On December 8, 2023, WBUR's On Point posted a podcast of a discussion between news analyst Jack Beatty and Meghna Chakrabarty. The podcast is titled, "The Disappearance of Political
Persuasion." It references, in part, the ideas of philosopher John Stuart Mill. The discussion advanced the premise that democracy is endangered by the demise of political debate in our country. Partisans on both sides of an issue vilify their opposition.
Listening is a lost art. Frustrated citizens get turned off and tune out. This is a national issue of critical importance. Is it also a local issue that we should be concerned about here in Lincoln? Yes, it is.
I believe we can do better. In the 25 years I've lived in Lincoln, Town government has become more interested in leading - or controlling - and less interested in listening. Our Town
Meeting is now largely an exercise in rubber-stamping the recommendations of town committees. Although residents who attend Town Meeting are, in effect, the Town's legislators, they need objective information to make decisions. Do they get objective, balanced
information from Town committees? Increasingly, the answer is no.
We can appreciate the efforts of town volunteers that investigate issues of importance to the town. However, when we receive recommendations from town committees we should recognize
that those recommendations result from research that has been filtered through the particular values and priorities that their members bring to the table. By the time a committee recommends a proposal at Town Meeting, the committee is invested in the outcome.
We rarely get a neutral summary of the pros and cons. If a committee member dissents from the majority's recommendation, we rarely hear about it. If we want to consider "the other side of the story," we need to figure it out on our own.
I hasten to add that there is one Town committee that deserves high praise for the respect they give to residents at Town Meeting. I am referring to the Finance Committee. Year after
year, they give a scrupulously neutral accounting of the financial implications of particular proposals. Sometimes, when I'm feeling lazy, I wish FinCom would just tell me which way to vote. But they don't do that. They force us to weigh the options and think.
Contrast that approach with the advocacy position taken by virtually every other Town committee that proposes something at Town Meeting. If we're wondering about the possible downside of a proposal, we have to either figure it out on our own, read Lincolntalk
(where it's hard to separate fact from fiction or conjecture), or hope that someone at Town Meeting can use their rigidly enforced two minutes to deliver a fact-based explanation of why a proposal should be opposed. Although our town committees are ideally
positioned to give us a neutral summary of the pros and cons, they rarely do that. They consistently give us only the reasons to vote "yes."
Procedures currently followed at Town Meeting reinforce the imbalance between town committees and residents who want balanced information. My sense is that this imbalance has accelerated
in the last year or two. For example, the two minute rule for speakers seems to have sprung up spontaneously at the 2023 March Annual Town Meeting. Town Meeting procedures that were printed in the Warrant for the ATM during the period 2007 - 2022 contain this
flexible language for speakers from the audience:
"...there is no hard and fast rule as to time but for speakers from the audience floor a two to three minute period should be sufficient."
The 2023 ATM Warrant tightened this language:
"Please keep your comments to no more than two minutes." The new two minute rule has been rigidly enforced.
In contrast, rules for the sponsors of Town Meeting articles have been relaxed:
The 2007 - 2022 Warrants had a "...guideline..." of "...no more than ten minutes" for sponsors of articles.
The 2023 Warrant had no guideline or limit for sponsors of articles.
Do we get an informed, democratic outcome when residents' comments are tightly limited, while town committees are given as much time as they need to advocate for their proposals and
then repeatedly allowed to rebut comments from the audience?
If you arrive at Town Meeting always knowing in advance how you'll vote, you might think that two minutes for speakers is too generous. But John Stuart Mill would not be happy with you
(see 1st paragraph and listen to the podcast).
Going forward, here are two things for us to work on:
First, in its role as the Town's legislative body, Town Meeting should take the opportunity to discuss and approve a set of rules that promote robust, even-handed debate. And second,
let's encourage our Town committees to follow FinCom's example by presenting a more neutral summary of their proposals.
Bob Domnitz
