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].

The meeting was called to order promptly at 8:00. Town Meeting member Charles Gallagher played the national anthem. A man from St. Paul’s Lutheran Church gave the invocation.

The moderator reported on the student Town Meeting.

The moderator noted that of 76 articles, 49 were finished.

Article 2 – Reports

John Belskis reported that the GIS/40B Study Committee hadn’t met since it was formed last year. Note: When you create a committee, be sure to choose which member is in charge of calling the first meeting.

Article 52 – School Building, continued. Mr. Healey made an amendment that would fund most of the planning through an increase in the tax rate. [8:14] Town Meeting does not have the power to set the tax rate. The amendment was revised to spend money out of general funds, but it did not specify an offsetting cut to balance the budget. The intent of the amendment appears to be to remove the funding through borrowing. That, of course, makes it a majority vote rather than 2/3. I think I have myself to blame for pointing this out in my notes last week. There were several speakers who were in favor of rebuilding Thompson, but thought this plan was too risky. I moved to terminate debate. Healey’s amendment lost, then Shea’s substitute motion failed, and then the Finance Committee/Spangler version was approved unanimously.

Article 4 – Assistant Moderator election. Moderator Worden announced that he was accepting the nomination and Rich Carreiro was declining. I read a short statement from Rich Carreiro who explained that he will run in the future. Worden won unanimously.

Article 53 – Sewer Financing. Passed unanimously. [8:50]

Article 54 – Water Financing. Passed unanimously.

Article 55 – Liberty Ride Committee. Passed. [8:52] Despite the fact that the vote was taken, the moderator permitted speakers. A speaker complained that historical committees were not created with enough rigor. The motion passed (again).

Article 56 – Pension Adjustment. $0 approved.

Article 57 – OPEB funding. Finance Committee chair Allan Tosti explained that the sources of the funds (past savings, annual contribution, increase in retiree premiums, and Medicare Part D) and why they were being placed into this particular reserve fund (arcane details of accounting practices and poorly-written home-rule legislation). Kaj Telenar proposed an amendment that would move town funds to the state retirement system when it became possible. Town Counsel explained why he thought the motion wasn’t legal. Maher also said that he had originally said the amendment held water. I would be pretty annoyed if I’d made the amendment and then watched counsel do a 180. Mr. Fisher proposed a resolution about a state funding mechanism. Gordon Jamieson made a long and confusing statement with questions about health care funding. He threatened to make an amendment, but did not. John Bilafer defended the retirement board. The resolution was approved. The amendment failed. The main motion was approved, 130-1.

Article 58 – Local Option taxes. No action.

Article 59 – 200th Anniversary. [10:01]. Pam Meister outlined the Arlington 200 celebration for next week. Lawrence McKinney complained about the committee. I thought Mr. McKinney’s comments were in very poor taste. He went through the list of volunteers on the committee one by one and disparaged them. Volunteers should be thanked, not chastised. The appropriation was approved.

Article 60 – Animal Commission. No action, unanimously.

Article 61 – Revise Budgets. No action, unanimously.

Article 62 – Barber Progam. Approved unanimously.

Article 63 – Minuteman Senior Services. Approved unanimously.

Article 64 – Revaluation. There were several questions about valuation methods and the 9-year valuation cycle. Voted unanimously.

Article 65 – Tip Fee Stabilization Fund. Voted unanimously.

Article 66 – Cemetery Fund Transfer. Voted unaimously.

Article 67 – Overlay Reserve Fund Transfer. After a question, voted unanimously.

Article 68 – Override Stabilization Fund. $100,000 was put in to support the 5-year plan.

Article 69 – Unencumbered Funds. Passed.

Article 70 – John Maher explained that the bylaw was to permit committee members to vote in certain circumstances even if they had missed part of the meeting. After a question about the historic commission the changed was approved.

Article 71 – Ian Miller explained the goal of the endorsement of the Arlington Sustainability Action Plan (ASAP). Chris Loreti noted that the article asked us to endorse a plan that had not been distributed to members. He moved to weaken the language in the motion. A couple speakers defended the article, and others were opposed. Two notes. 1) At this point, 7 of the previous 9 speakers had last names that started with J, specifically Judd or Jameison. See previous notes about meeting karma. 2) I voted against this. The ASAP plan has some good stuff, but it goes too far. I think the science is shaky and the policy even moreso. I supect that if they’d actually passed out the ASAP plan that they would have had a harder time getting this through. The amendment failed and the main motion passed.

