[Anonymous, 16:00]
Further thoughts on changing the starting time for TM:

I agree with Mr. Carreiro's sense of TM sentiment as leaning toward a 7PM-10PM session versus the traditional 8PM-11PM session. This doesn't accomplish any of the BoS stated goal of increasing TM efficiency however; perhaps Mr. Carreiro's suggestion of running the sessions 7:30PM-11PM will get a fair hearing tonight.

How much would an earlier start time disrupt the various committee meetings that often seem to get scheduled between 6PM and 7:30PM on TM evenings? For example, this evening's calendar shows the following: 6PM Symmes Advisory Committee, 6:30PM BoS, 7:30 FinCom.

Jeff Oesterle (TMM--1)

[Rich, 10:35]
Some things I should have mentioned....

The blog template does not make it clear (perhaps I can use a different color), but the timestamps on the posts are also permalinks -- you can click on them, bookmark them, etc. to reference that specific post now and in the future, even if that post has scrolled off the front page.

If you have comments or would like to join the blog (please do!), send mail to:

rlcarr _at_ animato _dot_ arlington _dot_ ma _dot_ us
Sorry about the obfuscated format, but spammers can and do crawl webpages looking for mailto tags and strings that look like obvious email addresses to harvest.

[Rich, 08:45]
Mr. Dan Dunn's take on Session 1 is now available.

[Rich, 00:20]
Note to my fellow Precinct 19 residents -- I spoke with the new Director of Public Works about the sad condition of Forest Street. He was up front about not being able to promise any sort of timetable, but said that he had personally witnessed the street, believes it is one of the worse public ways in town, and believes that it does need to be completely rebuilt.

[Rich, 00:18]
Various personal thoughts:

• People seem to be favoring a 19:00 to 22:00 session. Ouch. I still prefer 20:00 to 23:00. I could live with 19:30 to 23:00, though. Have an extra half-hour and eliminate some sessions. The idea of a saturday session was quickly shot down, and the pro/con mike concept has not yet appeared.
• Quite a few rookies this year. A pleasant thing to see. And a least of couple of them have already gotten their feet wet.
• I really wish people giving reports would not get up and read them verbatim when everyone in the hall already has a copy of them. Just get up, touch a few key points, and sit down. We can all read.
• There still appears to be some confusion between articles and motions. At least a couple of people rose to complain that a recommended vote was different than the language in the warrant, even though the Moderator had only a few minutes before pointed out that the articles are mere agenda items, and the recommended votes of the various committees, boards, or TM members are the actual things under consideration by the meeting.

[Rich, 00:05]
Tonight's business:

• Article 2 - Committee Reports: Reports of the Selectmen, Redevelopment Board, Cable Access Group, Power Feasibility Committee, Zoning Bylaw Review Committee, Noise Abatement Study Committee, and Telecommunications Committee were received. The Telecommunications Committee asked to be dissolved since the main task they were formed for -- to examine and propose rules for big, monolithic cell towers -- has been largely rendered moot by the advance of technology and proliferation of small, hidden cell sites. Mr. Tosti, the FinComm chair, said the FinComm report will be available on 7 May, the delay being the desire to wait until the House Ways & Means Committee to report out its proposed budget.
• Article 3 - Measurers of Wood and Bark: This is the last of the old colonial offices that TM is empowered to select (the rest have been turned into executive/moderatorial appointments and/or town-wide elections). Following in the footsteps of his late wife, John Fitzmaurice was unanimously appointed to the position.
• Article 4 - Zoning/Bicycle Parking: Approved 141-47 (needed 2/3rds)
• Article 5 - Zoning/Crusher Lot: Housekeeping article to officially zone the lot behind Ottoson to open space. Really does not matter much since Parks & Rec controls the site which for all practical purposes bars any future development there anyways. Approved unanimously.
• Article 6 - Zoning/Summer St: Rezone K&J Variety and NAPA lot from I to B2A to allow for retail uses (current retail uses are non-conforming under I). Approved unanimously.
• Article 7 - Bylaw/State Election Warrants: Proposal to cease sending out state election warrants (which are pretty useless since they only say there is an election and do not say who is running). Ms. Mahon estimates the Town would save $5,000 per election. Mr. Cleinman opposed it, saying that people need every possible reminder to go and vote. Approved on a voice vote.
• Article 8 - Bylaw/Special Places: Tabled for now, but the Zoning Bylaw Review Committee plans to bring up their substitute motion later.
• Article 9 - Bylaw/Dog Parks: Approved on voice vote, but Mr. Quinn complains that "Dog Park", etc. were not defined and that there is no requirement for fencing. Serves notice of reconsideration.
• Article 10 - Bylaw/Leash Law: Makes it legal to take your dog off the leash in a dog park. Approved on a voice vote.
• Article 11 - Bylaw/Parking Meters: Proposal to delete the section of the bylaws concerning parking meters as it is obsolete and possibly unenforceable in places. Approved on a voice vote.
• Article 12 - Bylaw/Historic Commissions: Proposal to allow any resident to temporarily serve on a historic district commission if enough members within the district cannot be found. Passed 157-2 (needed 2/3rds).
• Article 13 - Bylaw/Health Fees: Proposal to raise the following fees:
  • Temporary food permits, from $0 to $25 per event (non-profits exempted).
  • Inspection of non-Arlington caterers, from $0 to $25 per event.
  • Permit for public and semi-public pools, from $80 to $110 (non-profits exempted).
  • Common victualers plan review, from $0 to $100.
  • Food vendors plan review, from $0 to $50.
  • Failure for victualer or food vendor to correct any violation after a followup inspection, from $0 to $50/day.
  The article appeared to be humming along when it became clear that there were significant drafting errors with respect to item numbering, and so it was tabled.
• Article 14 - Bylaw/Assistant Moderator: Proposal to create the post of Assistant Moderator. Approved on a voice vote.
• Article 15 - Alewife Watershed Joint Power Agreement: Postponed to April 30 to allow Ms. Dias to present it.
• Article 16 - Refuse Contract: Tabled on request of FinComm in order to put the contract to the fine-toothed comb.
• Article 17 - Package Store: Proponents had nothing to present, so Selectmen "no action" recommendation was summarily approved. Mr. Kohl served notice of reconsideration.
• Article 18 - Town-Owned Package Store: Proponents had nothing to present, so Selectmen "no action" recommendation was summarily approved.
• Article 19 - Inspection of Vacated Rental Units: Tabled to allow Mr. Lyons to present it.
• Article 20 - Health Insurance: Mr. Fischer was not ready, and as 23:00 was nigh, he moved to adjourn. Meeting adjourned to 30 April at 20:00

