Welcome to the 2022 Annual Town Meeting Night Four. I'm feeling a bit under the weather tonight, so I am glad to be participating remotely. On other nights, I really missed the ability to read the room and see if there was confusion on everyone's face. (That would have helped on Article 8.)
We started the evening with a discussion by the Moderator on what a Point of Order really is. It is something which is so critical, it justifies interrupting someone else's right to address the meeting. If there are questions about procedure or other topics which can wait, please reach out to the Moderator between sessions. He also noted we are going slowly. Members were encouraged to prepare remarks ahead of time, and speak quickly and concisely. Thirdly, our voting controls will cycle to hopefully reduce the errors we've been having.
SBC Diggins moved to continue the meeting upon adjournment to Monday, May 9. He also wished "May the Fourth" be with us in our work this evening. Cole and Owen Morgan played the Star-Spangled Banner on fifes. It was really impressive. "Arlington's Got Talent!" said the Moderator. Next was the call for announcements. TMM J_Worden asked to release his hold on Article 14. There was some confusion, as the proponent of the article was no longer a town meeting member. This article will now be heard in order as a vote of no action. TMM Foskett removed Article 3 from the table so the meeting could receive reports. TMM Varoglu put forward the report of the Remote Participation Study Committee. He explained the mission of the committee, to discuss hybrid meeting modes for town boards and committees. They are proposing a pilot program for this fall. There has been a benefit to having meetings remotely, as more people can easily attend. However it also sets some new barriers to participation. They are encouraging the town to invest in spaces and technologies which could allow hybrid participation. There would also be policies and procedures developed. If you are interested in the pilot, please reach out to TMM Varoglu. TMM Foskett put the article back on the table.
We started the work of the meeting tonight with Article 12 which proposed to ban the sale of single-use water bottles at retail establishments in town. TMM Diggins noted the Select Board unanimously approved this article. It would be better if the Commonwealth would act, but our moving forward with this article will allow us to do our small part. TMM Slotnick noted his committee started as the Recycling Committee, but it was reconstituted as the Zero Waste Committee to adjust its mission to try to reduce the use of polluting materials. We cannot recycle our way out of the problem of too much plastic. Jennifer Campbell, a member of the Zero Waste Committee narrated a video prepared by the committee explaining the idea behind the article and what the article is proposing. Only 20% of single use plastic bottles are recycled. We were encouraged to drink tap water from reusable containers. Twenty-one other communities have passed a similar ban. The committee is working with local retailers to understand their needs and try to mitigate the impact of the ban. TMM Wagner introduced his amendment, which would reset the minimum bottle size from larger than one liter to one liter. He noted this size is multi-use, and it would make the transition easier on retailers. His motion was seconded. TMM Babiarz introduced her amendment which would delay the effective date for a year to allow more time for the installation of water fountains and other infrastructure. It would also allow businesses the time to find ways to recoup the losses from eliminating the water bottles. TMM J_Worden raised a Point of Order that the screen hadn't refreshed to show the button to speak. He is now on the list, but very low on the list. TMM Rosenthal had the same issue. The moderator inserted them in the middle of the queue. TMM Heigham raised a Point of Order that everyone had that problem, so allowing some to jump the queue is unjustified. The Moderator decided to proceed with the queue as it is with the two adjustments. TMM Allison-Ampe noted she also had that problem, but as the Moderator requested, she posted her issue to the Q&A rather than raising an unnecessary Point of Order. Counsel Heim noted that if this article is passed, it will be Section 11, not Section 10 as noted in the text. There is also a typo. The Moderator asked if the changes were in the Annotated Warrant. Counsel said no, which is why he was bringing them up here. The Moderator asked the text be displayed to make it easier to understand. (It was way easier with the text in front of us.)
