.  TMM Thielman announced that there will be tours of the new AHS building on Saturday, April 30 between 10:00 and 2:00.  

TMM Dennis, Chair of the Election Modernization Committee submitted the report of that committee.  The Town Clerk reminded the Moderator that Article 3 was still on the table.  TMM Foskett moved to take it off the table, seconded by the Town Clerk, and passed without opposition.  TMM Dennis resubmitted his report.  TMM Foskett, chair of the Finance Committee submitted the Finance Committee report.  (At this point, the Moderator realized that having members raise hands for submitting reports and objecting to the receipt of reports was an issue.)  TMM Foskett provided remarks and an administrative correction in regards to the Finance Committee report.  He noted that this is a time of transition.  Many town leaders and Finance Committee members are moving on and new leaders taking their place.  The need for an override is still in front of us, but there has been a delay of one year because of the availability of Federal American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds.  He encouraged the Town to change the way it budgets to try and limit our growth in spending to our growth in revenue.  TMM Maher, Chair of the Permanent Town Building Committee submitted their report, and he presented the report to the meeting.  TMM Moore, Vice-chair of the Capital Planning Committee asked that their report be received.  TMM Foskett moved that Article 3 be returned to the table.

This brought up the first article for debate, Article 6.  This article sought to revise the Town Bylaw regarding Human Rights Commission to simplify their origin statement, clarify how the bylaw applies to all persons, make administrative changes, clarify mission and actions of the commission, amend definitions, clarify duties and procedures, protect members, and allow the Commission to pursue grants. As this was removed from the Consent Agenda, the Moderator asked the member making that request to speak first.  TMM Trembley was called upon, and he noted that he was puzzled by many of the provisions.  However, he spent a good amount of time today discussing the article with TMM Carney, and many of his questions were addressed.  He is concerned about the difference between "equal" and "equitable", believing that one is for outcomes and the other is for the playing field.  The Moderator recognized SBC Diggins to help explain the difference.  The Moderator also realized that it might have been appropriate to gave the Select Board an opportunity to introduce the article first.  (SBC Diggins thought it was fine to proceed as we had.)  TMM Foskett raised a Point of Order to note that the article was not before us on Zoom.  That was corrected.  The Moderator also noted that he had not started a speaker clock.  TMM Trembley would take the rest of his questions offline.  TMM Mozina asked if both terms, "equitable" and "equal" could be used.  The Moderator did not accept that as a proposed amendment from the floor.  TMM Heigham moved to terminate debate.  This requires a 2/3 vote of the meeting to bring the article to a final vote.  TMM Harrelson had a Point of Order that he had not heard the motion seconded.  TMM Foskett noted that there were three names on a prior screen as seconding the motion.  TMM Bloom raised a Point of Order to ask if we were to be voting in waves.  The Moderator thanked her for the reminder, and indicated he would do so.  The motion to end debate passed 206-25, so we moved to the main motion.  The server connection was really slow, then it appeared to really crash (505 and 503 errors), but in the end, after many more delays, voting was closed, and the article was approved 234-7.