Article 23 – Daniel Wesinger. Like Article 22, this was to get around the state’s age requirements. Allan Tosti proposed a time limit of 2012. Passed 120-2.

Article 72 – Health Insurance Funding. Voted no action.

Article 73 – Belmont Development Resolution. [11:06] A speaker complained about the effect it would have on Arlington. Voted unanimously.

Article 74 – Troop Support. Kaj Telenar proposed a substitute motion that supported the troops but removed the references to the war on terror. There was debate in favor and against both versions. The substitute motion was used by a vote of 70-42, and the motion then passed.

Article 75 – Spanking. After some directionless discussion the vote of no action was approved.

A presentation was made to John Worden for 19 years of service as moderator.

The meeting was dissolved.

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].

The meeting was called to order promptly at 8:00. Town Meeting member Jane Howard played the national anthem. The invocation was delivered by Dr. Ronald Ramsey.

• The moderator announced that plan to vote for an Assistant Moderator tonight or Monday so it can be completed.
• Chris Loreti reminded members that they can review the town planning presentation in the lobby.

Article 2 – Reports

• School Committee member Ron Spangler introduced Superintendent Levenson who gave the report of the School Facilities Working group. He explained the process that produced the recommendations that would be debated later.
• John Cole gave the report of the Permanent Town Building Committee. He reported on the status of schools and the Park Circle fire station.

Article 47 – Minuteman Vocational High School. [8:27] Finance Committee member Stephen DeCourcey requested and was granted 30 minutes for the presenation. He introduced Laura Morrissette, Arlington’s representative to the Minuteman board. She spoke about the role of Minutman in Arlington’s education system and the benefits and programs that it offers to Arlington. She noted that Superintendent Callahan is retiring this year. [8:39] Superintendent Callahan spoke next. He talked about the overall budget increase of 3.8%. He talked about changes in salaries, transportation costs, and academic program costs. It was clear that he was wandering off the presentation and off the script. When he was done, there were only three minutes left for the detailed budget numbers. More problematically, there was no written version of the budget. There was a slide presentation, but no paper. This clearly ticked off a number of members who expect written reports. I agree; if we’re going to spend $3.28 million dollars, we should get more backup documentation than a slideshow. He brought up Assistant Superintendent Tom Markham who ran through a few slides before he ran out of time. Diane Mahon asked about the number of special education students at Minuteman. Clarissa Rowe asked several questions about Minuteman’s upcoming capital needs, how they were being determined, prioritized, and funded. I was the third speaker. I noted that much of Minuteman’s activity wasn’t as a traditional high school, and that the non-traditional activities mask the high per-pupil cost at Minuteman. I said that that we couldn’t actually change that tonight because the Minuteman budget is a forgone conclusion. I encouraged people to join me in voting “no” so as to send a message that Minuteman’s curriculum review should consider the sending towns’ willingness to pay such high prices. My first draft of these notes included a detailed explanation of my analysis of the Minuteman budget. It was too long and confusing. I’m going to try to write a blog post about only that topic, maybe this weekend, and try for clarity. I’ll restrict myself to a few comments right now.

1. In my speech, I said that Minuteman had 930 FTE (Full Time Equivalent students), but only 445 FTE as regular 9-12 students. The Superintendent pointed out that there are 200+ out-of-district students, so my statement that only half are regular students wasn’t correct. His correction is valid, but my main point still stands. Only half of Minuteman is doing what we expect it to do, which is provide a vocational education to in-district students. Also, those out-of-district students are only paying $13-15,500 in tuition, less than the cost, and less than Arlington.
   
2. I said in my speech that Minuteman costs perhaps $24k per regular 9-12 pupil. Superintendent Callahan’s correction of the out-of-district students doesn’t change the math. When I write my blog post you’ll get to see the data and draw your own conclusions. I think I can convince almost anyone that Minuteman’s figure of $18,900 is too low. I can convince most people that $21,500 is a more accurate number. The state says it is $25,562. I can show a way of looking at it where a reasonable person would say that the cost for the regular pupil is $27,150.
   
