I take notes during Town Meeting. They are not official in any way. As I listen to people speak, I scribble notes. I’m sure that, at times, I mishear or misunderstand the speaker, but my notes represent what I hear at the time. I then publish the notes every night after the meeting. I do go back and make a few edits as errors are pointed out to me.

I do not try to reproduce my entire notepad for this online version. Sometimes I relay a quote from a specific speaker. Most of the time I only summarize the discussion. At points I give a purely personal opinion; those are clearly labeled like this: Personal note. When I remember to note the time, it looks like [8:05].

I arrived late today, after 8:20, after the start of debate of Article 12. I need to get up early tomorrow, so I’m keeping the notes short. Drop me an email or leave a comment if you’d like me to expand somewhere.

Article 12 – Restriction of Eminent Domain, in progress. Several speakers spoke in opposition. They said that the language restricted the town too broadly. They trusted Town Meeting to do the right thing in any future taking by eminent domain. They argued that this should not be a referendum on the Kelo decision, but on the suggested language. Article failed on voice vote. I voted in favor of this. The language didn’t worry me. I like it when the government has a hard time taking private property.

Article 13 – Tax Exemption/Deferral Information. [8:44] The article is not necessary because the information will happen in the future anyway. Deferral information will be in a future tax bill. The article was voted no action. The moderator ruled it unanimous but I clearly heard a dissenting voice. I have no idea why there was dissent. If the proponent gets what he wants, then what is the “no” about?

Article 14 – Graffiti. Selectmen Chair Annie LaCourt moved to postpone to May 14 so the language can be improved. Postponed. There is a lot of good research and practice that shows that one of the best ways to beat graffiti is to clean it quickly. In general, I think that there is a public interest in removing graffiti in a timely manner. I have one concern: will the town be able to meet the standard it is applying to businesses?

Article 15 – Procedures Committee. This expands the set of people that consider Town Meeting procedures. It was approved after a brief discussion. [8:50] There were people who voted against this. I don’t know what the reason was; the article seems reasonable and innocuous on the face of it.

Article 16 – Code of Conduct. Adam Auster recalled last year’s misbehavior. He explained that this was the way to prevent the problem in the future. There was confusion about whether this was a change to the Bylaws or simply a resolution. Here’s my attempt to clarify the question: The Town Warrant announces, and thereby defines the scope, of what can be considered at Town Meeting. Town Meeting does not vote on the Warrant as printed. Town Meeting votes on specific motions that are made under the articles of the warrant. In this case, the warrant says “vote to amend the bylaws or pass a resolution.” When the actual motion was made by the Board of Selectmen, they clearly stated in their motion that the vote was on a resolution. If you try to understand Town Meeting using only the Town Warrant, you’ll be regularly confused. You need the reports of the Board of Selectmen, ARB, and FinComm. Those reports contain the actual motions. The resolution was approved. One of the speakers noted that the resolution wasn’t really necessary because state law already permits the removal of unruly members. The resolution isn’t about the law. The resolution is about moral authority. The moderator (current and future) should feel like the meeting will support him if he needs to wield the gavel with vigor.

Article 17 – Personnel Holidays. Town Manager Brian Sullivan explained that this was to align non-union holidays with union holidays. Approved. Lyman Judd further endeared himself to his fellow members by referring to everyone as “sheep” for voting for this.

Article 18 – Data Processing. Postponed to May 14. This is delayed as some issues are worked out. Even if the issues aren’t worked out, the motion spelled out in the Finance Committee report represents a step forward. There is a chance we can do even better, and so I’m OK with the delay. I know there was rumbling that too many articles are being postponed, and I’m inclined to agree. For this article, I ask for the meeting’s indulgence: we’re close to making a lasting improvement in the town’s operational efficiency.

Article 19 – Traffic and Parking. Postponed to May 7. Paul Schlictman was ready to give his substitute motion. Evidently TAC has an opinion on this, but they weren’t ready.

Article 20 – Recycling Bylaw. Gordon Jamieson explained that the bylaw is designed to be flexible by including the continuously updated recycling rules. He explained how much money can be saved by recycling. Several speakers were against it because the incorporation of other rules was ceding power of Town Meeting to the Selectmen. There were concerns about “trash police.” Lyman Judd made a motion to postpone so that the selectmen could make a change. There were questions about whether this would hire another employee. Gordon Jamieson spoke a second time, and even tried to speak a third time after someone said something he disagreed with. I believe in “meeting karma.” Gordon’s first two speeches were fairly long-winded. If he was more succinct in his statements, people might not mind him speaking frequently. As it was, he’d used up his karma. If you have recorded the meeting, look at the sequence where Jameison speaks, then Charlie Foskett, then Lyman Judd. Jameison and Judd take several minutes each. Foskett takes a few seconds. I’d argue that Foskett was the more effective speaker. He was certainly more efficient. When we’re moving as slowly as we are, we need to encourage such economical use of time and speech. A speaker tried to amend the warrant article. He was confused; the text of the warrant article was different from the text of the motion (see Article 16, above). A motion was made to strike the sentence that included the fine. Debate was terminated. The amendment failed 43-102 and the bylaw was approved 95-45.