Article 7 sought to create a Young Arlington Collaborative to encourage the youth and young adults to participate in local government and enhance their representation.  TMM Franzosa, and Josephine Almond, co-chairs of the study committee made the presentation to the meeting.  The study committee had been formed under article 17 at last year's town meeting.  They are proposing a standing committee based on the Envision Arlington model with several task groups.  Each precinct will choose 2 members, one youth (12-20) and one young adult (21-39).  Engage! Educate! Empower!  Ms. Almond noted that the town's youth and young adults are concerned about the future, and this will provide a way for them participate and collaborate on many issues.  TMM Hamlin spoke in favor of the article with appreciation for those who worked on the article.  TMM Kaepplein wants to know why we are codifying ageism by excluding older adults from the Collaborative.  If older adults feel young at heart, will they be eligible?  Will there be equitable participation?  TMM Franzosa indicated that there would be working groups that would include other residents from all age groups.  Ms. Almond noted that this increases equity by allowing the youth to participate, rather than being discriminatory.  TMM Muldoon from the Election Modernization Committee noted that they were unable to integrate youth into their work.  She was glad to see this moving forward, and she wanted clarification about how members would be selected.  TMM Franzosa noted that the first round of members would be selected randomly from names put forward from each precinct.  The final approval will be confirmed by the Select Board.  TMM Preston thinks this will be a good article.  She really got on the speaker list to protest that her vote was not recorded on Article 6.  The Moderator reviewed how to request support.  TMM Fiore asked if CORI checks would be required, and if so, how would they be administered.  SBC Diggins noted that the school system can administer the checks, and Town Counsel had reviewed the issue.  TMM Tosti moved to terminate debate, and the motion was seconded.  TMM Wagner had a Point of Order to ask if a call to end debate should take precedence if there are earlier speakers working through technical issues.  The Moderator ruled that we would proceed with the vote to terminate debate, which passed 217-22.  This brought up the vote on the main motion, which passed 241-3.

>> The upcoming article had lots of debate which I had to paraphrase on the fly.  If I didn't fully portray the nuance of an individual's comments, I sincerely apologize.

After our break, we opened with Article 8, which would establish an Arlington Civilian Police Advisory Commission charged with serving as a civilian resource and forum for increased trust and understanding between citizens and the Arlington Police Department (APD).  SBC Diggins expressed the Select Board's deep appreciation for the thoroughness and thoughtfulness of the board in their work.  TMM McKinnon introduced an amendment (the McKinnon Amendment) to include additional training for members in equity, cultural humility, implicit bias, and language access.  TMM Vakil presented an amendment we jointly prepared (the Klein-Vakil Amendment) to strike changes made by the Select Board and restore the original recommended language of the study committee to preclude former law enforcement officers from consideration as a committee member.  TMM Gitelson, Co-Chair of the study committee noted the committee met 17 times over the past year, and conducted interviews and targeted outreach to many groups around town  met with the APD leadership and unions.  The APD has a well deserved reputation for excellence, citing several examples of ways our police are showing leadership in progressive police operations, policies, and training.  However many residents are reluctant or uncertain about how to comment on the department, both negatively and positively.  They recommend a civilian commission to work with the department from a civilian perspective.  The commission would work to make the operations of the department more transparent to make them more accessible to the residents, including making data about the workings of the APD more visible.  TMM Bloom raised a Point of Order asking whether we discuss the amendments first, and then discuss the motion?  The Moderator said no, we discuss them all together. TMM Trembley was initially concerned that there was no police on the Board.  He sought the Chief's perspective.  APD Chief Flaherty thanked the study committee for their work over the past year.  She was grateful to their efforts.  She thanked Town Counsel Heim and DEI Director Harvey for their essential contributions.  Having an advisory committee will increase the quality of the APD's work.  However, she thinks having someone with a law enforcement background on the committee would be invaluable.  Civilian advisory committees are becoming more common, and having police on the committee is common.  Where this is an advisory commission, having someone with a law enforcement background would be helpful.

