2022 Annual Town Meeting - Night Six

Welcome to Night Six of the 2022 Annual Town Meeting.  Tonight is our Spring Special Town Meeting (STM).  I had noted in my last post why we hold a special town meeting during the annual town meeting, but my answer was not really correct.  My thanks to TMM Fuller for providing me with better information.  At the conclusion of a town meeting, annual or special, different types of articles take different paths to being enforceable.  Budget articles go into effect seven days after the dissolution of the meeting unless there is a filing of a referendum to overturn the vote.  This counting of days does not include weekends or holidays.  By dissolving the special town meeting as soon as practical, we make sure that the results are in effect before the start of the next fiscal year.  Articles relating to the town bylaws go the AG's office for review.  Home rule petitions go to the legislature for debate and action.  Those both go into effect upon approval by the state.  Zoning articles go into effect as of the date they are passed by town meeting unless they are disallowed by the AG's office.  This is to prevent developers from gaming the system by trying to take advantage of any provisions that are about to change.

The Star Spangled Banner was replayed this evening by TMM Tanaka.  The Moderator noted that we are holding the Special Town Meeting this evening.  After it is dissolved, we will then take up the budgets, then go back to Article 19 and proceed in order.  He asked members to use the Q&A to ask about procedures, rather than using a Point of Order, which chews up time.  The Moderator also introduced his new Straw Pole plan.  After 15 minutes of debate, the Moderator will call for a straw pole of the members to see if there is a strong sense of the meeting that we should consider ending debate.  By raising hands over Zoom, if at least 75% of members indicate they are ready to move on, the Moderator will call on a member in the speaking queue who raised their hand to terminate debate.  Several members have expressed concerns that shortening the debate could lead to only one side being heard.  The Moderator said he would make sure both sides had an opportunity before asking for an end to debate.

TMM Foskett moved to adjourn the Annual Town Meeting until the dissolution of the Special Town Meeting or Monday, May 16, whichever comes first.  There was no objection, so we are now in the Special Town Meeting.  SBC Diggins moved a list of people who are able to be 'within the enclosure."  The Clerk certified that the meeting was properly called.  SBC Diggins moved that should the STM not be completed this evening, it will continue to May 16.  The Moderator called for Announcements and Resolutions, but there were none.  TMM Foskett, Chair of the Finance Committee moved that his report be accepted.  Ms. Zsembery, Chair of the Arlington Redevelopment Board (ARB) moved that her report be received.  TMM Foskett moved that STM Article 1 be laid upon the table.

STM Article Two is a Zoning Bylaw Amendment to allow Family Child Care as an allowed use in all districts as is required under the "Dover Amendment" in state law.  Administrative review would still occur by the Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD) and state agencies.  TMM Rudick is in favor of the article, as he has 2 young children and is expecting a third.  He has experience in founding a day care, and verified that the state is very thorough in their review of these facilities.  TMM Nathan isn't sure what this is about and didn't have time to research the issue.  She asked if someone could summarize what this will do.  Ms. Zsembery noted the conflict with state law and this will remove the "onerous" requirement of needing a special permit.  Applicants would receive a simplified administrative review by the DPCD.  The Moderator further summarized the summary, and Ms. Zsembery clarified the response.  TMM Rosenthal said he received a communication from a constituent, which he summarized into the record.  The constituent spoke in opposition to the article as in her experience, home day cares are loud, they increases traffic, and they could reduce the selling price of neighboring homes.  TMM Mann moved to terminate debate.

TMM Wagner raised a Point of Order that this is STM Article 2, not 1 as had been previously stated.  The Moderator thanked him, and noted that items like this could be submitted to the Q&A.  The vote on the motion to terminate debate passed 192-26 with three abstentions.  The vote on the main motion passed 201-21 with three abstentions.