Article 21 – Service Counting for Benefits. Voted no action. This was an anti-selectmen article. The proponents want selectmen to be ineligible for benefits. It was poorly constructed.

Articles 22 and 23 – Home Rule Legislation postponed to May 2. One guy had a “valid” excuse, the other guy didn’t have an obvious excuse for missing the meeting. I’m not concerned because I see the value in considering these together. I’m likely to vote yes on both, of course. As I’ve said before, I’ll always vote to neutralize age discrimination.

Article 24 – All Alcohol licenses. Voted no action based on the town’s vote on the ballot question.

Article 25 – Alcohol License Change. The intent of the article is to permit smaller restaurants to apply for the remaining all-alcohol licenses, requiring 50 seats rather than 99. [10:35] There are 10 licenses and 7 are currently in use. If the article passes, and the legislature approves it, then the question will appear on the ballot. There were questions about bars and whether this would permit them, and if bars are currently permitted. Chris Loreti proposed two amendments. The first is to remove “function halls” from the possible licensees. The second was to make it so that alcohol can’t be served at bars. The meeting adjourned before discussion was complete. I don’t think either amendment is a good idea. First of all, I think it’s fine if a function hall is eligible for a license. If Hawthorne Suites wants to run a banquet business, that’s fine with me. They still will have to serve meals with the alcohol; it’s not like they will be able to open a dance hall or something like that. Secondly, I think the proposed language makes the existing restaurants illegal. It should be OK for me to sit down at the bar of Joe’s, watch the Red Sox game, order dinner, and have a beer with my dinner. The proposed language prohibits that. It says that alcohol can’t be served at the bar. If this language passes, I’ll have two choices: I can sit at a table and have a beer with dinner, or I can sit at the bar and watch the Red Sox. I’d rather not have to choose.

DeCourcey gave notice of reconsideration on Article 20. Meeting adjourned.

I take notes during Town Meeting. They are not official in any way. As I listen to people speak, I scribble notes. I’m sure that, at times, I mishear or misunderstand the speaker, but my notes represent what I hear at the time. I then publish the notes every night after the meeting. I do go back and make a few edits as errors are pointed out to me.

I do not try to reproduce my entire notepad for this online version. Sometimes I relay a quote from a specific speaker. Most of the time I only summarize the discussion. At points I give a purely personal opinion; those are clearly labeled like this: Personal note. When I remember to note the time, it looks like [8:05].

A few minutes after 8PM Town Meeting was called to order.

The Arlington Madrigal Singers performed the national anthem.

I missed the name of the gentleman who gave the invocation, but he was from St. Athanasius.

The Arlington Madrigal Singers performed three songs.

[8:23] Board Chairman Annie LaCourt moved that the next meeting be scheduled for the 30th at 7:30PM. This is a departure from the standard 8PM start. Several speakers were opposed to the change and sought input from the moderator(s). Mr. Carreiro made an amendment to have an 8PM start. A few speakers wanted to test the earlier start. Debate was terminated [8:31]. The amendment carried, rejecting the suggested change. The moderator sought a vote on what people wanted to do next year. 106 people indicated 8PM, and 65 said 7:30PM.

There were several announcements:

• The moderator reminded everyone of precinct meetings to be held next week, and in particular that precinct 5 was meeting tonight.
• The moderator announced a one-night bookstore for tonight in the break.
• Rich Carreiro reminded members about the town meeting announcement email list and asked people to contact him to get on it.
• Roland Chaput announced that the sale of Arlington’s 200th Anniversary items would be once weekly at town meeting.
• Diane Mahon announced that it was Autism Awareness month.
• Joseph Curro talked about the recent anti-semitic and threatening letters received by several town volunteers. He invited members to join the Human Rights Commission’s campaign against such attitudes and activity. [8:45]
• There was a complaint about the sound system. I agree that the sound was much worse tonight than Monday. I think there were one or more bad mics that were set at too high of a level.