3. After my speech, a town meeting member said to me in private that the way I segregated special education costs as different from regular education costs was insulting. I apologized to him and I apologize to anyone else who was insulted. I did not intend to belittle or denigrate special education. My intent was to talk about different pools of money within the budget process, without any intent to make a judgment about who was being educated.

Paul Schlichtman suggested that one way to resolve the under enrollment problem is to modify the governance structure and recruit other larger sending towns. The new structure would give less power to sending towns with very few students. He also suggested that Minuteman provide additional services such as busing or medicaid reimbursement or other supprot service. It could do this through a non-profit collaborative. There was a question about Minuteman’s recruitment in Arlington. A speaker suggested that the town should compete with Minuteman by providing its own vocational programs. There was a question about whether Minuteman was changing fast enough to offer careers in newer technology like biotech. Charlie Foskett spoke for the Finance Committee and said that voting the article down would create an adversarial relationship that would make it harder to produce change in the future. The budget was approved. There were many “no” votes, but no one felt strongly enough to ask for standing count. I wonder how many people agreed with me, and how many people were just ticked that there was no written budget.

Article 4 – Assistant Moderator election, taken from the table. No one objected to a secret ballot. Joe Daley nominated the current (former?) moderator, John Worden. Annie LaCourt nominated Rich Carreiro. Worden was clearly caught off guard by this. He was trying to think quickly about whether or not it was a good idea for him to take the job. I can see reasons why he’d be a good and a bad choice. Logistically, I don’t see who would chair the debate. My regular readers will be unsurprised that I’ll vote for Rich Carreiro when it comes up on Monday.

Article 31 – Parmenter and Crosby. The selectmen recommended what the school committee requested, that the properties be turned over to the redevelopment board again. Patricia Worden gave a long speech about how the recommendation wasn’t for long enough period and how it would result in the loss of tenants. She avoided her usual level of venomous speech by making her villains anonymous rather than naming them. She seems convinced that someone is out to destroy the town by turning all the schools into condos – the details of the plot escape me. I was amused that at the same time she defended private education she demanded that the town “discontinue studies” of the property issue. I guess she doesn’t subscribe to the “knowledge is power” line of reasoning. Other speakers talked about the reasons to keep the schools and study their disposition. Approved 113-2.

Article 52. Finance Committee Vice Chair Charlie Foskett presented the amended recommendation of the Finance Committee. Bill Shea presented a substitute motion. He thinks that the Thompson will not be on the state list in 2-3 year timeframe and that 8-10 years is more likely. He thinks the town should engage the state and start building without the state list, and collect the funding whenever (if) it is ultimately approved. His motion calls for $700,000 this year to create detailed building plans. Several speakers spoke against the substitute motion arguing that the proposed funding mechanism violates the promise to the voters in the school building override by spending money without state reimbursement. They argued further that the state has made it clear that it wants to design future buildings, and the town risks reimbursement by going out on a limb by itself. Bill Shea’s argument included the phrases “I firmly believe” and “I swear to you . . .” He’s asking the town to take a flyer – first a $700,000 and then a $15,000,000 flyer – that he can work with the state closely enough that they will reimburse us in a few years. Even if he wins his gamble, his financing requires the town to pay millions out of the operating budget. It’s a bad idea and I’m voting against it. Shea needs 2/3 vote to approve the bonding that he recommends. I don’t see that he can get that many votes.

Several notices of reconsideration were made.

The moderator reported that he hadn’t decided whether or not to accept the nomination.

UPDATE: 5/17/07 12:30PM – I corrected my summary of Paul Schlichtman’s suggestions about Minuteman; the original note was not accurate and this one is (I hope) better.

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].

The meeting was called to order promptly at 8:00. Town Meeting member Charles Gallagher played the national anthem. Reverend Snyder of the Countryside Bible Chapel gave the blessing.

Ron Spangler [8:06] announced that a not-yet-but-soon-to-be-approved report of the school facility working group was available in the back of the room.