STM Article 3 was an article to amend the sign bylaw to allow non-accessory signage on electric vehicle charging and bike sharing facilities.  Ms. Zsembery introduced her video presentation on the article.  The current sign bylaw was approved in 2019.  Since then, there are new sign types to consider related to electric car charging and bike sharing.  Those uses often use paid advertising to offset the cost of supporting the infrastructure for these uses.  This article would allow that to be considered.  TMM Leahy asked if there would be limits on the number of these signs or on the allowed hours of illumination.  Ms. Raitt said there would be one sign per docking station and one sign per charging station.  Neither sign would be illuminated at night.  TMM Kaepplein has a number of questions and issues.  Under the article, the Select Board is to "approve" sign content.  He asked if that wasn't adverse to the first amendment?  Counsel Heim was unsure about content moderation.  The Select Board would not approve the message, just the content.  The Moderator asked who would choose the advertisers, but Counsel couldn't speak to that question.  Dir. Raitt, Director of DPCD noted that the Select Board would be making the decisions on location and use.  TMM Kaepplein noted that the town spent many years eliminating billboards and non-accessory signage, and he wonders why preference is being given to some entities but not others.  Dir. Raitt noted that possible sponsorships for the vehicle charging and bike sharing facilities would be advertised to find potential sponsors.  They would be similar to bus shelter signage or other similar signage.  Extensions to other uses are beyond the scope of the article.  TMM Kaepplein noted that there is a church with six signs when they are only allowed two.  His time ran out right as the Moderator was calling him out of scope.  TMM Quinn sought some explanation of what we would be approving.  How would they look different from how they look now?  Dir. Raitt noted that the stations would look the same.  The existing sign with a BlueBike image would remain, and the back side could have a different sign panel.  The sign holder is there now.  TMM Quinn summarized the Director's comments to make sure they were clear.  TMM Dray had a question about the financials.  How much money would be raised, and where would it go?  Will any of it go the the Town.  Dir. Raitt said any funds raised would go directly towards the maintenance of the program in town.  TMM Fosket had a Point of Order to ask whether the article includes a revolving fund to receive those funds.  The Town Manager noted that the establishment of a revolving fund would need to be approved at a future Town Meeting.  The Moderator admitted that was not a Point of Order, and he should not have allowed it.  At this point, the Moderator decided to try out a straw poll.  TMM Leone raised a Point of Order in regards to the Moderator's scheme to try and limit debate.  He did not think there should be an arbitrary time limit.  Members should be allowed to speak.  The Moderator noted that the members have a right to speak, a right to vote, and a right to request to terminate debate.  What is being proposed is similar to our regular practice.  (What was inferred here was that in the past, the moderator could move to end debate by calling on members who were known to present that motion.  The speaker list was private, so it wasn't clear that was happening.  Since the list is now open, and the Moderator had indicated he wanted to follow the list openly, there are fewer ways available to bring debate to an end.  The plan to use a straw poll provides a method for "reading the room" and seeing if the membership is ready to move on.  If it isn't, debate continues.)

TMM Nathan raised a Point of Order that she doesn't know the history, and things are going so fast.  It doesn't feel democratic.  The Moderator noted that it is democratic, since the members can express whether they are in favor of terminating debate or not.  Only if there is a 3/4 majority will the Moderator request that the next speaker call the question and bring forward a vote to terminate debate.  This straw pole failed, so the next speaker was to be named, but TMM Wagner raised a Point of Order  and asked how we could tell who voted and how many voted?  The Moderator noted that it is on the Moderator's screen, but not on a screen visible to the membership.  TMM Wagner asked that be implemented, because otherwise we just need to trust the Moderator to give us the number.  The Moderator noted that if he was untruthful, the vote to terminate debate would fail, which would look bad for him.  That is why he was looking for at least a 75% poll.

TMM Pretzer noted that it is important to promote alternate forms of transportation and encouraged a positive vote on the article.  TMM L_Heigham moved to terminate debate.  TMM Leahy raised a Point of Order to know if she is able to propose an amendment, and if so, how would she do it.  The Moderator noted that we have an open motion to terminate debate.  If the motion fails, then the speaker queue reopens, and a member may propose an amendment from the floor.  If the motion passes, there is no more debate and no opportunity to present an amendment.  (The 48-hour submission rule for amendments and substitute motions is there to make sure that the membership is aware that an amendment is coming, and it allows the Moderator to have that member speak early in the queue it move their amendment.)  The vote to terminate debate passed 174-50 with one abstention.  The vote on the main motion passed 172-51 with three abstentions.

STM Article 4 is a proposal to strike a section of the zoning bylaw which is at odds with state law.  Ms. Zsembery introduced her video presentation on the article.  Section 8.1.3(C) is proposed to be removed as it presently requires a variance to extend an existing nonconformity on a single- or two-family house.  State law allows this to be done with a determination by the local zoning board that the proposed extension is not substantially more detrimental, a much lower threshold for approval. TMM Jamieson sought to confirm that this just brings us into compliance with state law, which Ms. Zsembery concurred.  TMM Jalkut moved to terminate debate.  The vote passed 206-14 with three abstentions.  The Moderator offered to show all the voting screens if anyone raised their hand, which is what we did.  The vote on the main motion passed 213-9 with two abstentions.  We took our break a few minutes early.

