Welcome to Night Three of the 2022 Annual Town Meeting. The Moderator called us to order at 8:04 pm. The Star Spangled Banner was played beautifully by Katya Shubochkin, AHS Class of 2022. TMM Kaepplein was thanked for recommending her to the Moderator. The Moderator noted that he had received several notices from members that they were confused by the voting on Article 8, especially the amendments. He asked proponents of amendments to be much more clear about the purpose and intent of their proposed amendment. The Moderator led new members through the Town Meeting Oath. (Does the Moderator have a small dog? There is a lot of barking in the background.)
SBC Diggins was recognized to move that the meeting, when adjourned would continue to Wednesday, May 4. Article 3 was taken off the table to receive reports. TMM Thielman submitted the Arlington High School (AHS) Building Committee report. He reported that over 2,000 people visited the new wing of the building last Saturday during the open house. He noted there are many educational entities at the AHS apart from the high school. The first portion of the project was delivered on time and on budget. The new STEAM wing has been open since February vacation. Due to the financial situation, the residents' tax burden has been reduced. The change to a guaranteed maximum price contract on the project has served the town well as there have been no overages due to inflation or Covid-related issues. The contractor is now starting phase two. They will start with demolishing the old Coulomb Building and Lowe Auditorium. He thanked Town Meeting and the community for their support.
TMM Rowe submitted the report of the Community Preservation Committee. With no other reports to be submitted, the article was returned to the table.
Article 9 was on the consent agenda with a recommended vote of No Action. TMM J_Worden requested that it be removed from the consent agenda with the requirement that a substitute motion be submitted. That was not done. TMM J_Worden was brought to the floor this evening to provide his substitute motion. He claims no knowledge of how it happened that the Moderator would think he requested the article be removed from the consent agenda. The Moderator asked if there was opposition to the recommended vote, those members should raise their hand. It was a unanimous vote for no action.
Article 10 was an article to strengthen the existing tree bylaw. It sought to increase the types of building projects requiring action under the tree bylaw, to decrease the size of trees triggering action, and to clarify the requirements for the required tree plan. TMM Stamps presented the existing bylaw, and explained how the revisions would impact residents. TMM Weber asked what the procedure would be if there are trees that need to be cut down for safety. TMM Stamps responded that the bylaw would only apply if there was demolition. TMM Gruber wanted to understand if the revised tree bylaw would protect houses potentially redeveloped should Article 38 pass. TMM Stamps indicated it would, to the extend that development might require the removal of trees. The Moderator asked the speaker to stay on scope. TMM May-Klughaupt moved to terminate debate. When voting opened, we all jumped to vote, and the server crashed. It came back, and the vote to end debate passed 206-26 with 2 abstentions. The main motion passed 222-10 with 2 abstentions.
Article 11 sought to amend the town’s Domestic Partnership bylaw to expand who can qualify for partnership benefits, extend certain town leave benefits to employees in partnerships, set limits on liability, and coordinate with state and federal law. This article was removed from the consent agenda last Monday by TMM Moore. A Point of Order was raised be TMM Dray who asked about the policy regarding what can be posted to the annotated warrant. An opinion piece was attached, which does not appear to have been done in the past. The Moderator noted this has been inconsistent, and he would post a policy tomorrow. SBC Diggins spoke in favor of the article on behalf of the Select Board. TMM Ryan-Vollmar spoke to the article. She spoke to its initial adoption last year, and explained the origins of the domestic partnership movement. This bylaw change would allow a partnership to survive the death of one member. It would extend town employee benefits to partners. The change would also allow partnerships among partners who are not sharing a dwelling. She spoke to the many challenges she and her partner had to overcome to live their lives like others take for granted. She asked that the Moore amendment be denied and the main potion passed. TMM Kaepplein raised a Point of Order that he was the first on the speaker list, but he was removed from the list. He sought clarification on when the list is cleared. The Moderator said he would look into it. TMM Moore introduced his amendment, which would limit benefits to employees and their partners who reside with them, and not to others who are not resident. He is concerned that this benefit could be abused, because there is no size limitation on a partnership. His amendment would have allowed the current requirements of living together and sharing living expenses to remain. The Moderator opened the speaker queue. TMM Meeks started with a personal note that he brings his scientific background to Town Meeting. He has spoken with many people trying to understand the article, and he believes it is related to fear. There are only five days available for bereavement leave. He personally experienced fear in trying to live his life as others are allowed to do. He encouraged anyone who is fearful to come join him for tea. The Moderator implored the members to be mindful and respectful of the wide breadth of opinions on this subject. We were reminded to be civil and polite.