Article 2 – Reports of Committees. Town Meeting accepted several reports:

• Barbara Jones gave the report of the Arlington Commission on Disability. [8:51] She decried the spending priorities of the CDBG funds.
• The moderator asked for the status of the annual report.
• James McGough reported on the Dallin museum and invited people to the upcoming unveiling.

Article 2 was placed on the table. [9:04]

64 minutes had passed since the scheduled start of the meeting, and not one word of debate had yet been uttered. It was incredibly frustrating. I know that my frustration was shared by many other people in the hall. This is why I’m looking forward to a new moderator. I hope that Mr. Leone moves with swift, firm action to get the meeting focused on the business at hand.

Town Meeting is being held hostage by people with a message. These are well-meaning people who are seeking publicity and support for whatever their cause may be. These message-senders know that several hundred of the town’s leaders, employees, and other volunteers are compelled to be in Town Hall for several hours every spring. They see the captive audience, and they want to deliver their message.

We don’t all need to be in the same room in order to hear a message. We can hear the message in person over a cup of coffee, over the phone, by email, by regular mail, or over the proverbial back fence. We don’t gain any insight because we hear the message surrounded by other meeting members. Using town meeting to send a message is efficient for the message sender, but wasteful for the meeting members.

The reason we all assemble in one room is to debate and decide. We can’t do that individually. We have to do it as a group. It’s not something that can be done remotely. That’s why we schedule work, vacations, and child-care duties and make room in our lives for town meeting. We’re accountants, architects, artists, consultants, contractors, counselors, doctors, engineers, firefighters, lawyers, librarians, managers, parents, police officers, professors, programmers, retirees, and teachers. We all have other things to do, but we make room in our schedules so we can gather to debate and decide.

I think Town Meeting is one of the best forms of government available to us. I want it to thrive. When a town meeting seat goes unfilled, an election uncontested, or a member leaves early because they are bored, the meeting is less effective. An efficient meeting is an effective one. It keeps people interested and makes good use of their time. We need to be more efficient or we risk losing the power of our meeting.

If you are a message sender and you want to deliver a message to these people, I encourage you to use some other method. Call. Mail. Visit. Leave a note on our chairs. I know it is tempting to see Town Meeting as your ideal audience, but it is not.

Article 10 – Stormwater Management, continued. The first question was about how to calculate stormwater flow. The moderator was lost in his notes, and it took a minute before he realized a question had been asked. The new DPW director, John Bean was introduced to applause – it was his first time speaking to Town Meeting. He immediately got off on the wrong foot by offering his opinion on the article as a whole rather than simply answering the question he was asked. He answered a couple of other questions later, and I heard enough to form my first impression: he is long-winded. There was a question about downspouts. The Conservation Commission is in favor of it. Mr. Burke moved that the threshold be 500 square feet [9:19]. A speaker was in favor of the smaller footprint. There were questions about the definition of hardship.

A 10-minute recess was declared at [9:31] and called to order at [9:45]. Note that the meeting started late, had a long break, and the finish time was [10:54]. We’re in no danger of having 3 hours of debate. Out of 180 possible minutes, we were only seated for 150ish of them.

It was asked and answered that the owner/builder had to pay for the analysis. There was a question why the appeal was to the zoning board when it wasn’t a zoning issue. The answer was basically “because it can.” Aram Hollman moved that the threshold be zero square feet, or all buildings. Stephen DeCourcey asked about the penalties for non-compliance, and asked why if the intent was for fast resolution that there were no deadlines for action from the DPW director or the Zoning board. This generated consternation from the planning director and town counsel who realized they had missed these points. [10:02]

The article was delayed and the Special Town Meeting was called to order. The standard motions, report of the constable, etc. were gone through.

Article 1 – There was only one report, of the Finance Committee. Allan Tosti submitted it, and Town Manager Brian Sullivan gave the verbal report. He explained that agreements had been reached with the unions (excepting patrolmen and firefighters). The deal was 2.5% raise retroactive for FY07, 3.5% for FY08, and an additional .5% effective when all unions agree to new drug and doctor visit copayments. Also, new employees will pay 25% of their medical premiums, not 15%.

Article 2 – Collective Bargaining. The funding for the reported deals was in the motion. There were three separate questions about a typo in the report that had already been announced. Gordon Jamieson proposed an amendment related to Medicare Part D funds. The amendment was ruled out of order. During this, Mr. Daley made his first use of the Point of Order, which was, as usual, inappropriate. We’ll see how many more we get this year. [10:24] Mr. Deyst spoke in favor because it linked medical spending to the people making medical decisions. [10:29] The article was approved unanimously. I think I heard a “no,” but it sure was stated softly.

The Special Town Meeting was dissolved.

