Welcome to Night Thirteen of the 2022 Annual Town Meeting. Short of some major breakdown in decorum, we will finish tonight. There are four resolutions still to go, and then Article 3 can be voted. There should be a motion to reconsider Article 62 to decide whether to fund a project to make accessibility upgrades to a church. Depending how that goes, it will either be a short night, or it will be a very long night.
The Moderator called the meeting to order. The Start Spangled Banner was played by TMM Tanaka. The Moderator noted that this had been a very long annual town meeting. He appreciated everyone's forbearance in staying the course. He hoped we would meet in person next time. He is planning on surveying the members to ask he could make improvements. People have been participating from a wide variety of locations: home, hospital, overseas, almost anywhere. Democracy is important and requires diligence. Thanks to town staff, committees preparing reports, and those putting forward articles and gathering signatures. SBC Diggins moved that should we not finish tonight, we continue to Monday. The "raise hands" feature was not enabled in time for consideration, so we did it again. The Moderator declared it a vast majority in favor. There was a call for announcements and resolutions. TMM Kelleher had an announcement from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. The fund was created to foster affordable housing. She invited members to participate in the community engagement process to create an action plan for the fund. There is additional information on the trust fund website. Ms. Roberts, a trustee of the fund described the community engagement process. There will be an online and in-person survey. After July 4, there will be listening sessions for underrepresented groups. She noted that Town Meeting was overwhelmingly in support of creating the fund. They are looking for funding sources including the proposed transfer fee which is still awaiting a home rule vote from last year. TMM Jefferson wanted to acknowledge the work that our Town Manager, Adam Chapdelaine has done on behalf of the town. He wished him the best on his future endeavors.
Article 3 was taken from the table to receive reports. TMM Sankalia from Zero-Waste Arlington presented the report of the committee. She thanked members for their support for Article 12. She welcomed members and residents who would be willing to work with the committee. Volunteers are always welcome. TMM Stamps presented the Tree Committee report. The committee has used the tree inventory and management plan to continue planting trees, 150 in both the spring and fall seasons in the last several years. The Tree Warden has been focusing on lower income areas and heat islands, areas with fewer trees. The Community Canopy program is able to offer reduced cost trees to residents. They are a;ways looking to continue getting more trees in the ground. They have initiated a tree watering program with many volunteers to keep new trees watered. Interested members and residents can look to their website for how to volunteer. Thank you to everyone for their support. Article 3 was returned to the table.
Article 74 was a resolution in support of the Massachusetts Fair Share Constitutional Amendment. If ratified, the amendment would impose an additional tax of 4 percentage points on the portion of a person’s annual income over $1 million. The Moderator reminded the meeting about the different rules for discussing resolutions. SBC Diggins noted that the Select Board voted unanimously in favor. It will increase the wealth of the Commonwealth, benefiting everyone. He ended with a cute haiku. TMM Bagnall introduced Ms. Hanson, a resident and teh proponent of the resolution. She thanked the Select Board for their support. She considered the proposed amendment from TMM Slutzky to be friendly. She asked that the video be played. The video explained that this amendment could be a substantial benefit. The state constitution does not allow a graduated tax. This would create a surtax for transportation and education. It would create long-term investment while addressing the growing wealth gap. She urged support for the resolution and voting in favor of the constitutional amendment in the upcoming state election. TMM Slutzky introduced an amendment to add language to be more inclusive in regards to early developmental support and the accessibility of play areas. This would appear in one of the "WHEREAS" sections, which indicate why the resolution should be supported. She moved acceptance of her amendment.
TMM Kaepplein rose in opposition. He sent out a letter earlier this evening. A tax on millionaires has an appeal, but many residents will be hurt. It has previously been turned down at the state level. It has been declared unconstitutional in the past. The state funding is fungible. Funds raised by this surtax will go to transportation and education, but the state can reduce the funding for the same priorities coming from traditional sources. Right now, the state has a surplus, so there is no need for additional revenue. The amount of money anticipated to be raised is far in excess of what would be raised. This would drive people and businesses out of the state. Those people will no longer be contributing financially or intellectually to the state. Raytheon is moving its headquarters to Virginia, and the high earners would be encouraged to follow. Venture capital could go to other states. If you sell short term investments, you yourself could be required to pay. It could hurt children. We already have a high inheritance tax unless the funds are sheltered. This will hurt many residents with one-year windfall events like selling a house. This is a tax without a need, the money raised won't increase the money spent on the stated priorities, and so, he encouraged a no vote. A graduated tax is not equitable. The Moderator noted there was a question about speaking time. He explained that since this was an article, the standard seven minuets would be afforded to each speaker. The Moderator asked if there were any members seeking to speak. He wasn't sure if no one wanted to speak, or if no one put forward their names, because the Moderator said no one would be allowed to speak until after a negative vote to terminate debate. There were still no speakers, so we proceeded to the vote on the Slutzky amendment. The Moderator was asked to not encourage speakers. He noted that he wasn't encouraging someone to speak, he just wanted the members to understand that they could request to speak. The vote passed 147-46 with twenty-two abstentions. This brought up the main motion as amended, which passed 165-28 with twenty abstentions.