[Rich, 15:41]
Capsule thoughts on the procedure changes proposed by the Selectmen:

• Starting Earlier -- Do not like it. I think it can be hard enough for many to get home, eat, and get to TM by 8pm as it is.
• Saturday Meeting -- Cautiously in favor of this. I think giving up one Saturday is a fair price for eliminating two-to-four weeknight sessions.
• Pro/Con mikes instead of list -- Do not like it. First, a neutral mike is needed. Second, you'll have to deal with people getting in the "wrong" line because they want to be heard sooner. Third, it is not particularly fair to people who either cannot move fast or who got stuck sitting towards the back of the hall.

[Rich, 18:48]
I suppose one thing that should be addressed on a site like this is Town Meeting as an institution. Obviously, as a Town Meeting Member I have a (positively) biased view of the institution. However, I definitely prefer it to alternatives like a city council, where a mere nine to twelve or fifteen members have near total control over the municipality.

Power within TM is more diffuse (which I imagine is something that critics of TM may well hold against it), which I think is positive. A person trying to exert influence to get something done like a zoning change needs to convince on the order of 100 TMMs vs a mere five or seven or eight councilors. Further, since the perqs of being a TMM are near nonexistent (aside from personal pride, I suppose), I believe TMMs are less vulnerable to lobbying and special interest influence, since TMM status is in general far less meaningful/important to the lives of TMMs than councilor status is to councilors.

However, this diffusivity has its costs. While TM ultimately has the power of the purse, the by-laws, and zoning, an honest observer must admit that TM is often presented with fait accomplis by various boards, especially the Selectmen/Town Manager and FinComm (and state law guarantees SchoolComm's right to present TM with a fait accompli). I have often been frustrated with TMs tendency to spend a good deal of time nattering about an appropriation of a few thousand dollars while spending tens of millions without batting an eyelash. It will be interesting to see if that changes this year.

On a different note, my current thinking has me preferring the representative form of Town Meeting over the open form. I like the fact that the representative form essentially precludes people who generally pay no attention to TM from swamping the meeting to get their preferred action on their pet article. Doing so is their right in an open TM, of course, but I question the fairness of it and am glad that Arlington's TM is relatively invulnerable to such tactics.

In all, at least for a town like Arlington, I believe its current form of government serves it well and is certainly preferable to the city forms of government as well as to the open meeting form of government that one sees in most MA towns.

[Rich, 18:14]
So far my candidate for most ludicrous (which is not necessarily the same as worst) article has got to be Article 69. In it, 10 registered voters are asking the town to reimburse a company for building permit fees it paid, the project not being built due to a change of mind on the part of the property owner.

To be fair, I do not know the full story behind this, but I find it very hard to imagine any set of circumstances that would lead me to vote for it. In my view, the contractor should be seeking the $930 from the property owner, not the town. And if the contract did not say that the owner would reimburse the contractor permitting fees if the project was not built, then I think it is too bad for the contractor. I fail to see a chain of thought that would place a moral obligation on the Town to reimburse the contractor when it was the property owner who nixed the project.

[Rich, 15:43]
Posting the ground rules to get them into the archives for future reference.

Zeroth, my overall intention for this forum is for it to be a place for news about and analysis of the goings-on at Town Meeting.

First, all team members must use their real names. Nicknames which leave clear your identity are fine as well, but not pseudonyms. Team members are not required to reveal anything beyond their names with the exception that team members who are Town Meeting Members should point that out periodically and/or note it in their nickname (like what I did). Feel free to give Blogger/Blogspot fake info when you sign up for an account, but in the "Nickname" field of your profile, put your real name/nickname, since the contents of that field is what appears as the byline of a post.

Second, try to adhere to Town Meeting decorum when referring to people. When known, referring to someone as "Mr. Jones" or "Ms. Smith" is preferred. Try not to engage in "personalities".

Third, this is not intended as a general blog or discussion forum. Use the list for that :-). Posts should be about TM -- what was debated, musings on procedure, and yes, agreements and criticisms of others (including other team members). "Continuing the debate" is allowed and in fact encouraged.

Fourth, these guidelines may be changed or tweaked depending on how things go.