Back to stormwater, Stephen DeCourcey proposed two amendments prepared by town counsel that fined violators and set deadlines for the appeal processes. Brian Rehrig argued that this was an important policy and that it did not place an undue burden on the builder. Brian hit the key points of the issue in his statement, but I only agree with half of what he said. We agree that the policy is important and necessary. I disagree with him about the burden. The planning department has, for the second year in a row, presented a poorly crafted article. Last year’s version had structural problems. This year’s version didn’t have an enforcement mechanism, didn’t have a timeline for an amendment process, doesn’t define how runoff is calculated, and doesn’t explain how the new bylaw would be administered. It’s a good idea, but it is not done. Until the holes are closed it is an inefficient and clunky bylaw. Debate was terminated. Both of DeCourcey’s amendments were approved. The 0 square feet was defeated, the 500 square feet was approved, and the 1000 was not considered. Main motion was approved.

The meeting was adjourned [10:54].

I take notes during Town Meeting. They are not official in any way. As I listen to people speak, I scribble notes. I’m sure that, at times, I mishear or misunderstand the speaker, but my notes represent what I hear at the time. I then publish the notes every night after the meeting. I do go back and make a few edits as errors are pointed out to me.

I do not try to reproduce my entire notepad for this online version. Sometimes I relay a quote from a specific speaker. Most of the time I only summarize the discussion. At points I give a purely personal opinion; those are clearly labeled like this: Personal note.

The State of the Town was at 7PM. I didn’t make it in time for the State of the Town speech from Selectman Annie LaCourt. I hear I missed a good one.  You can read the text of the speech here.

Shortly after 8PM, Town Meeting began.

A color guard of Revolutionary War reenactors carried the flag to the front of the meeting. The fife and drum played the national anthem, with the meeting members and audience singing.

Steve Carrol of the Salvation Army gave the invocation.

Moderator John Worden called the 201st Town Meeting of Arlington to order. He read a message from recently-elected Moderator John Leone. Mr. Leone’s son died in a car accident last week and Mr. Worden is continuing as moderator until Mr. Leone chooses to take the office. There were several tears in several eyes.

Newly elected and reelected members were sworn in. The moderator advised the new to seek advice, and the veterans to give advice.

The meeting voted to permit non-members who are on committees, press, employees, consultants, etc. to sit on the main floor (everyone else is required to sit up in the balconies).

The warrant was certified as delivered by the Town Clerk.

The next meeting was scheduled for the 26th.

There were several announcements:

• Allan Tosti gave an emotional plea to parents to remind their children that speed kills. He remembered the loss of his daughter, John Leone’s loss, and several recent accidents in the area that have claimed the lives of teeagers. This was very emotional. I appreciate the message that he is sending.
• Annie LaCourt announced several upcoming events related to Arlington’s 200th Anniversary.
• Annie LaCourt announced on May 3 there is Youth Health and Safety meeting at Town Hall related to substance abuse issues.
• Annie LaCourt reported that the Selectmen again were asking the meeting to consider starting at 7:30 and finish at 10:30. The moderator told her that this had already been voted and to try again on Wednesday. This was a singularly unhelpful answer on the moderator’s part; he could have re-voted the question with zero fuss had he wished. On the substance of the issue, I’d rather lengthen the meeting to 7:30 to 11. I’d rather fewer nights. Otherwise, I don’t care much.
• Glenn Koenig spoke about how to use the microphones to their best effect.
• There were several announcements about the Friends of Robbins Library events.

Article 2 – Reports of Committees. Town Meeting accepted several reports:

• Board of Selectmen’s report was submitted by Ms. LaCourt.
• Allan Tosti submitted the Finance Committee’s report, and noted the recommended votes for the upcoming Special Town Meeting.
• Roland Chaput submitted the Redevelopment Board’s report.
• Town Counsel John Maher submitted a report from the bylaw review committee.
• Mr. Maher asked that the newsrack committee be discharged, and it was.
• Rich Carreiro gave the report of the Town Meeting Procedures committee.
• John Bilafer gave the report of the OPEB (other post employment benefits) study group. It was requested that copies be made available to meeting members.
• Patricia Worden gave the report of the Arlington Housing Task Force.
• Mr. Flaherty gave the report of the Zoning Bylaw Review Committee. He noted there were two vacancies.

Alan Tosti moved to incorporate any motions within the reports as the main motion under any pending articles. This matters more than you’d think. It sets the basis for almost every vote in the meeting.

The moderator called on Mr. Tosti, but before he could speak he was interrupted by Lyman Judd. Mr. Judd suggested that Article 2 needed to be tabled. When Mr. Tosti was permitted to speak, he moved to table Article 2. It was tabled. First time Mr. Judd spoke. Won’t be the last.