The Moderator noted that no one had requested to speak in opposition to the remaining resolutions. However, there were questions submitted, which he will ask of the proponents.
Article 75 was a resolution to have the town commit to increasing the diversity in the appointments to town committees, boards, and commissions. SBC Diggins noted the Select Board voted unanimously in favor. There were some questions about how to bring this to fruition. They will work harder to seek out candidates. TMM Dray noted that resolutions are non-binding, but they acknowledged the desires and aspirations of the town. This one asked the town to fully enjoy the wide variety of experiences of the residents. It would add a tool to the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) toolkit. Arlington has often confirmed its commitment to tackling challenges and reducing barriers to participation. Last fall, the Select Board voted to redraw precinct boundaries with diversity in mind. The final decision on appointments should take diversity into account. Diverse committees make better decisions due to their broader experience. Participation can lead to increased inclusion in all town matters. This focuses on the appointing authorities who can have the most direct impact. There were questions for the Select Board from TMM LaCourt. What steps will the SB take to improve the list of candidates? SBC Diggins noted they would more broadly advertise positions, and establish a clearer policy regarding selection. He was not certain of what specific policies would be considered. The second question was very good, and I was unable to document all three parts in real time. SBC Diggins noted that the Select Board would need time to discuss and develop real policies that can lead to real goals. Why were proposals not included in the report to Town Meeting? SBC Diggins noted that we should do that in the future. TMM Dray noted that many of those questions would be addressed through the Equity Audit to be undertaken this year. Why will passing this resolution do anything? SBC Diggins hopes it will. Doing nothing isn't really helpful. We need to try. TMM Klein moved to terminate debate, in support of the Moderator's process for moving resolutions forward. The vote passed 189-14 with two abstentions, so we moved to the vote on the main motion. TMM Bloom raised a Point of Order to ask a question about the wording of the warrant article text. There was a typo, which the Moderator indicated would be corrected administratively. The resolution passed 177-12 with 17 abstentions.
Article 76 was a resolution to declare that the Alewife Brook was a valuable natural resource area for Arlington residents, degraded by sewage contaminated discharges, and it urged Town officials to take actions to support the clean up of Alewife Brook. SBC Diggins noted that most of the Board lived or lives in East Arlington, and they voted unanimously for the resolution. TMM Anderson and TMM White founded Save the Alewife Brook, a grass-roots organization focused on improving the quality of the Alewife Brook. She thanked many people who have worked over the years to improve the conditions. She asked that her video be played. Combined Sewer Overflows (CSO's) were explained. Rain causes an overloading of the sewer system causing overflows of sewage into the brook. During floods, sewage flows into the neighborhoods bordering the brook. The state has been encouraging Cambridge to separate their sewers for over 100 years. The 1983 Boston Harbor Cleanup settlement has not brought much relief to the Alewife Brook. Discharges are increasing as storms become more intense. There is an opportunity to bring change within this decade. Arlington is not in the discussion, because it doesn't contribute to the problem. This resolution will show that the town supports these actions to end the discharges. The Moderator noted there was no one requesting to speak in opposition. There were questions from TMM LaCourt. She asked how this resolution will lead to work on the CSO's SBC Diggins said the town will pressure the MWRA to act. It is more advocacy than action. The EPA is telling the MWRA to act now in the face of climate change and increased discharges. Residents are looking for the town to act in support. How will the Select Board be held to account under this resolution? SBC Diggins noted that the Select Board should consider how they act in regards to all resolutions. There should be the development of a set policy. The Moderator sought a motion to terminate debate, which was provided by TMM Rowe. The vote was 200-8 with two abstentions in favor of terminating debate. The vote on the main motion was delayed several times due to the servers being overloaded. The vote was 197-1 in favor with twelve abstentions. The Moderator declared a five-minute break.