Back from break, we started on STM Article 5.  TMM Foskett noted that last year the town moved money into the reserve fund in case additional funds were required by the School Department as they transitioned back from the Covid disruptions.  They did not need the money, so the vote is to transfer the money to the stabilization fund to offset next year's tax rate.  There were no additional speakers, so we moved straight to voting.  The motion passed 215-2 with two abstentions.

STM Article 6 would appropriate $100K to the Private Way Repairs Revolving Fund.  TMM Foskett noted that the town makes improvements to private ways, but the abutters have to pay for them.  The town has a revolving fund to expend and receive those funds.  The request is to provide working capital in the fund to initiate new work.  Those funds would then be reimbursed by the abutters.  TMM Revilak wanted to know which private ways we have been repairing.  Dir. Rademacher, Director of the Department of Public Works (DPW) didn't have a list on hand, but he offered to respond offline.  Deputy Town Manager Pooler noted Gilboa Road was the primary recipient of the prior funds.  The town is awaiting requests for future repairs.  TMM Franzosa sought clarification of whether the town is paying for these repairs or whether this is a placeholder.,  TMM Foskett noted the fund pays the vendors.  The abutters are charged for the work, but it takes some time for the payments to be made back to the fund.  It is really a working capital situation.  TMM Moore moved to terminate debate.  While the vote proceeded, there was a Point of Order from TMM Weber who wanted to know why the person who seconds a motion is not listed to the screen.  The Moderator indicated that he could see it, but it is possible that we are seeing something different.  It is likely a screen refresh issue.  The vote to terminate debate passed 202-20 with three abstentions.  This brought up the main motion which passed 219-5 without abstention.

TMM Foskett motioned to have STM Article 1 taken from the table.  TMM Foskett then moved to dissolve the Special Town Meeting.

---

Welcome back to the 2022 Annual Town Meeting Night Six.  TMM Foskett moved that articles 19-47 be tabled for the purpose of bringing up the finance articles.  TMM Schlichtman noted that Articles 46 and 47 have already been passed, so we are really tabling 19-45.  The Moderator concurred.  TMM Foskett accepted it as a friendly amendment.  There was only one objection, so we proceeded to Article 48.

Article 48 regards changes to the classification of certain employees which effects the number of employees in town and the amount of salary to be expended.  TMM Foskett presented the article, referencing the tables in the Finance Committee report.  TMM Friedman asked whether any of the changes represent new positions.  TMM Foskett indicated that it did include additions, but a more detail answer could be provided by Dir. Malloy, the Director of Human Resources.  She noted a few new titles.  TMM Friedman heard that new positions would be added to the budget in the following year.  She is looking to know the number of new positions.  TMM Foskett noted that the numbers adjacent to the positions listed in the report indicate that these are mostly slight adjustments to the FTE (Full Time Equivalent, i.e. one full-time employee) count.  TMM Trembley was curious about how this works.  He cited a listing where it appeared that a position was being increased in level, and the old level is being removed.  TMM Foskett noted that the requirements of the position may have changed, so the increase follows the change, while the older position is no longer valid.  TMM Trembley asked if there was a pay increase, would it be listed.  TMM Foskett indicate that it would be .  The Town Manager noted that in the case noted, the position was raised to a higher level.  The tables indicate the change, the creation of the new position, and the elimination of the former position.  There was some additional back-and-forth to understand how this works.  TMM Trembley asked if additional information could be provided next year to make this easier to understand.  TMM Moore moved to terminate debate.  The Moderator noted that unless there are objections, he would like to waive the display of the voting confirmation screens to save some time.  The motion to terminate debate passed 207-14 with two abstentions.  There was an objection to skipping the screens, so we proceeded through them all.  (We're talking about 30 seconds of potential time savings, as by the time the Moderator had confirmed that there was a raised hand, we had already reviewed four of the seven screens.)  The main motion passed 214-5 with one abstention.

The Moderator noted that we are now half-way done with the articles, but a big chunk of the progress was by the Consent Agenda.  We still have a long way to go.

Article 49 is to accept the results of collective bargaining and allocate funds to support those agreements.  TMM Foskett moved to table this article.  The Town has settled contracts with two unions and is still negotiating with a third.  It is anticipated that the negotiations could be concluded before the end of Town Meeting.  The recommendation is to table this amendment to see if it will be concluded.  It was tabled without objection.