Article 2 – Reports

• Selectman Annie LaCourt submitted the Annual Report.
• Nancy Galkowski submitted the Fire Station Building Committee report.
• Jane Howard [8:09] gave remarks on the Vision 2020 report [8:17].
• John Bilafer gave the report of the Retirement Board. He spoke forcefully against the governor’s proposed legislation to take over the town’s retirement funds and blasted the supporters of the governor’s legislation. He touted the Arlington performance overall. He complained that it wasn’t appropriate to predict future performance based on past performance. I agreed with some of what he said, but there were inconsistencies that he glossed over. He spent a while defending Arlington’s performance by citing comparisons against the state and other towns, but at the same time doesn’t want those returns to be used as a future predictor. He also said the comparisons with the state weren’t fair because the state can make investments that the town cannot, even though he was content to make those comparisons when the town looked better than the state. Furthermore, the expanded opportunities the state enjoys sound to me like a reason to change to the state’s system, not a reason to ignore the state’s returns. He claimed that Arlington acts more conservatively because it fits Arlington’s needs, hence lower returns. That is inconsistent with the huge losses the town racked up when the internet bubble burst; a conservative strategy wouldn’t have been so affected. All in all, I’m not thrilled with the retirement board. I want to learn more, but I think the governor probably has this one right.

Article 12 – Graffiti Bylaw. John Maher made a couple of amendments to fix some language. They were approved immediately. Selectman Jack Hurd explained that this was in reaction to the increase of graffiti reported last year, particularly at Thompson school. I think there were three threads in this 2-hours-plus discussion. I’m writing these notes by thread, not by chronology. It sort of spoils the fun, but I figure you’re reading these for brevity rather than watching three hours of local access cable reruns. If you want the blow by blow, watch the video.

The first discussion thread was about the requirements that merchants segregate and watch graffiti implements – markers, spray paint, etc. The next amendment, the first substantive one, was proposed by the first speaker, Brian Rehrig. He suggested that the restrictions on merchants were too stringent and moved that they be removed. Many speakers endorsed this notion citing several local stores. The effectiveness of the section was doubted especially with other towns close by and the items’ ready availability in the home. When the meeting had it’s traditional 9:30 break the board of selectmen met and endorsed the amendment; they saw the writing on the wall and wanted to save the main parts of the bylaw.

The second thread was started by Selectman Diane Mahon and ended up being about her. She spoke early on, rising as a town meeting member, not a selectman. She rambled for almost two minutes apologizing and saying that she had a question without actually saying what her question was. She said that she hadn’t seen the “second supplemental report.” When she got to a specific point, she had questions about signage at merchants and how they would know about the new law and asked about how it would be enforced. She repeatedly thanked her “colleagues in Town Meeting.” While she was talking, there was a continuous stir at the front of the room. Selectmen and employees were, I believe, trying to figure out what the heck Mahon was up to. She had voted in favor of the article at every step (that I know of). There was, I imagine, much consternation that she was talking about her colleagues in Town Meeting, but not her colleagues on the Board of Selectmen. Paul Schlictman asked what the vote of the Board of Selectmen was and was told it was unanimous, with Greeley absent. He said he was confused by that answer and Mahon’s comments, and the moderator said “Don’t you know a parliamentary maneuver when you see one?” to which Schlictman retorted that it was a confusing one. The front-table conferring continued. After the break, it was made more clear that she hadn’t heard/voted on the the amendment that was proposed by John Maher at the very beginning, and the board voted to support those changes during the break. This really was pretty odd. It came across like she was trying to derail the article, or at the least score some points on flaws in the article. I like to think that I’m somewhat savvy about these things, and I couldn’t figure out what it was all about. If you know, please comment below.

The third topic was about the main element of the article: whether the town should require property owners to remove graffiti. There was discussion about the research and experience in other towns that removing graffiti quickly was the most effective way to prevent future graffiti. An amendment to change “days” to “business days” was made. There was complaint that this was punishing the victim, not the criminal. There was discussion about the penalties for the perpetrator. There was discussion about the property owner and how they might or might not be fined. The discretionary role of the police department was touched repeatedly. There were several complaints that the article was not ready. Mr. Burke made a motion to postpone. Several speakers talked about how they had tried and failed to get graffiti cleaned up in their neighborhoods because of businesses and neighbors that did not cooperate. Speakers variously called for the article to be both shorter and more comprehensive. As the discussion stretched on, the comments ran far afield. Someone asked if a mural was a defacement – seems like an obvious answer to me. Another person decried globalization. There were suggestions to post a bounty for graffiti taggers at town hall. At one point Lyman Judd interrupted the meeting and demanded to speak because he thought he’d been left off the list. He was gavelled down. This is another town meeting member who has used up his “meeting karma.” You can only talk so many times, and at so much length, before people dread hearing his name called to speak.