Article 77 was a resolution to to encourage the adoption of an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Policy for the Town that in part prohibits the use of certain rodenticides on Town properties, provide for educating the public about rodenticide hazards to human health and the ecosystem, and establish such provisions necessary to effectuate a policy to protect Arlington's residents and wildlife. SBC Diggins noted unanimous support for this resolution and the earlier article (#18). He made concluding remarks for serving as Select Board Chair for the meeting. TMM Crowder thanked fellow proponents and the meeting. This is part of a pair of articles seeking to reduce wildlife exposure to pesticides. Three great horned owls in Menotomy Rocks Park died last week, likely due to rodenticide exposure. This policy will provide valuable support for getting the use of these pesticides prohibited within the town. We will still need state approval of the earlier article. There were no speakers in opposition. TMM LaCourt asked why the Select Board needs the town to pass this resolution. They can do this anyway. SBC Diggins noted this is essentially DPW policy. The Select Board can set goals for the Town Manager and see how well those goals are met. He understands the tension between resolutions and policy. We encourage residents to be more engaged, and we should support them when they do unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise. If there was a better way to do this, we should pursue that as well. There were no speakers in the queue, so we moved to the vote on the resolution. It passed 185-3 with twenty abstentions.
That was the end of all the articles (except #3). The Moderator noted there is now nothing new before us. The Moderator asked members to raise hands if they wish to make a motion to reconsider an article. TMM Ruderman noted that he fully understood the full scope of everything town meeting has done so far this year, and he asked the meeting to continue for a brief period longer to reconsider Article 62.
TMM Bergman raised a Point of Order noting that the wrong screen was displayed, as it indicated we would be reconsidering Article 77. There was some confusion about how to proceed with entering this into the voting system. A decision was made, and the speaker queue was opened. TMM Ruderman presented the outline for why reconsideration ought to be considered. He said there is new information and a way to act upon that new information in a manner that meets the Community Preservation Act's (CPA's) requirements. The new information was in regards to a consultation with Town Counsel indicating a three-part test for determining whether aid to a religious institution should be allowed. Two of those tests are that the grant may not serve to provide regular aid to the church. He had reached out to the church to see if the grant would create a benefit to the general community. They found the response lacking. The congregation has every intention to allow their space to be used for public activity. There is intention, not action; words, not deeds. The proposal fails to meet the test. Further, should members feel this funding is inappropriate, Town Meeting can amend the appropriation by the CPA, so there is a way to effect this change. We should remove the money from consideration. The Moderator introduced Town Counsel as he was mentioned in the previous speaker's remarks. Counsel appreciated that everyone is restrained by the limits of the motion. He walked through his remarks. His memo and the CPA application are available to the public. The town cannot exclude a religious institution from a grant program solely because it is a church by the free exercise clause. The Moderator interrupted to ask that the memo be displayed. Counsel continued that grants can be awarded, so there is a three-part test to determine whether the funds can be provided withoout violating the separation of church and state. The purpose test is to confirm that the funds are not used in the founding, maintaining, or aiding a religious organization. The second test is the substantiality test, confirming that the grant would not substantially aid the group. Thirdly was the risk test, making sure to avoid the risk of creating an improper entanglement with the organization. The Moderator asked whether Counsel had an opinion in regards to TMM Ruderman's assertion that the application didn't meet that. Counsel noted that the decision was the CPA Committee's; he just set the stage for their deliberation.
TMM Moore had reviewed the Counsel memo. He asked whether the CPA Committee performed that test, and if so, what was their determination. TMM Rowe, the Chair of the committee noted they did review the three factor approach. She noted that the minutes do not reflect that, but the committee was very concerned and deliberate in confirming that the scope of work would be limited to accessibility upgrades for an historic structure, as they would do for any other non-profit organization. They just needed to demonstrate a public interest in the work being performed. She said they were very careful in reaching their decision. The church provided documentation of their activities with the community. Other people might disagree, but she firmly believed the appropriation was appropriate. She noted that although there is a member of the CPA Committee who lives on the same street as the church, none of the members are congregants. If you have questions, please ask them when the report comes out, not in June. TMM Moore noted that there is no new information. The committee did its task in a timely manner, and the memo was available in December. This is not a case for reconsideration. The Moderator noted it is difficult to assess whether there is new information, when it has not been submitted. He reintroduced TMM Ruderman to further define the new evidence. TMM Ruderman noted that the knowledge of the test is new. There is no evidence of the application of the test in the record. There is no evidence of public use of the space. We are not addressing historic restoration. The new information is the method of testing, which we can use to balance the determination of whether this is maintenance. TMM L_Heigham raised a Point of Order, that there was nothing in the previous speaker's remarks that was new. She wasn't sure this was an appropriate point. The Moderator ruled her point out of order, as it wasn't appropriate.