Article 50 is the annual appropriation for Town Budgets as presented in Appendix B of the Finance Committee report.  TMM Foskett recommended that the Moderator determine which budgets members want to discuss.  We are asked to raise hands on a budget to request that we discuss it.  Holds were requested on the following budgets:  Finance Committee (1), Town Manager (3), Town Clerk (11), Planning and Community Development (14), Zoning Board of Appeals (16), Public Works (17), Police Services (19), Inspections (21), Education (22), and the Arlington Youth Counseling Center Enterprise Fund (E).  At the request of the School Committee, the Education budget was discussed first, as the Superintendent and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) were present this evening.  TMM Levy raised a Point of Order asking how TMM Foskett feels about the overall budget and the possibility of an override.  The Moderator moved that discussion offline.  TMM Exton, the Chair of the School Committee asked that the video presentation be played.  The schools had a busy year, including bringing on a new superintendent and opening new wings at Arlington High School.  The budget includes support for many aspects of a well-rounded education and positive student mental health.  Arlington spends less per student, but we also spend less on teacher salaries, which presents challenges for attracting and retaining teachers.  Dr. Homan, the Superintendent of Schools presented the budget and enrollment figures,   Mr. Mason, the CFO presented the figures on spending, salaries, and the budget distribution.  The schools are eliminating athletic and music fees, adding library staff, and adding teachers.  The Moderator asked to allow us to extend past 11:00 to complete this budget.  TMM Jamieson noted that during his precinct's spring meeting, parents mentioned that enrollment at Brackett was down and doesn't seem to be bouncing back.  Dr. Homan noted it is a trend for that elementary school and some others as well.  There is an anticipated rebound next year.   TMM Jamieson noted that the school took a large hit and has yet to bounce back.  The Moderator decided that rather than call names in order, he would call first on members who do not speak often.  (This was a departure.)  TMM Thornton was called upon, but she was looking to speak to a different budget.  TMM Slutzky thanked the superintendent for her work in the schools.  She is concerned about the low pay among paraprofessionals, especially in special education.  Dr. Homan said that there are funds set aside to raise those salaries in the next negotiation.  TMM Kaepplein noted that during the height of the pandemic, there were no furloughs in the School Department.  He stated that Brookline furloughed 196 employees, utilizing federal and state unemployment benefits to carry them over.  Why didn't the School Department do the same to try to save us money.  Dr. Homan noted that the teachers were working the entire time, teaching remotely.  TMM Kaepplein indicated his disagreement.  TMM Auster asked about the schools' role in the sustainable transportation plan and zero emissions plan.  What actions does the school department intend to take next year in support of those goals?  This could include promoting MBTA scheduling, improved bike infrastructure, or similar items.  The Superintendent noted they are purchasing two electric buses and providing more options for securing bikes at school and promoting safe biking routes.  TMM Rosenthal noted he attended the precinct 12-14 meeting where a mother expressed that Brackett is one of the least desirable schools, when it had been most desirable for a long time.  (Scope Call)  There was concern about maintenance of playground equipment, and a report that a student may have been injured.  He also asked about the comparison of compensation compared to neighboring communities.  He asked how much it would cost to bring all the salaries up to the median.  Mr. Mason said he doesn't know, but the proposed budget does not do that.  The district is looking to at least address those at the lowest end of the scale.  TMM Rosenthal asked that this information be made available next year.  TMM Maher noted that several speakers have noted that our teacher and paraprofessional salaries are lower than comparable towns.  For many years, we have heard that the discrepancy will be rectified.  It is well past time to address the disparity.  TMM Moore moved to terminate debate on the education budget.  There was a question whether this could be done, but we have done this in the past.  The vote to terminate debate passed 156-41 with eight abstentions.  That closed the Education budget.  The Superintendent and CFO were thanked for their participation.

TMM Foskett noticed reconsideration on Article 48.  TMM Benedict raised her hand to reconsider the termination of the debate on the Education budget.  The Moderator wasn't sure how that could happen, but he would look into it for Monday.  TMM Kaepplein gave notice that he would like to add the Health and Human Services budget (24) to the list of budgets to be reviewed.  TMM Foskett moved to adjourn.  We are adjourned.  We will start Monday with the budgets.

>>  Tonight was quite good.  We worked efficiently through the Special Town Meeting.  After the discussion on the budgets, there are nine more financial articles before we return to Article 19.  We might make it through all that on Monday.

>>  I was in favor of all the zoning articles on the special town meeting warrant.  They were simple issues, two of which were related to conforming to state law.  The budget articles were straight forward as well.  This allowed us to move through them by 10:00.  Positions reclassification is really just there for us to vote up or down.  However, those positions represent real employees doing their job on our behalf.  I trust our director of Human Resources to make sure our employees are being treated fairly and equitably.