The question was finally called. The motion to postpone lost, 50-96. The “business days” amendment passed. The Rehrig amendment stripping out the merchant requirements was approved. The main motion was approved.

Article 18 – IT Department. Selectman LaCourt explained that this would move IT from the comptroller to the town manager and also merged with the school IT and explained why the selectmen endorsed it. Alan Jones gave the FinComm reason for supporting it. I spoke and talked about how the change would help the town’s employees be more productive and help the town maintain services within Proposition 2.5. After a couple more speakers and a question about the schools and title, the article was approved. I am delighted and excited. This is a big step forward for the town and will permit the town to reap benefits from technology. I was concerned that this might not go smoothly. I’ve been working on this for years, but spent many hours on this the last few weeks trying to make sure it went through. I’m grateful to everyone who helped.

Article 46 – Rescind Borrowing – voted no action.

Article 47 – Minuteman, postponed to Wednesday.

Article 48 – Celebrations. Approved unanimously.

Article 49 – Commissions. Approved.

Article 50 – Miscellaneous. Approved.

Article 51 – George St. Sidewalk. A motion to postpone so that the vice-chair of the Transportation Advisory Committee could be present failed. It was explained that the town was seeking the land on this private way by grant and would build the sidewalk on the the road using regular DPW funds. No special appropriation (or eminent domain) was necessary. Approved. I can’t figure out why TAC thought it needed a big presentation and postponement. I think once they say “Free land. Current budget. $11-$18,000, depending.” it becomes a non-issue and sails right through.

Several notices of reconsideration were given and the meeting was 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].

The meeting was called to order promptly at 8:00 Third time in a row, maybe 4! Town Meeting member Jane Howard played the national anthem. The invocation was delivered by Town Meeting Member Richard Phelps. [8:05]

The moderator said that precincts 7, 17, 11, and 20 needed to meet.

Announcements:

• Selectman Annie LaCourt noted the math expo projects around the hall.
• This weekend is the SAVE yard sale.
• Judith Phelps presented a resolution that Town Meeting endorse legislation to give the town recourse when utilities fail to repair roads. The resolution was approved.
• Lyman Judd announced the Lion’s Eyemobile again.

Article 2 – Reports.

• Roland Chaput gave the report of the Arlington 200th Commitee.
• Annie LaCourt gave the supplemental report of the selectmen.
• Joseph Curro gave the report of the Symmes Neighborhood (SNAC)

Article 38 – Community Development Block Grants. [8:22] Planning Director O’Brien explained that because of funding cuts and restrictions that they were unable to spend as much as they’d like on public services. A series of speakers talked about the Disability Commission’s complaints that there wasn’t enough spent on curb cuts. Annie LaCourt noted that the funding was doubled this year and planned on meeting with the groups so that next year would have more agreement. Town Manager Sullivan noted that there was additional spending on curb cuts beyond what was in CDBG funding. Passed.

Article 44 – Budgets.

• 21 – Schools. Paul Schlictman stood up to make a motion to move the traffic supervisors (crossing guards) from the school budget to the police budget. It was ruled out of order because the traffic supervisors are creating a union to the working conditions are frozen. There was also a question about whether that level of modification was permissible in the school budget. [8:41] Superintendent Levenson presented the budget (in under 10 minutes). The budget is somewhat modified since it was presented to FinComm. He explained the budget started with an $850,000 deficit if it were to fund the same people and activities as FY07 given raises, energy costs, etc. He explained that special education costs were growing too quickly to manage easily. He talked about the strategies and compromises that were made. There was lots of good stuff in the speech, but more than I want to recount here. Read it online. Several speakers asked about the traffic supervisors and expressed opinions about how it should have been handled and how it should be handled in the future. There was a long discussion about how activity fees were set. There was a discussion about how the full-time kindergarten fee was determined. There was discussion of the 5-year plan and how it differs from the O’Neill formula. There was a discussion about the viability of bringing special ed in house. There was question about potential revenue from having a cell phone tower at Pierce. The superintendent supported METCO to applause. The lack of librarians was discussed by more than one speaker. There was confusion about where the cuts in non-core teaching positions at Ottoson were. The budget was approved. This was a long debate, but a pretty good one. The budget was about $40,000,000 which defines it as a substantial issue. I’m happy to spend time debating a budget of that magnitude. I think that some of the debate about traffic supervisors was unnecessary, but not unreasonable.
• 19. Mr. McCabe proposed a resolution that town meeting was in favor of moving the traffic supervisors from the school department to the police department. Allan Tosti said that that might result in higher costs because the town would have to pay unemployment in the summer. He advised that the meeting let the union, superintendent, and town manager work out what is best. Mr. McCabe spoke again and said that it was a safety issue and not a money issue and described seeing a girl get hit by a car. Mr. Tosti pointed out that if money is spent prudently that there can be more crossing guards. This was a brazen “won’t someone think about the children” plea. Mr. McCabe didn’t explain how his motion would increase child safety, but he sure implied that anyone who opposed him was one step away from a child killer. I agree with Mr. Tosti. The motion is premature. At this point, let the negotiations take their course. The resolution was defeated. After a question about leash law enforcement, the public safety budget was approved.