The Moderator called for a raising of hands to see if there was a desire to end debate, and over 50% did so. He decided to put it to an official vote. TMM Wagner raised a Point of Order that he objected to the rules being changed at the end of the meeting. The Moderator noted the objection. He called on a member to motion to terminate debate, which she did. (The Zoom screen did not bring her up as a speaker, so I missed the name.) The vote was 168-28 in favor of terminating debate with five abstentions. There was a Point of Order from TMM DiTullio who asked what the standard is for reconsideration. The Moderator noted it is up to members to consider whether there is sufficient new information for themselves. The criteria are broad. There was some confusion about whether the voting item had been previously created. A new item was created, so voting could proceed on whether to reconsider Article 62. TMM Rosenthal raised a Point of Order that the phone number to submit votes was quoted incorrectly. The Moderator apologized, and provided the correct number. The vote was closed, and the motion to reconsider failed 79-121 with four abstentions.
TMM Foskett moved to take Article 3 from the table. With the article before us, and there being no additional reports, there was a motion to dissolve the meeting. There were no objections, and the meeting was dissolved. The Moderator thanked everyone for their participation, and he hoped that the next time we got together, it would be in person. The meeting is dissolved.
>> Thank <insert your deity or lack thereof here> it's over!! That was way too long. I would imagine the Moderator has a new appreciation for the reason's his predecessor ran the meeting as he did. We are an unruly bunch, and many of us like to talk. I felt at the start, everything was about transparency. In the end, we had a new set of rules for how things were going to be done in favor of expediency. It would be great to be a debating society, but in the end, we really just need to get the town's business done.
>> I wholeheartedly agree with TMM Jefferson's appreciation for Adam Chapdelaine's contributions to the town. He will be missed, and I wish him well.
>> I missed my chance to note that the Director of Planning and Community Development, Jennifer Raitt left as of Friday, and today, she received the Housing Hero award from the Massachusetts Housing Partnership. They cited her work and the work of her department towards creating a full suite of plans from the Master Plan, to affordable housing, to sustainable transportation. She cultivated a tremendous staff, and she leaves the town more prepared to face the future than when she came. She was a tremendous resource to the ZBA during the hearings for Thorndike Place and Artemis in the Heights. I wish her well in her new position.
>> Article 74, the millionaire's surtax is a reasonable approach to making our taxes more equitable. When I first moved to Massachusetts, the tax on earned income was 6%, and the tax on unearned income was 12%. Now everything is taxed equally. This would be fine if all expenses were apportioned equally, but they are not. The less well off spend a highly disproportionate amount of their income on housing. This proposed constitutional amendment would be more equitable. I voted in favor.
Article 75 to increase the diversity on town committees is a notable goal. How to do so is really the issue. I propose a stipend for attending meetings. I voted in favor.
Article 76 regarding the Alewife Brook is a crusade that we all need to get behind. What has been allowed to continue in the Alewife Brook is a disgrace. Anything we can do to pressure the MWRA to do something and stop cowtowing to Cambridge and Somerville is well worth it. Easy yes vote.
Article 77 on reducing the reliance on rodenticides is tragic in its need. There have been so many instances of raptors and other predetory birds being poisoned to death because their prey is chock full of poison. Anything we can do to limit their use is worth the effort. I voted yes.
The question of reconsideration on 62 was too little, too late. I empathize that giving money to a church looks suspect, but there are safeguards, and it appeared that they were applied. Reconsideration requires something new which we didn't have before. Having a memo issued last winter is not new. I though TMM Moore and L_Heigham were both correct in their assment. I voted against the motion, and I was glad it did not pass. I imagine there will be better, earlier scrutany of the CPA grants next year.
>> Thank you to all who read my notes and provided constructive feedback throughout this spring. I have always provided this as a way for me to remember what happened at Town Meeting so I can explain it to my constituents. Over this year, it really became more of a recording of what happened released early, so everyone could be quickly informed. Your Arlington does great reporting, and ACMi releases the video. TheAdvocate and Star is MIA. If we go back to being in person next spring, I will try to still keep notes, but people talk faster, so I will likely miss more. Best to all, and I hope you enjoy the summer, especially on Monday and Wednesday evenings.
No comments:
Post a Comment