TMM Newton sought to determine whether this article could impact any marriage law in any unanticipated ways. TMM Ryan-Vollmar noted that she had spoken with the lawyer who successfully brought marriage equality to Massachusetts, and she thought this would have no impact. TMM Newton is against the amendment and for the main motion. TMM Tosti was for the article last year. This year, it is open to everyone. Domestic implies home, and that would not be a requirement anymore. The proposed change would be overly broad and would be a cost to the town. He guaranteed that health care would be up for a vote next year, a statement that was rebuked by the Moderator as being out-of-scope. TMM Gitelson asked that the proponent explain the range of benefits which would be involved. Paid parental, sickness, and bereavement leave are the benefits involved, and fears of wild escalating cost are unfounded as the number of days involved are set by state or federal law. TMM Gitelson asked if the benefits compare with married couples. TMM Ryan-Vollmar noted that the fight is worth it as the costs are low and the impact on the partnerships is profound. TMM Gitelson noted that the definition of domestic also includes families, which is what this article is about. She opposes the amendment and supports the article. TMM Jamieson raised a Point of Order to remind members to announce name and precinct, and that all questions are to be directed through the moderator. TMM Stamps raised a Point of Order and asked whether it was appropriate to note that the current bylaw is being misrepresented by speakers. The Moderator ruled her out-of-order, since she was arguing a position. TMM Henkin spoke in favor of the main motion. The requirement to live together forever is not a requirement for marriage, neither is sharing expenses. Many younger people live together and many live apart, and not being in the same house all the time is not a requirement for being committed. This isn't creating welfare queens; this is supporting families. TMM Foskett sought to object that some speakers are demonizing those who oppose them. The Moderator asked him to rephrase his question, but he noted that others are being accused of fear-mongering. He asked whether this bylaw would be enforceable across state lines. Counsel Heim noted that there is reciprocity to neighboring communities with similar partnership laws, but it is difficult to know how they would be supported elsewhere. TMM Foskett noted that the partners need not be married. He raised a concern that this could be considered polygamy. Would this violate polygamy laws? Counsel Heim noted the state is not considering domestic partnerships to be the same as marriage, nor is the definition of marriage being rewritten. It is unclear. TMM Foskett is proud that the town has domestic partnerships, but he wholly opposes the article. At this point, we took our break.
Back from break, the next speaker was TMM Zhu. She sees two angles: what could go wrong and what could go right. Cambridge's law does not require shared residence or shared expenses, and there don't appear to be any issues. The impact of any possible abuse would be minor. Having more partners does not grant additional leave. There are valid reasons why partners could need to live apart. The benefits are tangible and meaningful to those involved. She supports the motion and opposes the amendment. TMM Mann rose in opposition. She is a lawyer and past regulator and worked on marriage equality. Having multiple partners is a choice, not a characteristic. She opposes using the civil rights platform to support polyamorous relationships. She believes it is a radical change to allow partners who are married to other people. A broad definition is not required nor needed to implement legal protections. TMM Trembley (cannot hear, but it could be due to loud background kitchen and typing noises) wanted to know if all partners need to appear together in order to apply. TMM Trembley was muted and tech support summoned. TMM Levy moved to terminate debate. A Point of Order was raised by TMM McKinnon to clarify that the motion to terminate debate would extend to both the amendment and the main motion. The Moderator explained that was the case. The motion to end debate was denied 150-86 (63.6%) which failed to reach the 2/3 majority required.