 TMM Ciano had three questions.  First, will members be unpaid volunteers - yes.  Second, will the commission conduct hearings and render decisions,  or just facilitate communication - the later; they are a liason with no say in discipline.  Third, how will this be brought to the town's attention - probably on the town website.  Lastly, the members will get training; what insurance will cover them if they are injured while serving on the commission?  Town Counsel noted the town carries limited insurance, but the town is self insured against most liability.  If someone is injured while serving the town, the town would pay.  TMM Ciano is in support of the motion.  TMM Hamlin noted this is a review focused model.  Can we specify what link to law enforcement would be accepted.  Town Counsel indicated there is a definition of law enforcement officer (peace officer) under state law.  He also noted that there are no proposed reserved seats for any category of member; the proposal only excludes certain groups from being considered.  TMM Hamlin asked what does oversight mean in this context?  TMM Gitelson noted the commission will report to Town Meeting, but will not conduct investigations.  TMM Kerble introduced Bob Radochia, a resident of Arlington.  He noted that one of the charges was to gather data on adjacent communities.  He presented statistics about the size of the town and the police in relation to nearby communities.  Only Cambridge has an oversight board.  He said the current process between the Chief and the DEI Director works well, but he acknowledged that it only did so if you are willing to speak up.  He thinks the proposed commission will be viewed negatively by the officers.  He does not think it is appropriate.  TMM Zuckerman agrees with the article and the McKinnon amendment.  She emphasized that language access is important.  She is an interpreter, and the town website does not offer translation services.  (The Moderator made a scope check.) She tied it back to the proposed requirement for language access training.  TMM Pretzer thought that there was a risk of residents feeling uncomfortable if there was an officer on the commission.  Ms. Harvey, the DEI Director said she was very impressed with work of the study committee.  She does not believe former law enforcement officers would be helpful in the establishment of the committee.  There would absolutely be a place later on, but at the start, it could interfere with trust building.

TMM Fischer notes that this is to be a civilian advisory commission and technically, police are civilians too.  He is in support of the main motion and both amendments.  TMM Culverhouse supports both amendments, especially the McKinnon amendment.  It is important for the board to have the cultural competency to support the underserved and marginalized.  This commission will build trust between the community and the APD. TMM Harrelson is in favor of the McKinnon amendment as well.  He knows from experience that recognizing bias is hard work, but it is essential skill to be able to do the work the commission is tasked to do.  TMM Varoglu is in favor of the McKinnon amendment.  The other training already in the article is based on police policies and procedures, so this provides good balance.  TMM Dray thanked proponents of the amendments.  This is not a punishment for the APD.  It will strengthen the relationship between the town and APD.  She wanted to know about research about whether to allow or disallow retired officers to serve on the commission.  TMM Newton, the Clerk of the study committee noted the research looked at other boards and commissions.  TMM Ryan-Vollmar indicated the study committee spent considerable time discussing questions about law enforcement participation with other committees in other towns.  They all agreed that no current officers should serve, as it is a conflict of interest.  However former law enforcement officers, officers who served with distinction can have a future place on the commission.  As Ms. Harvey explained, building trust is the first issue to be addressed, and having a former officer could make that more difficult.  Ms. Harvey concurred.  The Town Clerk interjected that there needs to be an administrative change, that this will be Article 16 in the Town Bylaw, not 15.  (Article 15 was appropriated to the previously approved warrant article.)  TMM McCabe moved to terminate debate.  TMM Weinstein raised a Point of Order that although the motion to terminate debate was seconded, there was no call for it to be seconded.  He wanted to bring this to the Moderator's attention as is is important to the process.  The Moderator agreed to do so in the future.  The vote to end debate passed 205-31 with 3 abstentions.

TMM Baron raised a Point of Order to review what the McKinnon amendment included.  The Moderator had it brought to the screen.  TMM Gruber raised a Point of Order to clarify that the change proposed in the McKinnon amendment is a change to training not qualifications as stated by the Moderator.  TMM Wagner had a pair of Points of Order.  First, could the full text page be displayed for visibility.  Second, when he cast his vote while waiting on a Point of Order, his place in the queue was changed.  The Moderator took note of the issue.  The McKinnon amendment passed 202-33 with 5 abstentions.

TMM Bloom raised a point of Order that with so many screens, it can be hard to tell if your vote has been accepted.  TMM Mozina had a Point of Order that the Moderator had mentioned the name of the wrong amendment.  TMM J_Worden wanted clarification whether the Klein-Vakil amendment would add former police or exclude them.  It was explained that the amendment would remove former law enforcement from eligibility.  TMM J_Worden asked that the Moderator be clearer on the motions.  TMM Baron raised a Point of Order to ask the Moderator to read the text of the amendments.  TMM Kaepplein raised a Point of Order on whether the inclusion of additional training in the McKinnon amendment would be out of scope, and he also wanted to know who would pay for the training.  The Moderator indicated the writing of the warrant article provided latitude, and he found the amendment to be in scope.

