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.