>> Just a warning to my readers:  I have a conflict with next Wednesday's meeting.  I have a family obligation which when I scheduled it months ago, it looked like we would be meeting in person and be done by then.  Moving back online makes us slower, since we cannot use the collective wisdom of the other members around us to answer questions and move us along.  I am hoping that I won't miss the zoning articles, which at this rate, might be the case.

2022 Annual Town Meeting - Night Five

 Welcome to Night Five of the 2022 Annual Town Meeting.  We made some progress over the last four nights, but not a lot of progress.  Tonight should be high hijinks as we resume our deliberations on the phase-out of gas powered leaf blowers.  TMM Schlichtman had a concise email on the Arlington List explaining the history of this topic before Town Meeting.  It was contentious in the past, and I don't anticipate it to be any different tonight.

We opened tonight's meeting with the attendance vote, followed by the Star Spangled Banner performed by TMM Helmuth.  The Moderator made some opening remarks.  Tonight is Minuteman High School night, when we invite the superintendent in to speak to their budget appropriation from the town.  We would take that article up first, then return to Article 16.  May 11 will be the Spring Special Town Meeting for consideration of six articles.  (These are typically articles which require expedited action.  The special meeting is opened and close quickly so the results can be certified by the AG's Office before the end of the fiscal year on June 30.)  The Moderator expressed his concern about the pace of our deliberations.  He has added projections for length of time it will take to complete the meeting based on the time we have been spending so far discussing articles.  Based on past performance, we will not finish before the end of June.  He has some ideas on how to make things run smoother.  The members were encouraged to be tight and focused with their comments.  He promised we will try something new on Wednesday.

New members who have not been sworn in now need to go to the Town Clerk to be sworn in.  (Where have you been the last tow weeks?  We've missing you.)  SBC Diggins moved that the meeting will continue to Wednesday, May 11 upon adjourning.  Article 3 was taken off the table to receive reports.  TMM Exton moved acceptance of the Arlington Public Schools report.  They are holding the presentation of the report until the discussion on budgets.  Article 3 was laid back upon the table.  Articles 16-54 were tabled to bring up Article 55, the appropriation for the Minuteman Regional Vocational Technical High School.  This is the last time we will receive the report from Dr. Bouquillon, the superintendent of the school, as he is retiring from the position.  TMM Foskett presented many of the accomplishments Dr. Bouquillon has made during his tenure.  The school is in much better shape today than when he started.  TMM Foskett thanked Dr. Bouquillon for his commitment on behalf of the town.  TMM Ruderman, the town's representative to the Minuteman School Committee, also thanked the superintendent.  He complimented the construction of the new school.  Student enrollments are at an all-time high, and we can take pride in that accomplishment.  He commended the excellent administrative team at the school.  Dr. Bouquillon thanked everyone for the kind remarks.  During his tenure, Arlington has been the most consistent supporter of Minuteman.  He looks forward to introducing his successor to the town.  The district budget is up a little less than 5%.  He reviewed the objectives for the year.  (Review the report on the Town website for details.)  Enrollment is shifting towards more in-district placements, reducing out-of-district contributions.  Over 400 applications were received this year, 97 of them from Arlington.  So far 57 Arlington students have accepted out of a total class of 175 students.  Per pupil assessment is decreasing, but higher participation is increasing allotment.  There are new programs being offered in Animal Science and Logistics Engineering. Forty-six percent of the school's students are on Individual Education Plans.  The Moderator thanked him for the report and his time as superintendent.