The Moderator called for the vote on the Klein-Vakil amendment.  TMM Rosenthal raised a Point of Order to request that the Moderator clarify what a yes vote would do and what a no vote would do to try and address the confusion on this and future articles.  The Moderator explained the votes.  When voting was closed, the Klein-Vakil amendment passed 156-76 with 5 abstentions.  TMM McSweeney Raised a Point of Order and noted that he voted believing that the Klein-Vail amendment did the opposite of what it did.  TMM Wagner had a Point of Order that there is confusion because of the way that the amendments were presented.  The final vote on the main motion with both amendments passed 214-18 with 3 abstentions.  I noticed reconsideration on Article 8.  TMM Preston raised a Point of Order that her vote didn't get recorded.  However, the Moderator was able to confirm that it was.

TMM Foskett moved to adjourn, which was seconded.  We are done for the evening

>>  That was an OK night.  Only three articles, but they were all consequential.  The voting system had a bad night.  Votes took a long time, and that led several members to be concerned that their votes were not being counted.  I don't know what can be done to improve the reliability of the system, but whatever it is, we need to look into it.

>> On Article 6, the call to end debate came very early, but since the only reason we were discussing the article was that it had been pulled from the consent agenda, and that member had an opportunity to speak, I thought it was appropriate to move on. I voted in favor of the changes to the committee, as they are presented by that body in an effort to better serve the town.

>>  TMM Wagner raised an interesting point at the end of the debate on Article 7.  There was a member who was high on the speaker list, but technical difficulties prevented her from speaking.  If things had gone correctly, she would have spoken before the call to end debate.  As it turned out, she was unable to participate.  I voted against ending debate, but my side did not prevail.  I voted in favor of the main motion, as I think finding a way to include the youth of the town to help plan the future is valuable.

>> I thought the debate on Article 8 was very good.  It is a difficult decision.  I had proposed the amendment with TMM Vakil to allow the meeting to see the language that the study committee had recommended.  The Select Board amended the language, and we sought to revert it to the original language.  I had agreed with the DEI Director that at the start, it was important for the commission to be as welcoming as possible.  Once trust has been established, then the commission can adjust its focus to include the direct participation of former law enforcement on the commission.  I voted in favor of both amendments and for the amended main motion.

>>I realize that my amendment with TMM Vakil raised a tremendous amount of confusion.  There were lots of requests to display the text on screen and to read the text.  I felt that it really showed that members hadn't read the amendment before the start of the meeting.  As Town Meeting Members, it is our obligation to read the materials and be prepared to debate and vote at Town Meeting.  All these materials have been in the annotated warrant for at least 48 hours.  Please review the materials beforehand.  It makes the meeting run much smoother.

2022 Annual Town Meeting - Night One

Welcome back to Arlington Town Meeting. Tonight is Monday, April 25, 2022, and it is the first night of the 2022 Annual Town Meeting. We have 77 articles on the warrant, which will take us many nights.

 There was a dress rehearsal last night for members to practice participating in Town Meeting. It was also our new Moderator, Greg Christiana's first time in front of the hall, so to speak. We wish him well, and hope that we have a fruitful and expeditious meeting.

 For those of you who might be new to this blog, this is my personal journal of my time on town meeting. It is not intended to be authoritative, nor is it intended to be without personal opinions. It is my record of my experience. (Time out for the attendance vote.) I make this blog available to the public primarily to allow my constituents in Precinct 10 to know how I am voting on articles, so they can decide if they want to return me to town meeting in the future. As fewer reporters have been reporting first hand on the goings-on at town meeting, I have tried to include more of the discussion on articles and adding explanations where they might be helpful. That said, This is my personal journal, I am not a reporter, and I ask you to view this blog through that lens. Please. 