Article 45 – Capital Budget. Charlie Foskett presented the capital budget. He reviewed the components of the budget, how it is managed, and the town’s debt. He noted that the Veteran’s Rink is a risk, as is the renovation of the community safety building. There were a series of questions about past and future expenditures in the budget. The budget was approved unanimously in five separate parts [11:11]. I was very happy that the moderator and members let the meeting run late. It was a would have been a pain to start that budget up again next week. It was worth the 11 minutes to get the job done.

Several notices of reconsideration 44 and 45 were noted. 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].

The meeting was called to order promptly at 8:00. Town Meeting member Charles Gallagher played the national anthem. The invocation was delivered by James O’Leary, pastor of St. Camillus Church.

The moderator noted that we were approximately 1/3 of the way through the warrant, and that we need to speed up to avoid going into June.

Article 2 – Nancy Galkowsky gave the report of the Information Technology Advisory Committee (ITAC).

Article 19 – Parking Management. Paul Schlictman made a substitute motion to study creating a traffic department. He talked about the town’s density and how other similar towns have handled parking issues. Treasurer Stephen Gilligan spoke against it. There were a few questions about what the committee would do and when. The substitute motion failed by voice vote. I think the debate was mostly about turf. The treasurer and the selectmen like their turf, and Paul Schlictman thinks there is a better way. The meeting wasn’t interested in fighting the turf war on this one.

Article 33 – Venner Road. Annie LaCourt explained that the selectmen had recommended no action because the proponents had withdrawn their request. No action carried unanimously.

Article 34 – Revolving Funds. Town Meeting unanimously re-authorized the revolving funds without any discussion.

Article 35 – Grants. Town Meeting unanimously authorized the town to apply for grants without any discussion.

Article 36 – Special Education Fund. Allan Tosti explained that this was not necessary because the Departments of Education and Revenue had permitted a more traditional reserve fund to be used in the future. Voted no action.

Article 37 – Permissive Legislation. There being no legislation to act on this year, voted no actoin.

Article 38 – Community Development Block Grants. Postponed to later in the meeting when Director O’Brien is available. I heard some complaint, but I think this was a totally legitimate postponement. He’s generally in the room, and was just out for an hour.

Article 39 – Collective Bargaining. Additional funding for wages was passed unanimously.

Article 40 – Future Collective Bargaining. Reserves to pay for anticipated wage increases were passed unanimously.

Article 41 – Position Reclassification. A number of positions were added, removed, modified, including titles and pay. Passed without discussion. There have been past meetings where we spent more than one night discussing this topic. Not a peep this year! Very surprising.

Article 42 – Carbon Bank. Voted no action without discussion.

Article 43 – Energy Manager. Voted no action without discussion.

