I was flipping through the channels on my teevee a few minutes ago when I happened across the Town Meeting orientation for new members given a few weeks ago. The Town Meeting Moderator was speaking and I think I heard him say that voters of the town, other than Town Meeting members, have no right to speak at Town Meeting although he does allow it. I believed that his interpretation was incorrect and that our Town Charter (MS Word format) gave all voters the right to speak. Being a curious sort, I looked up ...
...the Town Charter and the following is what I read, SECTION 2-14 TOWN MEETING PROCEDURES
Just to be thorough, I looked up the town bylaws that relate to Town Meeting and I found two sections, one about the Moderator here (MS Word) and one about the Town Meeting here (MS Word). Neither bylaw seems to contradict the Charter and the Charter would overrule a bylaw any way, I believe. You will need to scroll down through the bylaw sections to find the applicable wording.
(g) Voter Participation – Subject to such rules as may from time to time be adopted by the representative town meeting members, any voter shall have a right to speak at sessions of the representative town meeting, but no right to vote.
I was surprised that so little of the procedures for our Town Meeting where spelled out in the Charter and bylaws, so I reviewed Massachusetts General Law (MGL) Chapter 39 sections 9 through 24 to see if there was more detail. The MGL covering Town Meeting were not specific as to procedures. So it appears that our current Town Meeting procedures are more a matter of tradition and long standing practice than a code of regulations.
I know that our Moderator makes every attempt to be fair and I am sure he would not prevent anyone for speaking. As it turns out, I think the Town Charter guarantees that right.
Another point which I found in the Town Charter but had never heard before is this section,SECTION 2-8: PRESIDING OFFICER
As far as I know, the ability to exercise this challenge has never been used nor am I aware of the procedure for doing so. Perhaps a reader here with longer experience could let us know.
Rulings made by the town moderator may be appealed to the representative town meeting by a motion so to do which shall be put to the meeting by the moderator in the form: Shall the ruling of the moderator be reversed? A majority vote shall be required to reverse the ruling of the moderator.
I think that it would be a good idea to formalize the procedures used at Town Meeting into a bylaw to be adopted by the Town Meeting for the regulation of the proceedings. Let us know what you think in comments.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Voter participation at Town Meeting
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
41 comments:
The Town Moderator very nicely let me speak at a meeting once and I was not a Town Meeting member.
Hey Bill
The annual town meeting, is the most important town meeting.
Respectfully, I request that you, a member of the select board, call for the town moderator to have a separate stand-up count for each of the 10 precincts members who are present. This can be done in the form of a motion and prior to taking action on any article. This action, if allowed, will give everyone in town some indication of how each precinct is represented.
This action will be informative
This is really a good idea, but the argument will probably be that it takes up too much time.
Another idea, even better I think, though equally as time-consuming, if not more so, would be to have a roll call of the members present, by precinct, asking each to stand up as his or her name is called. Thus, anyone at home viewing the meeting, as well as those present, will know who of their representatives is there, and who is not. Granted, you may not know all your representatives, but it is a start, and maybe more people would get interested in finding out just how well they are represented by the people they elect. In addition, if the camera catches the individual as he or she stands up, it could be possible to place a name to a face.
Going a bit farther, what about sectioning off each precinct, with members sitting in their respective sections? Add to that a stand-up roll call, and it could be effective for identification, as the camera would be focused on one area of the auditorium at a time. And the amount of vacant seats could be chalked up, to some extent, anyway, to the members of that particular precinct's absentee members who may well have no great interest in attending.
Dartmouth has a long history of allowing non-Town Meeting members to speak but ONLY with permission from the moderator. That makes sense. If you let everyone speak on every issue, what is the point of having a "representative" Town Meeting?
CHAPTER 39. MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT
TOWN MEETINGS
Chapter 39: Section 23C. Regulation of participation by public in open meetings
Section 23C. No person shall address a public meeting of a governmental body without permission of the presiding officer at such meeting, and all persons shall, at the request of such presiding officer, be silent. If, after warning from the presiding officer, a person persists in disorderly behavior, said officer may order him to withdraw from the meeting, and, if he does not withdraw, may order a constable or any other person to remove him and confine him in some convenient place until the meeting is adjourned.
I agree that we could put the procedure in writing. But let's not all waste hours upon hours of everyone's time listening to everyone who either didn't get elected to town meeting or didn't care enough to run. The system in place now has worked well for many years. State law says it very clearly: "No person shall address a public meeting of a governmental body without permission of the presiding officer at such meeting."
I agree with 9:02 and 10:58 with regard to identification of those elected Town Meeting members present at an annual Town meeting. In fact having people set together in identifiable blocks similar to delegates at a political convention is a very good idea. Yes the process will take time, but isn't it worth it.
The Town Meeting rules are not set by the Select Board or even the Moderator. Town Meeting is the legislature of our town and they are the body who sets the rules. If you want to change the rules then the Town Meeting should propose and adopt a bylaw setting those rules which is what I suggested in my post. That won't happen at this meeting since it is not on the warrant and only items that are on the warrant are allowed. Section 6-7(b) of the Town Charter provides for a commission to review and suggest revision of the Town Bylaws every five years. Perhaps the subject of Town Meeting administration procedure is one that this commission should take up.