I am typing during the meeting and after the meeting, so I may not be consistent with my verb tenses. Sorry for that. I will also be naming members by their last name preceded by TMM indicating Town Meeting Member. Where there are multiples with the same last name, I am inserting a first initial. I am also typing fast before going back to proofread. If I missed anything, I apologize. 

It is still a few minutes early. Members are logging on and indicating that they are present by adding their vote on the Attendance Check-in. The system we are using this year is very similar to last year. The moderator has just joined us, and we should be starting shortly. There appears to be 217 members present out of the 250 members. (It appears that precinct 9 might have two vacancies.) The Moderator welcomed us to the 215th annual town meeting. He noted the choice to be online was made with difficulty. He thanked the prior moderators John Leone and John Worden, and asked all of us to conduct our business with civility and kindness. He also acknowledged those members of town meeting and their spouses who have passed away in the past year, and asked for a moment of silence. I personally will miss Brian Rehrig who was a great mentor in learning how to serve the town. He and Roly Chaput really set me on my path. I also note the passing of Lyman Judd, who was one of the most entertaining members of Town Meeting I have ever known. 

 The opening invocation was delivered by Rev. Erica Richmond from First Parish. She made a brief land acknowledgement, recognized the ongoing observance of Ramadan and the recent observances of Passover and Easter. We then entered a moment of quietness and reflection. She asked for guidance and patience as we embark on town meeting. Rev. Richmond encouraged us to see the good in each other, recognize the difficulties faced by members of our community facing challenges. She acknowledged the conflict in the Ukraine. She called on us to trust the decency in others, and encouraged us to find a path forward to a better future, a radical hope borne from difficult times. In our small corner, we are encouraged to do what we can to make things better. Blessed be. 

Next up is the swearing in of newly elected members, myself included. This is so much better in Town Hall. We usually have a large round of applause at the end. It is different to do it quietly at home. We then had the Menotomy Minutemen on video. The video was taken by ACMi at a previous meeting in Town Hall. I am thinking it must be many, many years old, as the young boy is now two years out of high school. They performed the Star Spangled Banner as we sang along. (It was nice to see some of the members who have passed away in the video. I even got to see me.) 

Up next is the most consequential vote of the meeting, the vote to allow Town Meeting to meet remotely. This vote is required under State Law. If we vote this down, we cannot meet online, which will throw everything into turmoil, as it appears there might not be a Plan B. The Moderator has indicated that this will be an unusual vote, as a negative vote will end the meeting. He will open the floor for questions, but has asked members not to make arguments in favor or in opposition. TMM Wagner raised a Point of Order to request that members can see each other during the meeting by appearing as video instead of a static image. The Moderator said had hoped to do so, but there were some technical obstacles that would introduce a delay before each speaker. TMM J_Worden raised a point of order to ask if people could rise to speak for or against this motion. The Moderator said no. State Law does not specify whether debate is required, only that a vote is required. Mr. Worden reminded the moderator that we are not in Communist China, which the Moderator acknowledged by reminding the former Moderator that everyone will have a vote. There were no further questions, so we moved on to the vote. I was very reluctant to meet online this year, as I really feel the experience is very different and much better in person. However, now that everything has been arranged to meet remotely, changing the format back now will throw a colossal monkey-wrench into the works of Town Meeting. The voting went slowly, as the server got bogged down when everyone tried to vote at the same time. The motion passed 207-26 with three abstentions. 

 >> A good note to all TMM's: I went away from the vote screen before my vote was completed, and I didn't realize that my vote hadn't been counted. I only noticed it when the Moderator was displaying his screens. I had time to fix it, but it is important to make sure your vote is submitted and acknowledged before moving on. 

The Select Board Chair made the annual request that the standard list of officials and other people important to the proper conduct of Town Meeting be allowed to be present "within the enclosure." The Town Clerk acknowledged that the meeting was duly called, and the Select Board Chair asked that should the meeting not be completed tonight, that we continue to Wednesday. There were no announcements, so we proceeded to the State of the Town Address. We then briefly backtracked to enable the Raise Hand feature so people could indicate if they had an announcement. Again, there were none, so back to Article 2. 