TMM Ciano had a few questions. He is for it, but doesn't understand why the Federal Government doesn't do something, and why this isn't contrary to the Commerce Clause. He also wondered why it didn't extend to other beverages and fluids. Counsel Heim noted that the state rendered a long opinion on this topic. It was determined that a town was addressing a local environmental condition, which did not involve interstate commerce. The Moderator ruled the second question out of scope. (TMM Slotnick noted the water bottles are the biggest source of pollution, so that was why they limited their article to those bottles.) TMM Ciano is concerned about the impact on local stores, so he is in favor of the one year delay. TMM Tosti raised a Point of Order to note that his copy of the Selectman's report is missing the final sections of this article. Clerk Brazile noted there was an administrative correction restoring the sections which is on the annotated warrant. TMM Sankalia, a member of the committee, noted that one of the goals of the committee is to reduce the use of plastics. She introduced Jonathan Forbes, a resident of Arlington and a high school student. He leads a group at AHS that is trying to mitigate the environmental issues before their generation. The town does not have the infrastructure to recycle all the plastic waste we create, so we need to reduce the use of plastics. TMM Baron asked about other packaging of other beverages. The Moderator ruled her out-of-scope. She noted the a UVM Study where reduced water bottle use was exceeded by the use of other bottles in replacement. TMM Ballin, a member of the committee, sought to address questions about alternate sources for drinking water. He noted we have excellent tap water. There are a number of initiatives designed to provide tap water in public areas and promote restaurants who make free water available. He recognized that the town has older, damaged fountains. The town is working to replace them with newer, more durable units. Rep. Garballey was able to secure $50K for water filling stations in town. The town has a plan. TMM Kaepplein stated that residents are tired of regulations on plastic use. He recommended installing the drinking fountains first, then consider eliminating the bottles. He asked if there is any Arlington produced plastic identified in ocean pollution. He says it comes from Asia. That was declared out-of-scope. He brought up "virtue-signaling", and was quickly silenced by the Moderator. He gave his remaining time to TMM J_Worden. He noted that fifty years ago, there were environmental articles brought forward, including a bottle deposit. The Moderator checked his scope. TMM J_Worden noted that his point was that the town has a history of trying to reign in pollution.
TMM Baron raised a Point of Order that her question wasn't answered. The Moderator responded that it was addressed, and he would follow up with her offline. TMM Schlichtman raised a Point of Order that we do not allow the yielding of time. The Moderator would look into it. TMM Rosenthal is concerned about pollution, but he thinks this article is discriminatory. Diabetics could be unable to find a beverage they could consume, if only sugary drinks are allowed. He would support a wider ban after drinking fountains are installed. TMM Allison-Ampe rose in opposition, as she feels that this could create worse issues. In the absence of water, people will shift to sugary beverages which are not covered by the ban. Obesity from sugary beverages leads to many health problems, which lead to hospitalization, which leads to far more significant use of medical plastics. She would approve of a wider ban. TMM Schlichtman moved to terminate debate on all matters. The vote to terminate debate was the first use of the new waved voting system. It went very smoothly for me. The motion passed 197-37 with three abstentions. The Moderator tried valiantly to explain TMM Wagner's amendment, and came through in the end. The Wagner amendment, to allow the sale of one liter bottles failed 95-145 with one abstention. TMM Pennarun asked about the pacing of the vote, as this vote did not appear to go in waves. The Moderator explained that voters in the first wave won't notice the waves, but the later waves would. The Babiarz Amendment, to delay the implementation by a year, failed 77-162 with one abstention. The Moderator indicated we would take a break after the vote on the main motion. That vote passed 199-42 without abstention. After noting that we are on pace to only address two articles tonight, the Moderator encouraged us to cover more ground before taking our break.
>> The Town always plays a performance by one of the schools' performance groups. This evening, it was a 1999 pops performance by the concert band. Fun to see my son playing onstage again.
Article 13 was a resolution encouraging limits on the use of facial recognition software, seeking increased state action to limit use, and setting expectations for local government. SBC Diggins noted the Select Board unanimously supported the text of the resolution. (The Moderator noted in an aside that he had a discussion with the technology department, and it appears that the software supporting the speaker queue assigns a temporary place when multiple requests come in, and then assigns them a final place. It would appear that the order is being manipulated, but it is just the software playing catch-up.) TMM Fischer, the proponent of the article, confirmed that this is a resolution, not a bylaw amendment. He spoke to the many problems with facial recognition software. We don't live in a surveillance society, and use of the technology would put many of our rights at risk. Under state law, there is a method for having the RMV identify a still image. However, the law is silent on surveillance. The resolution encourages the legislature to act on the recommendations of a state commission recommending curtailing of this procedure. The Moderator noted that he didn't realize that this was a resolution. In an effort to move quickly, the Moderator asked speakers to be brief. TMM Hamlin agrees with the resolution. TMM Trembley is concerned by federal and state use of facial surveillance. He wanted to know if this applies to a change at all levels of government, or would it only apply to the town. The Moderator noted that the resolution calls for three actions. TMM Fischer noted the resolution called for state level action and the establishment of a policy for the town. TMM Henkin spoke in support. It is important to state the values of our town and protecting the privacy of our residents. The Moderator, in an unusual move, asked if anyone is looking to speak in opposition. Seeing none, TMM Babiarz asked if facial recognition can be used to identify people at risk as an emergency situation. Counsel Heim noted the resolution does not address regulation, just a more broad statement regarding ongoing surveillance. Identified as rising to speak in opposition, TMM Kaepplein asked if there is any evidence of Arlington residents being harmed by facial recognition. The Town Manager noted that since we don't use the software, no one has been harmed. The Moderator asked for someone in the speaker queue to terminate debate. TMM Levy was brought forward to do just that. TMM Stamps raised a Point of Order that no one has spoken against the article, since TMM Kaepplein didn't actually oppose the article. The vote to terminate debate passed 213-21 with two abstentions. (TMM Wagner raised a Point of Order during the vote, while the Moderator accidentally explained the main motion. At one point there were a dozen or more such points.) This brought us to the vote on the main motion, which passed 213-16 with seven abstentions.
