Personally, my dissatisfaction is not with the "super majority" who showed up.
My dissatisfaction is with the moderation of the meeting.
During the discussion of the Community Center, I was next to speak at the
microphone in the auditorium. The moderator recognized me, I stated my name and
address, and at that point someone on the stage (I don't remember who) jumped
up and asked to respond to the previous speaker. The moderator asked me to
wait, which I did, and the person who asked to speak made his remarks. I was
ready to speak, but the moderator then recognized the person at the microphone
in the gym. That person called the question, which was approved by those
present, and I was unable to speak. I was unable to speak because the moderator
lost track of what was happening, which speaks to the disorganization of the
meeting that I felt prevailed throughout the day.
I would like to ask my questions in this forum in hope that someone might know
the answers:
1. To what extent will the hours of the Community Center be limited because
it is located on the school campus? I remember this as part of a long-ago
discussion, but I don't remember the answer.
2. Will there be enough "jobs" for all of the seniors who request them to
mitigate the increase in taxes? I remember a time when there were not enough
opportunities for those who requested them.
Also, Select Dwyer made the statement at the TM that they (the Selects) did not
include location of the Community Center or programs anywhere other than the
school campus as part of the development of the 50%, 75%, and 100% options
because he "hadn't heard anyone ask them to." Apparently Select Dwyer hasn't
been listening. Perhaps he needs to reread the amendment that was passed at
that late night meeting.
I apologize for the long post. This has been festering.
Irene Earle-RiceSouth Great Rd.
On Thursday, January 4, 2024, 10:01:22 AM EST, 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.