Mr. Diggins, the Select Board Chair acknowledged all volunteers and members for their service to the town. He thanked the staff, representatives, and elected officials. He is filled with pride and admiration for our town. There were many accomplishments this year. He thanked our Director of Health for her work keeping the town safe. We celebrated Juneteenth for the first time. We welcomed a new superintendent of schools. The first wing of the new AHS opened. We re-precincted the town to try to make Town Meeting more reflective of our town. Every precinct held an independent precinct meeting this spring. The affordable housing developments on Broadway and at Downing Square opened. Several housing and transportation plans were completed and approved. The artistic and cultural resources of the town were very active. The former senior center will reopen next week as the Community Center. Our long-term town manager has announced his departure. Town Day will return on Sept. 17. We also need to consider an override, which he noted as a conjunction of two four-letter words. The Chair reiterated his pride and admiration for the town, noted the state of the town is good, and stated he is confident a great future ahead. 

The Moderator recognized that he took some items out of order, and he would now go back to rectify those issues. The request to allow appropriate people to be in the enclosure needed to be seconded, which it now was. He then asked if anyone was in opposition, would they please raise their hand. There was one objection, which was withdrawn. We also needed to second the motion to continue to Wednesday at the end of the evening. That was now seconded. Objections were tallied by raised hands, and again, there were none. 

Next up was Article 3, the acceptance of reports of committees. This is very important, as the reports contain all the recommended votes before town meeting. The reports were all received in a single action, and the article was lain upon the table. It will stay there until the end of the meeting, only taken up to accept additional reports. 

Article 4 is the appointment of a Measurer of Wood and Bark as required under Mass General Law Part 1, Title 15, Chapter 94, Section 296. TMM Foskett nominated TMM J_Worden, as the longest serving member of Town Meeting to be the Measurer of Wood and Bark. The nomination was seconded. This brought us to Article 5, but there is a point-of-order. TMM Wagner asked why there was no vote (a la the Soviet Union) for the Measurer of Wood and Bark. The Moderator noted that the nominee was unopposed, so a vote was not required. TMM Helmuth nominated TMM Auster to be Assistant Town Moderator under Article 5, which was seconded. There were no other nominees. There were no objections put forward, so there was no formal vote on the sole nominee. TMM Auster was reelected. 

The Moderator took a moment to acknowledge several administrative corrections which have been added to Novus, the Annotated Warrant online. Town Counsel introduced himself to explain the administrative corrections. There were a few sections left off of article 12 in the printing. Article 16 had a redundant subparagraph (a). He also noted that subparagraph (d) should include the year 2025, not 2026. There were several errors under article 18. He reiterated that all of these issues are corrected on the annotated warrant. The Moderator paused in case there were any questions in regards to the proposed changes. TMM Jamieson apologized for his mischaracterizing a phase-out as an encouragement in his notes on the Consent Agenda. TMM Mozina asked why the current title screen still indicates we are on the previous article. The Moderator explained that there isn't a specific agenda item to discuss the corrections, so the system keeps displaying the prior article. She asked how corrections and amendments would be presented going forward. The Moderator said notice would be sent to the TMM email list, and added to the annotated warrant. 

Next up is the Consent Agenda. This is a subsection of the articles in front the the meeting which are unlikely to be controversial, so we are recommended to bypass debate and just move to a vote on those articles. There is a period for members to remove specific articles from the Consent Agenda if they wish to discuss the articles. TMM Leone raised a point of order in opposition to requiring two members to remove an article from the consent agenda. He felt that even if only one person wants to address an article, they should be allowed to be so. The Moderator noted the different options considered for the requisite number of votes. He settled on two, as he felt one was too few and five were too many. He appreciated TMM Leone's opinion, but he will retain the two vote requirement. The Moderator introduced a different procedure for holding an article from what was practiced at last night's dress rehearsal. The software developer introduced a new feature earlier today to expedite the process. Ms. Wayman, the staff member running the meeting behind the scenes gave a brief description of how the process would run. There would be 30 seconds in which to click the remove button for each article. 

