[Rich, 02:01]
Thoughts and Comments

• Mr. Lyons should hope that his opponent(s) in next Spring's election don't pull a hatchet job on him like the one he pulled on the Article 48 proponents. Disgraceful.
• Speaking of being out-of-line, the Moderator did not do his office proud by from the chair calling Nora Mann's substitute motion a motion to "investigate" FinComm. That was unfair and uncalled for.
• I was in favor (but lukewarmly) of Ms. Mann's substitute motion under Article 48. I wasn't sure about the "how Town Meeting...determines revenue" part of it, but I was absolutely in favor of the "how Town Meeting votes the budgets" part of it. While I commiserate with the Moderator's need to hold back chaos while the budgets are under discussion, our current procedures rob us of necessary flexibility in financing and in debate. I would like to see all the sub-budgets up for debate and possible amendment simultaneously. To keep some order, I'd recommend that discussion proceed first on sub-budget 1, then sub-budget 2 and so on, but that while sub-budget 2 was under debate it would be in order to make a single amendment that would transfer $X from sub-budget 2 to sub-budgets 1 and 12 and that it would be in order to debate the effects of that amendent on sub-budgets on all three affected sub-budgets. With an approach like this the necessary flexibility would be there, but some necessary focus and order would be imposed. Should anyone like the idea, make an appropriate motion right at the beginning when Article 52 comes up. Probably doomed, though.
• Perhaps FinComm and CapComm could keep track of the questions (photocopiers, anyone?) they get asked year after year that receive the same answer year after year, and put in a little FAQ at the beginning of their reports.
• Wow! Mr. Moderator really put the pedal down in the final fifteen minutes :-)