The debate continued with TMM Stamps who co-wrote a memo with TMM Mann. She came at this from a legal perspective. She felt there were two major components which were not discussed. With the proposed changes, a domestic partnership could be expanded to include someone who is married or in a different partnership or in many other partnerships. In her research, this proposal is well outside the norm under other state laws. She asked to have Town Council confirm whether her representation is accurate, which he did. She then asked whether the current bylaw affords rights to partners, which Council Heim concurred. TMM Stamps stated that this is not about marriage, it is about being in loving communities. She is not judging, but this could be extended to other benefits, and she believes that is the desire of one of the advocacy groups supporting the article. TMM Dray asked the Moderator what the proponents thought about describing this as a choice rather than an intrinsic class. TMM Ryan-Vollmar felt the assertion that polyamorous relationships are seeking to be a class is not under consideration. TMM Dray asked about Cambridge's and Somerville's experiences. Counsel Heim does not have experience in this matter. TMM Dray asked whether TMM Meeks might have knowledge on the topic. He also does not know directly, but he suspected that if there had been an issue, he would have heard about it. TMM Dray thanked TMM Meeks for his prior remarks, and she sought to understand how reciprocity would apply in this case. Counsel Heim explained that reciprocity allows for the bylaws applicable in one town would apply in another town. This is not guaranteed. TMM Dray noted that after compensated leave, any employee can take uncompensated leave. She is in favor of the main motion.
TMM Pretzer, a member of a domestic partnership, was proud of the Town's support of these relationships. He had a situation where he had to go overseas for an expended period, which could have put his partnership in jeopardy. He did not think we should consider limiting potential rights on the concern that there could be something fishy in the future. He encouraged everyone to oppose the amendment and support the main motion. TMM Trembley is back online, hearing again, and he asked whether all members of a partnership need to appear before the Town Cleak together? Clerk Brazile said she requires all the members to appear in person with identification. TMM Kaepplein said he learned last time that equity isn't equal, and he opposes the abuse of language here. He noted communes are similar, except the people have to live together and share in the expenses. This is friendship with benefits, legal benefits. The Moderator objected to what is implied by calling it "friends with benefits." TMM Kaepplein felt this is applying a new definition to an existing term. There are benefits to having friends. He opposes the article. TMM Brown appreciated the breadth of the discussion, but noted that this is about how people define their family. She relayed a story about her relatives who were married but lived in a separate house to preserve their marriage. They visited every day for 50 years. This is what we are discussing tonight. This protection allows them to be with their families. She opposes the amendment and approves of the main motion.
TMM Rosenthal also lives in a world of science, and he is often not of the same opinion as others. He felt that TMM Meeks' comments encouraged him to oppose the amendment. However, equal application of rights is important. Under state law, married couples are responsible for each others medical bills. The main motion would protect domestic partners from the medical expenses of the partner. He hoped the proponents would support this same protection for married couples. TMM Dunn is in favor of the article and opposed to the amendment. This is about families. TMM Heigham moved to terminate debate. TMM Weber raised a Point of Order to confirm whether the last group of precincts would be announced as ready to vote. Those precincts have much less time to vote. The Moderator agreed, and would work to make the voting more equal. The motion to end debate passed 204-28 with 2 abstentions. The Moore Amendment to preserve the existing residential and financial requirements of the existing bylaw failed 59-171 with 9 abstentions. TMM Weber raised a Point of Order that her screen hadn't refreshed after the amendment vote, but she was able to vote by phone. The vote on the main motion without amendment passed 162-68 with 9 abstentions.
TMM J_Worden raised a Point of Order that the vote numbers were not spoken. Clerk Brazile read the vote totals. The Moderator called for notices of reconsideration. TMM Foskett motioned to adjourn, which was seconded. We are adjourned until Wednesday.
>> Overall, I thought this was a good night, although we didn't make it very far. Another three articles down (one which was a vote of no action), and another 46 to go. At this pace ... we're screwed. However, these are all articles of real substance, and the debate has been lively and productive. There were some opportunities for the Moderator to step in and ... moderate the tenor of the discussion. I also thought the use of the motion to end debate was used judiciously. I had concerns last year that it was used too often too early, which really stifled debate. This year has been better, but my opinion could change if we are looking at meeting in June.
>> On Article 10, I voted to terminate debate. It might have been a little early, but this was a fairly simple article. I think this brings clarity and teeth to the bylaw, so I voted in favor of the main motion.
>> Article 11 is a difficult decision. I understand the perspective that many people expressed that this is overly broad and could be open to abuse. This is exactly the same argument used to curb voting rights. I found the speakers who spoke in support of families persuasive, especially in regards to times when partners may not be able to live together. I voted to terminate debate both times. I voted against the proposed amendment and for the main motion.
No comments:
Post a Comment