The Moderator called on TMM L_Heigham who asked what the percentage of students are work-bound versus college-bound.  Dr. Bouquillon noted that often changes for students as they progress through the school, but currently, 30-35% of graduated go directly to work.  She asked if the wait list is for a particular program.  Dr. Bouquillon noted that it is across the board and not for specific programs.  She lastly noted that many students who are eager to be students at Minuteman are low performing in a traditional school setting.  This has resulted in poor past performance, which reduces their chance of being accepted to Minuteman.  She hoped the school could increase its outreach to serve these children.  TMM Foskett asked about a past construction program regarding sports fields.  Dr. Bouquillon noted that some of the remaining school rebuilding funds were used to rebuild the athletic fields.  They will all be open in a few weeks and available for students and member communities.  He noted that the Arlington Children's Theater had used the school's theater.  TMM Jamieson thanked the superintendent for his great service.  He agreed with TMM L_Heigham regarding the wait list.  He asked about the increase in the minimum contribution.  Dr. Bouquillon noted it is set by the State varies year-to-year.  The percentage is up slightly this year.  In the past, credentialing costs for students were covered by grants.  Due to the variability of receiving grants, those costs will be brought within the operating budget.  TMM Phelan thanked the superintendent and expressed her appreciation for the new facilities.  She wanted to understand the difference between qualified students and the number of positions offered.  What is the procedure?  Dr. Bouquillon noted the state required a change in the admissions process.  The definition of "qualified" has changed, so it now only means that the application is complete.  The number of places offered is based on slot allocation formula set in the district agreement, and any leftover slots are redistributed.  TMM Phelan thought the process didn't sound fixed and had some fungability in assigning slots.  Dr. Bouquillon stated the process is more open, as more students are qualified, but there were over 400 applications for only 175 slots.  He wishes all could be accommodated, but that is not practical.  TMM Ruderman noted the Minuteman School Committee has put into a place a program to increase the overall enrollment to 800.  They are expanding the educational spaces to accommodate those additional students.

The speaker queue was empty, so we moved directly to the vote on the appropriation.  It was approved 235-0 with two abstentions, unanimous support!  TMM Foskett moved to take articles 16-54 back off the table.  The Moderator noted that notices and announcements would take place after break.  That portion of the meeting was moved to get to the Minuteman vote as early as possible.

Article 16 was now back before the meeting.  The Moderator noted that the article and four amendments were presented last time.  TMM Diggins introduced his amendment to clarify that after the transition period, all users would be able to use an electric leaf blower during set hours 7 days a week, all year long.  (He explained that this was not a change, just a clarification of the intent of the article.)  The Moderator created a multicolored "red-line" to indicate the effect of the various amendments on the main motion.  TMM Friedman raised a Point of Order to note to confirm that the speaker list did not change from the previous session.  However, she noted her name was dropped from its position on the list.  The Moderator noted that was not intentional.  There appears to be someone with a screenshot from last time, and the Moderator will try to get a copy.  TMM Bloom raised a Point of Order to ask whether TMM Diggins' amendment which allows weekend hours is in conflict with the Brown amendment.  The Moderator ruled that a question, and said it could be discussed in the normal discussion.  Counsel Heim sought to clarify a previously mentioned administrative correction which extended the dates for residential user transition to 2026 in all places. The Moderator asked if that was included in the annotated warrant.  The Clerk noted that the change will be made via Goodwin 1.  If that fails, the administrative change will be made before the final vote.

The technical team is still working on correcting the speaker list to match last week's list.  TMM White passed on speaking, as he was only on the list to introduce the article, which he did last session.  TMM Trembley said he used to work for an electric car company.  (Scope call by Moderator)  Cars back then were not ready for prime time.  He thinks electric leaf blowers are far along the timeline, but they are not there yet.  Electric blowers move only half the air, cost more, and run-out sooner.  This greatly increases the costs to the contractors and residents.  He is uncomfortable about government requirements to stop using something that still works.  Electric cars are more practical now, and the same will happen with leaf blowers.  The regulation is unnecessary, because everyone will adopt them when they are practical and better than gas models.  Don't force this.  If you are concerned about global warning... (Scope call by Moderator)  If you are concerned about the noise, ask your landscaper to use hand tools, and pay the extra cost.  Vote against the article, and let progress proceed at natural pace.  TMM Muldoon spoke in support of main article and the two Goodman amendments.  She is a homeowner who does not use blowers.  She is at the mercy of her neighbors.  There are dangers to our health based on the high decibel level.  She reported the World Health Organization has come out against them.  It is a challenge for the residents, the contractors, but especially, the workers.  The noise causes stress, headaches, sleep issues, stress, and anxiety.  The danger to our health is pretty intense.  The climate crisis... (Scope call by the Moderator)  Speaking as a homeowner with an electric leaf blower, she does not see this as being an issue, especially with the phase-in period.  A landscaper in Concord has been using electric blowers for 8 years without issue.  More than 100 cities and towns have limited or banned the use of gas-powered blowers.  Now is the time to address our health and the health of the world.

