Before I discuss how things went during our third session of Town Meeting this year, I felt I ought to mention what I think I'm doing when I write these blog posts. I am not attempting to provide a minute-by-minute recounting of what takes place. For that folks should really read Dan Dunn's excellent blog.
I am also not attempting to write a journalistic account of issues before Town Meeting. While I do my best to provide what I believe to be honest descriptions of the issues before us and the arguments heard at Town Meeting, my writings are opinion.
After last Wednesday's post, some felt I was editorializing against particular members. I felt I was clear in that post that members, not only on all sides of the issue, but also veteran, experienced members, showed a lot of confusion with regards to the vote on Article 11. If it was interpreted otherwise I want to say now that it was not my intention to judge any individual members in that post.
As the title of this blog indicates, these writings are my impressions of Town Meeting.
Last night I was tired, and I did not want to go to Town Meeting. It was one of those nights when if I had not agreed to take on the responsibility of serving, I would have stayed home.
Article 7, dealing with signs, arguably involved some more complicated parliamentary procedure than we've dealt with often. Though one article, it requires two changes in the bylaws, one of which is in our zoning regulations and requires a two-thirds majority to pass. The confusion witnessed last week was gone. Town Meeting didn't skip a beat.
The Minuteman appropriation was before us. Dean Carman does a far better job than I ever could, and a great service to Arlington as well, in explaining how the regional agreement that governs this wonderful school represents such a significant problem for the town.
The night was comparatively very civil. There were a couple moments, but they were minor distractions.
Certainly the most entertaining article this year was Article 13, disposition of real estate, 1207 Massachusetts Avenue. The site of the former DAV, it turns out, has been owned by the Board of Selectmen since sometime in the 1920s, and no one knew it (this would be less entertaining and perhaps veer off toward concerning if we were not reassured that a thorough search has been done, and no other examples of property we didn't know we had have been found).
Article 16, acceptance of legislation for what is known as the Complete Streets program, provided us the opportunity to hear some interesting rhetoric about what freedom means to some, wherein choosing street designs that attempt to accommodate pedestrians, bicycles, and cars is an infringement upon the freedom of car drivers.
The most significant moment I believe was when we considered Article 15, and voted against the recommended vote of no action, choosing to make the Assessor a position under the Town Manager, rather than the Board of Assessors. I think is one of the more major changes in how our city is run that I've witnessed in my short tenure on Town Meeting.
Standing up to speak in favor of this change, we saw Mr. Loreti and Mr. Auster, Mr. Harrington and Mr. Jamieson. For those unfamiliar with the personalities involved, that's approaching the Arlington equivalent of Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives joining hands and singing Kumbaya, while carrying a budget to the house floor.
Thinking about last night, it may have been the best session of Town Meeting I've attended, in that it showed how a session can go when town meeting members work together, rather than at odds.
I am very glad I was there to witness it.
I find it amusing that many think by having a town manager appoint someone that it removes the politics out of hiring someone. How often does a town manager reject suggested or highly recommended candidates from his or her bosses?
ReplyDeleteIt certainly isn't that valid a reason to make the change in my book. Putting a personnel department in charge is a good move, in my opinion.
Delete