There is a formal record of the charge. I’m not sure where on the town website those exist of if you would have to ask at town hall
On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 1:46 PM Robert Ahlert <robahl...@gmail.com> wrote: > That makes sense, like any project there is a project charter and > objectives. > > Is this a formal document that Is on the public record or informal? > > Rob > > *Robert Ahlert* | *781.738.1069* | robahl...@gmail.com > > > On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 1:41 PM Donald seckler <seckle...@comcast.net> > wrote: > >> The term and work of a committee are determined by the “charge” that the >> Selects formulate when they solicit volunteers. When the work is complete >> the committee disbands. >> The charge is the blueprint and the contract regulating the process. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Don Seckler >> >> Sent via cell >> >> On Jan 4, 2024, at 12:47 PM, Paul Shorb <paul.sh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> Rob - >> Someone else with a longer history & better memory than I probably >> could answer your interesting historical trend question better than I >> could. But for what it's worth, my impression is that it has depended on >> the topic at hand. >> >> E.g., in the last few years since I have been on the Lincoln Green Energy >> Committee, we have proposed several warrant articles for vote at Town >> Meeting and have advocated in a transparent way for a "yes" vote on each. >> (E.g., in 2021, a general resolution re climate policy; in 2022, a "home >> rule petition" to the state legislature; and in 2023, both adopting the >> newly-offered opt-in stretch energy code and volunteering to participate in >> the "ten-town pilot" program.) In each case we tried to address concerns >> raised (e.g., cost, practicality, impact on the grid, etc.), both before >> and during the meeting, so I think voters were able to make a well-informed >> choice to vote yes or no. >> >> On the other hand, as I recall the high-stakes vote several years ago on >> how to renovate the Lincoln Public School was teed up as several options >> that were sorted through by a structured series of several votes at the >> Town Meeting, without the School Board or the ad hoc school building >> committee advocating for any one of them. >> >> - Paul >> >> On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 12:06 PM Robert Ahlert <robahl...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Has it always been done this way that advisory committees come up with >>> specific recommendations rather than just options with corresponding pros >>> and cons? Or does it depend on the topic at hand if they are creating >>> recommendations versus just options? >>> >>> Rob >>> >>> *Robert Ahlert* | *781.738.1069* | robahl...@gmail.com >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 10:02 AM Paul Shorb <paul.sh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Bob - >>>> I agree that any such presentation by a Town committee at Town Meeting >>>> should make a full good-faith attempt to be fair and accurate. I >>>> haven't noticed any deviations from that general rule. >>>> >>>> However, I do not agree that all such presentations should be >>>> "neutral." Rather, it is often very appropriate for a Town committee to >>>> develop and make a recommendation as to a particular course of action. A >>>> presentation at Town Meeting of such a recommendation would naturally >>>> include the reasons for the recommendation and in effect advocate for it. >>>> In the case of the recent initial presentations regarding HCA and CCBC, to >>>> me their length seemed very appropriate, in light of the complexity of the >>>> issues and how much factual grounding we in the audience deserved before >>>> we voted on them. Personally, I appreciated the great care that went into >>>> developing them, and the fact that they tried to address objections and >>>> concerns that had been raised at prior public meetings, on Lincoln Talk, >>>> and/or in the Lincoln Squirrel. >>>> >>>> I didn't see the moderator invite the committee to rebut every comment >>>> made in opposition to its recommendation. Rather, my impression is that the >>>> moderator uses good judgment as to when to invite the committee to respond, >>>> such as in response to a direct question or to provide relevant facts or >>>> clarification. >>>> >>>> As to how much total time was allocated to Town Meeting discussion, I >>>> think your beef is not with any Town committee but rather with the >>>> supermajority of attendees who eventually voted in support of calling the >>>> question. >>>> >>>> - Paul Shorb >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 7:18 PM Robert Domnitz <bobdom...@hotmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> The LincolnTalk mailing list. >>>>> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. >>>>> Browse the archives at >>>>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. >>>>> Change your subscription settings at >>>>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>> The LincolnTalk mailing list. >>>> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. >>>> Browse the archives at >>>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. >>>> Change your subscription settings at >>>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. >>>> >>>> -- >> The LincolnTalk mailing list. >> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. >> Browse the archives at >> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. >> Change your subscription settings at >> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. >> >> -- > The LincolnTalk mailing list. > To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. > Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/ > . > Change your subscription settings at > https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. > >
-- The LincolnTalk mailing list. To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