TMM Kerble introduced Mr. Tibbets, a past town meeting member and a landscaper in town.  He is not presently a town resident, so the meeting was asked to vote to allow him to speak.  There were only four objections, so he was allowed to address the meeting.  Mr. Tibbets is not against the change to electric leaf blowers.  He just feels it is just too early.  The current research is into electric cars, not yard equipment.  His company is trying out electric blowers.  They have found the batteries only last 30-35 minutes, and they take several hours to recharge.  It also takes longer to complete a project.  The batteries go stupid; they stop holding a charge.  The labor is predominantly Latino, including new business ownership.  Several Latino workers he met are wondering what is going on in Arlington.  The guys who use gas-powered models are not concerned about their use, as they use the proper ear protection.  They can get four yards done per day using gas powered blowers, but they can only do three with electric.  Mr. Tibbets noted this went through town meeting before, and it was rejected by the town.  (That was a very different article.)  The Moderator noted that noise and impacts are considered within scope, but other topics may not be included.  TMM Farrell supported article 16 because it would reduce the noise and pollution levels in the areas.  Electric models have no emissions.  (scope check)  She thought TMM Muldoon presented the noise issues well.  TMM Kaepplein raised a Point of Order asking about the Moderator's bias, as the previous speaker was able to speak about pollution before being checked.  The Moderator disagreed with the assertion and noted that was not a proper use of a Point of Order.  TMM Carr-Jones says she loves her neighbors, but what happens in one yard effects many yards.  Gas-powered leaf blower regulations are not well followed and not well enforced.    People may be uncomfortable calling the police on a neighbor's contractor.  The proposed bylaw would not rely on real-time enforcement, as reports would be filed with the Health Department.  This article is reserved in scope and moderate in timeline.  Please support it.  The Moderator noted that the tech team has resurrected the prior speaker list.  TMM Friedman will be reinserted into the queue in her former position.  We're now on break.

Back from break, the Moderator noted it appears that raising a Point of Order will take you off the speaker queue.  It is a quirk in the software.  He noted that there are many people on the speaker list, so he asked if people could please be brief and not repeat the same points.  He then remembered to ask for announcements.  SBC Diggins noted that the application for Town Day is open.  If you want a booth, don't forget to sign up.

TMM Mandal spoke in favor of the article.  She has received more positive responses from constituents on this article than responses to any other article.  She has a constituent in subsidized housing who wrote to her.  There is a lot of noise from gas leaf blowers in the development.  She gathered letters in support of the article.  We can vote to limit the impact on residents.  Electric leaf blowers are viable today.  She asked everyone to support the article on behalf of residents who are most vulnerable to the impacts.  We were reminded by the Moderator to stay on scope.  TMM L_Heigham raised a motion to terminate debate.  The vote was 188-41 with two abstentions, so debate was ended.  The Moderator asked to vote on the Goodwin Amendment 1 first.  After voting started, the Moderator asked to display the text of the amendment.  This is a hard amendment to summarize, as it does several simultaneous things.  At the close of voting, the amendment passed 183-48 without abstention.  The other amendments will be considered in relation to the now amended main motion.  Next is Goodwin Amendment 2 to only allow the town to use gas powered leaf blowers on properties over an acre in size.  This amendment passed as well, 178-55 with one abstention.

The next amendment to be voted on is the Friedman Amendment.  This would allow residents to use gas-powered leaf blowers everyday during the transition period, rather than just in the spring and fall.  The Moderator realized this is not as simple a change to make in light of the previously approved amendments, but since voting had been opened, he needed to make all the corrections on the fly.  It was not overly clear what the final text would be. TMM Weinstein raised a Point of Order seeking clarification as had a previous speaker.  He noted that if the Friedman Amendment had gone first, this confusion would not have occurred.  Where one negates another, the advantage is given to the amendment which is considered last.  He is very uncomfortable with how we are proceeding.  The Moderator noted is concern is valid.  However, we need to vote in a linear fashion, so regardless of the order, there will always be amendments which are voted before others.  He volunteered to speak with anyone afterwards in regards to how to address the semantics of the vote order.  The vote failed 45-183 with six abstentions.  This brought up the Brown Amendment to disallow the use of gas-powered leaf blowers on Saturdays when it is not allowed on a Sunday.  TMM Gibson raised a Point of Order to clarify that this amendment would only apply to gas blowers during the Commercial and Municipal user transition period.  It passed 151-81 with three abstentions.  This brought up the Diggins Amendment which "clarifies" that electric leaf blowers are allowed all days of the week within specific hours.  TMM Rosenthal raised a Point of Order asking whether the amendment would really be an explicit reading of an implicit rule as had been stated previously.  He believes that the Diggins Amendment would allow weekend use of electric blowers, which would not otherwise be allowed.  TMM Bloom raised a Point of Order to clarify whether the Diggins Amendment is a change, as the previous amendments applied to gas blowers, rather than electric blowers.  TMM Auster raised a Point of Order to note that his understanding was that the Diggins Amendment makes no changes.  Counsel Heim addressed a couple of these points to try to remove ambiguity, but did not do so unambiguously.  TMM Zhu Raised a Point of Order that the Diggins Amendment will extend commercial use to weekends.  The Moderator referred members to the text of the amendment.  The vote passed 169-62 with three abstentions.  The final vote on the main motion as amended by the Goodwin 1, Goodwin 2, Brown, and Diggins Amendments passed 187-44 without abstention.