Article 14 was a recommended vote of no action to create a Civic Engagement Group to research insurance costs and issues. It had been taken off the Consent Agenda, but TMM J_Worden asked to rescind the removal. In the absence of a substitute motion, the vote to approve no action passed 213-11 with twelve abstentions.
Article 15 would require the DPW to notify abutters of non-emergency street work on public and private ways that the work will be occurring. SBC Diggins noted this is first of several noise abatement articles. Giving proper notice to abutters is only proper. TMM Schlichtman noted this came about after multiple instances of early morning interruptions. TMM Carlton-Gysan noted that there is ongoing work on her street, and she did receive notice. She asked why this is being proposed. TMM Schlichtman noted that the bylaws required the DPW to give notice to the Town Manager, which wasn't always happening. The Town Manager re-characterized this as codifying current practice. TMM Trembley was curious if this isn't moot. How much will this cost? Do we need to hire more people. The Manager noted there would be no cost implications. TMM Tosti moved to terminate debate. That motion was approved 233-7 with one abstention. The vote on the main motion passed 216-15 with two abstentions.
Article 16 would amend the current leaf blower bylaw to require transition to all-electric units in 2025. Violation reporting and penalties are included. SBC Diggins joked that you can hear him now, because there are no leaf blowers going. This article would just serve to reduce noise levels. TMM Friedman raised a Point of Order that there is a reference to 2014 which should be corrected. The Moderator noted that this is a part of the original text of the existing bylaw. Counsel Heim confirmed that there was no issue with this reference as it is irrelevant to this discussion. TMM White introduced Alicia Russel, a resident of the town, who is the proponent of the article. Her connection was very limited, which made it difficult to hear her. The Moderator asked if she could somehow call into the meeting. Tech support was trying to resolve the issue. Town Counsel asked if Anne Goodwin, a resident of the town could address the meeting in her stead. She noted that the proposal would phase out gas powered leaf blowers during summer months. Their noise is very loud and penetrates buildings. It is worse for the operators. They are highly polluting. Electric is already being phased in in many places. Enforcement could be a challenge. Transitioning away from gas will make for a quieter town. TMM Goldstein introduced Ms. Goodwin to present her two amendments. Her first amendment would extend the residential phase-out to 2026. The seasonal use of gas models would be allowed in the spring and fall. Her second amendment restricted the municipal exemption to properties under an acre in area. TMM White moved to amend the main motion for both Goodwin amendments. TMM Friedman introduced her amendment to allow residential users to use a gas blower throughout the transition period. TMM Brown proposed an amendment to prohibit the use of commercial and municipal leaf blower use on Saturdays to respect those religions who use that day as the sabbath. This is an issue of equity and respect.
There was a call for notices of reconsideration. Seeing none, there was a motion to adjourn. Without sizeable objection, we are adjourned.
>> We covered four articles tonight and started a fifth. That is a little better. We are getting into a little bit of a rhythm. The change to voting in waves worked really well. I never saw the waiting screen, nor did I see a server error screen. Kudos to the Moderator.
>> On article 12, I voted in favor of both amendments. I do a lot of work with a local park group, and I am very concerned about having this implemented effectively and safely. The one liter bottles would have been a practical solution, but that amendment failed. In the absence of a practical alternative, I sought a delay to give the town more time to provide a solution. The last time this came before Town Meeting, there was an exception for public events. That option was not provided this time. That amendment also failed. I do support the motion, so I voted in favor, and I will keep pushing the town to provide an option.
>> Article 13 was a really simple choice. Facial surveillance should just not be allowed as standard practice. This could have gone by faster, since everyone speaking was in favor.
>> Article 15 is a very practical matter. I liked the difference in characterization between TMM Schlichtman and the Town Manager. I am glad this has been resolved.
>> I look forward to the debate on Article 16. The amendments are confusing, so as the Moderator suggested, there is homework to be done this weekend.
No comments:
Post a Comment