Article 44 – Budgets. [8:45] Allan Tosti provided corrections to several areas of the budget. They were all errors in historical data, with the exception of a substantive change to the Veteran’s Rink budget that FinComm voted last week. Budgets:

• 1. Finance Committee voted unanimously.
• 2. Board of Selectmen voted unanimously.
• 3. Town Manager approved.
• 4. Personnel approved.
• 5. Comptroller. It was asked and answered that if Article 18 is approved then the budget will be updated next year. Approved.
• 6. Treasurer-Collector. It was noted that some of the asterisks were typos. There was a question about salary and hours for the treasurer in his role as parking clerk. Approved.
• 7. Postage approved.
• 8. Assessors approved.
• 9. Legal approved.
• 10. Town Clerk approved.
• 11. Board of Registrars approved.
• 12. Parking approved.
• 13. Planning approved.
• 14. Redevelopment board. [9:11] There were several questions about the costs and revenues of the properties managed by the board. Approved.
• 15. Zoning Board of Appeals. It was noted the board is unpaid. Approved.
• 16. Public Works. There was discussion about tip fees, the current trash contract, ugly trash barrels in cemeteries, tree climbers and their job description, Summer Street reconstruction, and cuts made by utilities in the roads. [9:43] I twice wrote in my notes “When you don’t know the answer, just say so.” DPW Director Bean is very new, and I expect him to take a while to get up to speed – you can’t learn everything in two weeks! What irritates me is that he doesn’t just say that he doesn’t know the answer – he goes on and on and on and on.
• 17. Community Safety. Kevin Koch moved that this be postponed until the schools budget is presented. He complained that when crossing guards don’t show up for work that the two departments point fingers at each other. He wanted both parties present to answer questions. There were arguments for and against postponing. It was postponed.
• 18. Building Inspection approved.
• 19. Schools. School Committee Sean Garballey moved postponement because the School Committee had not yet approved the budget. Judith Phelps complained that town meeting members had not received copies of the budget and had been “kept out of the loop.” I think that there is a legitimate gripe about how late the school budget is this year. It was slowed down by the Ottoson controversy, etc., but it still could have been done faster. But I totally disagree that town meeting has been kept out of the loop. There have been public hearings, public meetings, and the draft of the budget has been available online for weeks. The superintendent has given his budget presentation to several different audiences. The information is available. It was postponed.
• 20. Libraries. [10:16]. The proposed budget is sufficient to remain accredited by Minuteman. Approved.
• 21. Human Services. After a question about the special event coordinator and the senior center the budget was approved unanimously.
• 22. Retirement. There were several comments about the pending legislation that might move the Arlington retirement funds into the state system. Approved. Treasurer Gilligan said that the Arlington fund was “performing adequately.” Town Manager Sullivan said the retirement board was doing “a fine job” at investing. How they can say that with a straight face, I don’t know. I sure couldn’t.
• 23. Insurance. After questions about injuries in the town, the budget was approved.
• 24. Street Lighting. There were questions about maintenance and light replacements. Approved unanimously.
• Water and Sewer Enterprise. There was a question about catch basin cleaning. Budget approved.
• Recreation. Approved.
• Veteran’s Memorial Rink. I spoke about the pending, unresolved, larger-than-$1M capital needs and voted against the budget. It was approved.
• Council on Aging. The budget’s deficit was discussed. Budget approved.
• Youth Services. The budget was approved.

Several notices of reconsideration were given.

The meeting was 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].

The meeting was called to order promptly at 8:00. Town Meeting member Jane Howard played the national anthem. An invocation was delivered, but I forgot to write down the leader.

Announcements:

• The moderator gave several precinct election announcements. My precinct, 11, hasn’t met yet. We’re going to do it Wednesday at the break.
• Jane Howard announced a Spy Pond cleanup.
• Gordon Jamieson announced a recycling event.
• Mr. Curro announced that the Human Rights Commission had collected enough money to run an ad in the Advocate.
• Mr. Curro announced that the Summer St. neighborhood group was cleaning the woods at Symmes.
• Mr. Judd announced the Lion’s Eye mobile visit.

Announcements completed at 8:16. We’re doing better than we were, but I’m not satisfied. All but one of these announcements could have been delivered more efficiently in writing rather than using 9.5% of our meeting minutes.

Article 2: Reports

• Allan Tosti gave the report of the Finance Committee. He skimmed the chairman’s report, pointed out the 5-year plan, and a few other highlights. [8:26]
• Charlie Foskett submitted the Capital Planning Committee report.
• Frank Ciano submitted the Noise Abatement Committee report. [10:29]

Article 25 – Alcohol License Change, continued. Mr. Loreti successfully had his first amendment (function halls) withdrawn. Scutra’s owner spoke, and so did Mr. Bose of the Chamber of Commerce. I spoke (first time at this year’s meeting) in favor of the main motion but against the amendment regarding no-alcohol at bars. As I stood up, someone whispered that I should move the question. I was tempted given our pace, but I think I had something substantive to say that had not yet been said – I think I was the first speaker to articulate why the amendment was a bad idea. A few other speakers supported the main motion. The amendment failed and the main motion was approved 162-8.