The brought up Article 17, which would remove the section of the bylaw prohibiting the self service of gas.  SBC Diggins noted the Select Board voted unanimously to remove the restriction, as gas station owners are having trouble attracting employees, and pumps are far better and safer than they used to be.  TMM Revilak was going to introduce someone to speak to the article, but they were striken with a health emergency and are in the hospital.  He moved to table the article.  The Moderator asked that we take a formal vote, when it was noted that the vote tab listed the incorrect voting threshold.  TMM Wagner raised a Point of Order noting that there are two past moderators who could address the question.  TMM L_Heigham recommended proceeding with the vote while the technicalities are addressed.  TMM Zimmer raised a Point of Order asking if tabling was to a specific time or indeterminate.  TMM Foskett commented that postponing to a date certain is a majority vote, but tabling to a indeterminate date requires a 2/3 vote.  Counsel noted that there is no question as to the required vote (2/3), but the issue is with the voting software.  The voting portal was finally prepared, so we voted on whether to table the article.  The motion passed 192-25 with five abstentions.

This brought up Article 19, which would rename a very short piece of street between the Route 2 Access Road and Spring Street after Tom and Ray Magliozzi.  The Select Board recommended no action, but the original proponent has submitted a substitute motion.  SBC Diggins explained that the town has a procedure for naming things, and the Select Board is opposed to bypassing that process.  TMM Schlichtman moved his substitute motion, which was seconded.  He then moved to adjourn, which was also seconded.  TMM Auster, TMM Schlichtman, and TMM Jalkut filed notice of reconsideration on Article 16.  TMM Foskett filed notice of reconsideration on Article 55.  We then adjourned with four objections.  We will reconvene on Wednesday with the Spring Special Town Meeting.

>>  I had really hoped we would get farther tonight.  We only voted on two articles.  We really need to move along.  I had really hoped that we would be done before the 18th, as I have to be away that evening.    Now it looks like we could be barely into Zoning by then.  I hope the Moderator has something up his sleeve, or we're looking at many, many more sessions.

>> I was sad to see Dr. Bouquillon give his final report to Town Meeting.  He has been a fixture since I started, always calm, always clear, and always advocating to better his school.  Some years, the members were really opposed to the budget request.  Other years, we discussed enrollment, or the reconstruction, or any other number of articles.  He was always professional and courteous.  Minuteman is an important resource for our town, and he has left it far better and stronger than when he found it.  I wish Dr. Dawson, his successor well in her new position.

>> I supported the reasoning behind Article 16.  We had leaf blower "reform" years ago, and the problem still persists.  How many people remember Mr. Tibbets rising at town meeting back then, requesting that any compliance issues be brought to his attention, and he would address them on behalf of all landscapers?  Given the number of people for this article, either the noise issues have not been resolved, or people voted on the environmental benefits.  I supported the Goodwin Amendments and the Brown Amendment.  I opposed the Friedman Amendment.  I was for the Diggins Amendment, but after presenting it as essentially a statement of what was in the bylaw anyway, that became very muddied under multiple Points of Order.  In the end, I voted against it, because I wasn't at all convinced that it wasn't a change.  We now have several years to transition to all-electric.  I suppose that there could be a vote at a future town meeting to adjust the timing of the transition if things are not working out.  I was also surprised that the topic of plug-in leaf blowers was not discussed.  Could a landscaper request that clients provide access to an outlet so they could use line voltage devices?

>> I hope the proponent of Article 17 is OK.  It was surprising to hear that he had been taken to the hospital with a medical emergency.  I hope he is OK, and we are able to return to this article without much delay.

>> We covered Article 18 during the Consent Agenda, so it does not appear here.

>> Article 19 is a fun little interlude.  The road in question is the second right off the Route 2 access road between Pleasant and Park, between Venner and Highland.  It is only 60 ft long.  I'm not sure why TMM Schlichtman is proposing to name this street after the Car Talk brothers, but we will find out after we dispose of the Special Town Meeting.

2022 Annual Town Meeting - Night Four

 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.

2022 Annual Town Meeting - Night Three

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.

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.