Annie LaCourt introduced the people at the tables in the front of the room, including the recently hired DPW Director Mr. Bean.

Article 3 – John FitzMaurice was appointed Measurer of Wood and Bark.

Article 4 – Election of Assistant Moderator. The article was tabled. This will come back up when Mr. Leone assumes office.

Article 5 – Zoning Change to Permit Shared Vehicles. Mr. Chaput explained that Zipcar wants to expand further in Arlington. This article would allow the town to grant permits for up to 4 spots in any given parking lot as spots for shared cars. It also allows certain zoning (commercial) to do it when they wish. This was the first substantive debate of the meeting, and it took a while for people to find their bearings. The opening explanation was murky and sent people down the wrong paths, which didn’t help. I think the explanation failed to outline the key point that this only allows the use, but the actual revenue etc. is in the permitting – and that wasn’t in the article. There were several questions and points made. They included complaints that the cars had too much advertising, that the town would lose excise taxes from cars that aren’t purchased, that the cars weren’t appropriate for people who can’t walk, that there would be too many cars in town, confusion on how cars were “reserved,” and that the town needed to get more revenue for the spots. The Transportation Advisory Committee was strongly in favor. A couple of Zipcar users supported the change and explained how it helped them avoid purchasing another car. A motion to terminate debate carried. The article was approved by 126-19. It was clear that the discussion had left the rails when someone worried that this change would incite someone to convert green space to parking spaces. The fact that they could already do that, and make money at it, apparently escaped them. I’m glad the article passed despite the stumbling.

Article 6 – Compact Car Parking Change. ARB member Andy West explained that compact car spaces are currently too small and too hard to park in. Also, there are fewer compact cars than there used to be, so the number of compact spaces can be smaller. There was no discussion. It passed 104-34. An odd “debate,” especially on the heels of the last article. No one for it, no one against it, no questions asked, and it was withing 20 votes of getting shot down. I don’t know why people voted no. I voted yes because the explanation satisfied me that it was a good idea.

Article 7 – Parking and Open Space. Kevin O’Brien explained that last year Town Meeting voted this article down, and then reversed itself and approved the article. There was some notification that was not made, and the article had to be revoted. It was approved 126-8.

Article 8 – Permeable Paving. This article is to permit environmentally-friendly surfaces that permit rainwater to pass through into the ground be legal. There was a question about whether this permitted leaking oil into the ground, which it did, but was no worse than going into the sewer. A question was asked why was this not allowed before, and the answer was “no one thought of it before.” Think about that for a second. The town’s well-intentioned zoning bylaws explicitly forbid environmentally friendly parking surfaces. Right now, you could try to do the right thing, but it wouldn’t be legal. This is why I’m biased against restrictive bylaws. There are so many things that seem like good ideas at the time that turn out to be wrong. (Not to mention the ones where the main idea is right, but there are unintended consequences). It was approved unanimously.

Article 9 – Affordable Housing. Chris Loreti explained that the proposed changes are to make the rules relating to rental be “more useful” and to make the bylaw consistent with state law. There were a couple of questions about 40B and how utilities are calculated. It was approved unanimously. I continue to think that the affordable housing bylaw is a bad idea. The way to make housing more affordable is to make more housing available. When you force 5 owners to subsidize every 6th owner, you’re just shuffling deck chairs. That said, the state law is something that we have to deal with. I voted for this as a pragmatic move for the town to work its way out of 40B.

Article 10 – Stormwater Management. Kevin O’Brien explained that this year’s proposal is better than last year’s version. He explained that the square footage calculations that trigger this requirement are calculated against the impermeable surfaces of the roof, driveway, patio, etc., not just the building itself. Patricia Worden proposed an amendment to move the limit from 1500 to 1000 sq. ft. She was concerned that this proposal simply made it easy for developers to skirt. A few speakers followed in the same vein, saying that it didn’t go far enough because it didn’t block existing floods. Mr. Canaday pointed out that the actual administration was undefined. Furthermore, the bylaw didn’t contain definitions of runoff or how it would be measured. He questioned how the article could be enforced without definitions or administration. I think he nailed it. I understand what the planning department is trying to do, and I support it in principle. But I’m not going to support an expensive inhibition to development until there is a reasonably clear way to measure the effects and/or compliance of storm water management rules. Just look back to Article 8 for a clear and highly relevant example. It does not make sense to regulate runoff when you are unable to explain how it is calculated and/or measured. The debate will continue on Wednesday.

The meeting was adjourned. There were no notifications for reconsideration.