Article 22 – Brendan Gormley Firefighter Waiver. The state thinks that he is too old to apply to be a firefighter, and is asking for legislation to permit him to apply. Mr. Tosti made a motion that the waiver should expire at the end of 2010. Two speakers were opposed to “making exceptions” and that there needs to be a “clear logical rule.” I agree that there needs to be a clear, logical rule. That rule should be: do not discriminate on the basis of age. My rule is clear. I have in the past and will continue to support any waiver that avoids the age restriction of our broken state civil service law. I can already hear the argument: “But, we can just accept the other state law that doesn’t have age requirements, the one that Boston uses.” That law is even more broken. Mr. Roselli made a couple points of order that were debate, not points of order. He appears to think that when he disagrees with a speaker, or he thinks the speaker is factually incorrect, that he can interrupt the debate. The rules don’t work that way. There was a drawn-out discussion about whether this article would guarantee an interview for the job which, of course, it does not. An amendment was made to make the expiration 2012. There was a modification to the text of the motion because he had already passed the civil service exam. Debate was terminated. The 2012 amendment was approved, and the main motion passed 150-26.

Article 23 – Daniel Wesinger Firefighter Waiver. Not available, article tabled.

Article 26 – Pension Funding Legislation. John Bilafer presented the reason the Selectmen endorsed this article. He wants special legislation that says the town can delay paying off the pension liability so it can start paying off the health care liability. He said that it was an important element of the town’s preparation for the OPEB liability. After 12 minutes he was cut off by the moderator. [10:12]. Allan Tosti explained the Finance Comittee’s recommendation of no action. He explained that the town was better off paying off the pension benefit first because it was a legal requirement, unlike the OPEB liability. Several speakers supported one side or the other. I was against this article, but in the end, it hopefully won’t matter at all. The legislation explicitly gives us the right to do something that we already can do by law. But, we don’t have to do it, and many different bodies can block it if it looks like a bad idea. The whole argument was about enabling something that we already have the right to do and having the ability to stop something that we don’t want to do – not much difference. There is one shoe that has to drop, though. The retirement board’s investment record is quite bad. I hope we didn’t somehow give them a lever to control the OPEB funds. Gordon Jamieson brought up the retirement board’s investment record. Joe Tully asked further questions about the retirement board’s investment record. Michael Quinn protested to the moderator that the line of questioning was irrelevant to the article’s debate. Quinn was right. The only way that the investment record was relevant was to argue that the retirement board had invested badly and therefore should not be trusted in the OPEB discussion – no one made that argument. I think this conflict served as a turning point: the meeting members are frustrated with the slow pace and are held hostage by long-winded speakers. I think this may inflame the members to demand more pithy and succinct debate. The article was passed 73-53.

Article 27 – Legislation for OPEB funds. All boards voted no action. Mr. Jamieson asked if the town could do this without violating its own laws. Town Counsel answered that it was legal. Mr. Jamieson tried to continue and was asked if he had a substitute motion. He did not. He kept trying to speak, but was stopped. No action was voted.

Article 26 – Rental receipts. Voted no action.

Article 269 – Establish Bus Shelter Committee. Approved.

Article 30 – Parking Management Committee. Voted no action unanimously.

Article 31 – Parmenter and Crosby. School Committee not ready. Tabled.

Article 32 – Arlington Scholarship Fund Naming. Change the “Dollars for Scholars” to “John Bilafer Scholarship Fund.” It was asked if the memorial committee had reviewed this action. There was debate whether or not the committee had jurisdiction. A motion to table failed. The article was approved. Mr. Bilafer expressed his thanks. During this run of articles there were calls to adjourn and table articles. They all were shot down. I was very glad. We could have thrown in the towel 10 minutes earlier, but instead we made real progress. I’m glad we were able to plug through the objections without letting them slow us down.

The meeting was 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].

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].