Following the first article, TMM P_Worden had a point of order. After a long period of "can you hear me", she asked where the button was to second a removal from the Consent Agenda. The Moderator explained that there is a "Remove from Consent Agenda" button which registers all requests for removal. She didn't think that was appropriate as a second is different from the primary request. The Moderator noted this was the best on short order. TMM P_Worden wanted to second, but not to be listed as primary. The Moderator explained that the first name on the list would be called on to speak on the removed article. TMM Babiarz is at her first town meeting, and wanted clarification on the difference between a vote of no action and voting down an article. The Moderator explained that a vote of no action has no recommended vote to discuss, so we only vote to acknowledge that we are not acting on them. Any other article with a recommended vote can be discussed and voted up or down. The only way to discuss an article with a recommended vote of no action is to provide a substitute motion. The Moderator reminded the members that a point of order is not there to ask questions, but it is to raise an issue with the meeting that cannot wait until another time. We then had a point of order from TMM Jalkut, who recommended adding some time after the first vote for withholding to allow time for a second. Some want to second to be in support of anyone holding an article, but they cannot do so if that first vote comes in at the end. TMM Weinstein had a simpler recommendation, that the voting clock only start after the reading of the article. The Moderator was favorable to the recommendation. 

TMM J_Worden explained that the feedback noted earlier was due to his headphones not working. The Moderator indicated he would ask tech support to give him a call. TMM Heigham noted it was break time. She also asked that there be debate on the voting procedure before it going into effect. We are now on break. 

>> This is the part of Town Meeting I miss most. During break, we could get a cookie, a cup of coffee, and catch up with friends and colleagues. We could also ask questions of town officials and proponents of upcoming articles. Without that interaction, I felt like there were more questions being asked through alternate channels last year, especially through the Point of Order. I hope we can avoid that this year. 

We are coming back from intermission. We are still on the Consent Agenda and deciding whether we should remove Article 9. TMM J_Worden removed the article with TMM Wagner, and since the recommended vote was for no action, TMM J_Worden will present a substitute motion. Article 11 was removed by TMM's Moore and Kaepplein. Article 14, recommended for no action, was removed by TMM's J_Worden, Trembley, and P_Worden, so TMM J_Worden will offer a substitute motion. Article 19 was removed by TMM's Schlichtman, Kaepplein, Tanaka, and Doctrow, and TMM Schlichtman will need to provide a substitute motion. Article 20 was removed TMM's Schlichtman and Tanaka, and TMM Schlichtman will need to provide a substitute motion. TMM DiTullio raised a Point of Order that he has a conflict of interest with the vote on Article 25, and asks to be allowed to vote on the Consent Agenda but be listed as not participating on this particular article. He had discussed this option with Town Counsel. However, TMM's J_Worden, Trembley, and Leone removed the article, so the conflict was moot. TMM Tosti noted that there were not votes to remove noted at the 20 second point when TMM DiTullio called his Point of Order, only after. For clarity, the Moderator returned to re-vote on 25 to confirm that there are multiple votes to hold. TMM's Leone, Weinstein, Tremblay, and Quinn voted to remove this time. 

Back to Article 27 which was removed by TMM's J_Worden and Muldoon. At this point, the Moderator asked to return to Article 6 so it could be considered using the same procedure as was now being applied to the subsequent articles. Rather than just holding a 30 second window for all votes, he had been holding 20 seconds for the first vote, and if there was one, he would hold the vote for additional time to allow for a possible second. Article 6 was removed this time by TMM's Trembley and Wagner. TMM Bloom raised a Point of Order to confirm that Article 52 was being discussed at the May 11 Special Town Meeting. TMM Foskett indicated that is correct, as by voting on this financial article during the Special Town Meeting would allow the funds transfer to be in effect before the end of the fiscal year. Article 57 was removed by TMM's Wagner and J_Worden. Article 60 was removed by TMM's Kaepplein, Trembley, Weinstein, and Tosti. Article 65 was removed by TMM's Friedman and Evans, which brought us to the end of the articles on the majority vote Consent Agenda. 

TMM Friedman raised a Point of Order to request that the articles on or off the agenda be listed, even if just by number, even orally would be helpful. The articles remaining on the majority vote Consent Agenda were announced as the following: 18, 21, 22, 23, 46, 47, 52, 56, 58, 59, 61, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, and 70. TMM Jamieson raised a Point of Order to note that he had inserted the list into the Q&A. We are finally ready to vote on the shortened Consent Agenda, which passed 227-2 with 2 abstaining. I voted in favor, wishing that more articles had stayed on the agenda. This is our best path towards a speedy Town Meeting, but I also acknowledge that if members really want to discuss these articles, we need to do so. Immediately after the vote, TMM Foskett served notice of reconsideration on the financial articles just passed on the Consent Agenda. The Moderator explained that a member who votes on the prevailing side of an article can serve notice of reconsideration which allows calling for a future vote to reconsider the vote on that article. The vote to reconsider an article is a 2/3 vote. 

Next up is the Consent Agenda for articles requiring a 2/3 vote. These are usually zoning articles and financial articles requiring an appropriation or bonding. There was a Point of Order from TMM Rosenthal noting that there was a timing issue recording the requests to remove articles from the Consent Agenda. The Moderator agreed to restart the voting on Article 32, and it was removed by TMM's Rosenthal and Band. Article 33 was held by TMM's Phelan and Band. Article 34 was removed by TMM's Leahy, Benedikt, and Band. Article 36 was removed by Band, Babiarz, and Melofchik. Article 37 was removed by TMM's Mozina, Tosi, and Babiarz. TMM Weber raised a Point of Order to confirm that Article 35 was staying on consent agenda, as she thought the Moderator indicated it was removed. The Town Clerk confirmed that the Moderator may have misspoken, as the article did remain on the Consent Agenda. Before the next action, TMM Phelan raised a point of order asking if we had missed a couple of articles. The Moderator noted that those intervening articles had not been selected for the Consent Agenda, and they would be brought up for discussion in the normal course of articles. Article 45 was removed by TMM's J_Worden and Wagner, and TMM Worden will provide a substitute motion. Article 53 was removed by TMM's Anderson and Leone. Article 54 was removed by TMM's Band and Leone. 

The articles remaining on the 2/3 vote Consent Agenda were numbers 31, 35, and 40. TMM Foskett raised a Point of Order to confirm articles 53 and 54 are removed, and the Moderator confirmed that they were. The vote on the motion was 229-1 in favor. Again, TMM Foskett raised a point of order, but this time, it was to move to adjourn. The motion was seconded by the Town Clerk, and we were adjourned until Wednesday.

>>I thought the first night went ... OK. We spent a lot of time on procedures, but that can be anticipated on the first night, especially with a new Moderator. I thought it was significantly better that the dress rehearsal the night before. (I was really discouraged after that meeting.) We do need to find a way to tighten up the down time. We also need to clamp down on the misuse of the Point of Order. A Point of Order is there to allow a member to interrupt another member with something so important, that it supersedes the politeness of allowing the other to speak. I feel that is a high bar. Asking routine questions is not a proper use of the Point of Order. I thought it was somewhat restrained tonight, and I encourage members to not cry wolf and use it when needed. If you have a factual question, reach out to the article's proponents before the next session. If you are new and learning the ropes, make a fellow member a mentor on town meeting procedures and actions. We are all striving to do what we believe is in the best interest of our constituents and our town. I'm looking forward to Wednesday to see how we proceed with the regular order of business. There are some important votes coming up, and I am looking forward to a productive debate.