The Section of MGL chapter 39 that you reference allows the moderator to refuse anyone the right to speak, not just those who are not Town Meeting members. However the other section of the Charter that I referenced would allow Town Meeting members to challenge and reverse the moderator's decision although as I pointed out, there does not seem to be a procedure in place to do so.
I agree with most bloggers. I want to hear from the people who were ELECTED to TM, not anyone else unless there's some sort of special reason. Opening debate to everyone is a waste of time.
If the Charter really says "anyone can speak" we need to change it.
How did that ever get in there?
Our town could have paid the youth advocate with the money we just gave to Mr. Gagne.
Important stuff.....
I've been a town meeting member for many years. It galls me to witness town meeting members sign in at the check in desk, and quickly leave through the side door. These so called members, get registered as present, but are not sitting or voting. After some thought, I've come to the understanding that some, if not all of the above mentioned, are working people who don't want to be listed as not attending TM. Foolishness, stupidness, but true.
All elected town legislators, our town precinct representatives, should be given a number that correspond with a auditorium chair within their precinct delegation. Before any town business is conducted, a roll call should be taken. Each elected precinct member should remain standing until their precinct roll call is complete. This action should be taken for all 10 precincts.
Bill, You had mentioned that the charter requires a periodic review of the bylaws. Here is something that I think they should look into. According to the MA Building Code requirement, a building inspector cannot work in the building trades in the town that he inspects in. The plumbing inspector however, is only restricted in that he cannot inspect his own work. If it is a conflict of interest for the building inspector, shouldn't it also be a conflict for the plumbing inspector. Couldn't we pass a bylaw that eliminates this conflict of interest with the plumbing inspectors? I never would have thought of this but last week a plumbing inspector threatened me for not using him on a job. My contention is that I have the right to hire any licensed plumber that I choose. Do I have to use this inspector for plumbing work?
Popcorn -
You can use any licensed plumber you wish. If in fact, the plumbing inspector did threaten you because you used someone else, report him to the police. This person has forfeited their job as far as I am concerned.
Popcorn, I think all you have to do is take the language in the building code and adapt it to the plumbing inspector, then propose it as a bylaw. It is pretty obvious that there is a conflict of interest if a plumbing inspector can ply his trade in the town that he does inspections in. If this guy is threatening people that don't use him for plumbing work, then a bylaw prohibiting it sounds like a good idea. Who does he think he is anyway?
This sounds like a case of one idiot ruining the reputation of the many good hard working town employees. I would vote for a by-law that prohibits inspectors from practicing their trade in town.
I'd like to see a change in state law, prohibiting town employees (serving as elected town meeting members) from voting on issues that affect them financially. This would go a vloong way in improving credibility.
When you come right down to it, if there are regulations prohibiting individuals from acting in dual capacities within the government with regard to employment, why not have the same regarding membership in Town Meeting? If you are in the town's employ, you cannot serve on town meeting.
Perhaps that is discrimination, or, at best, a proposal that would not be feasible to implement? Might simplify things, though, if we all could be sure that some of the votes cast were not being self-serving. After all, sometimes members on boards and committees abstain from voting on an issue because of a conflict of interest. As Town Meeting members, what makes voting on issues that personally affect them as town employees any different?
I agree with 8:48PM. Town employees should not vote on matters that directly affect their own jobs or their own pay. Unofortunately, they do and the state conflict of interest law doesn't prohibit it. When we re-do the town charter, perhaps we could do something about that.
I notice that NOT ALL town employees vote on issues involving their own paychecks or departments. I've seen some Town Meeting members ABSTAIN on those issues. Good for them. They are doing the right thing. On the other hand, we've seen a situation where a police retiree submitted an article in an attempt to increase his own pension. That happened maybe ten years ago and that's just shameful.
I agree with this last bunch of bloggers. Let town employees serve, but not vote on issues that affect their own wallets. The town lawyer should look into how to accomplish that.
9:22, those Town employees should be commended for abstaining on the issues that affect them or their department.
They should be identified so we can thank them for not taking advantage of their TM position to personally better their financial or employment situation.
We need more individuals on the TM to follow their example, and we should be able to thank those who do.
1045AM, you are right. On Tuesday, let's watch town meeting carefully to see which town employees do the right thing by not voting on articles that line their own pockets. If we see any, post their names.
Don't expect to see many.
More the reason to segregate the voters from the issues that affect them personally. When we are called to jury duty, we are given a series of questions to answer with reference to any alliance or personal affiliation with anyone in law enforcement, to weed out the potential juror who may come into the trial already with a preconceived notion or bias that could affect the outcome of the verdict.
Care is given to not taint the jury panel. Why can't there be the same consideration given to Town Meeting issues and those voting for them? How is the town represented when members vote favorably on the issues that affect them personally, with no regard for the well-being of the general public?
What is the possibility of changing the rules of the game when the time comes for charter reform in 2010?
In addition to preparing a candidate for the people to run for Select Board in 2010, we should be thinking of important additions to our Charter to clarify and avoid problems in the future. There should be nothing left in the language of the Charter that would be subject to interpretation, or worse, language completely omitted.
Read the state conflict of interest law and the exclusion for elected TM members. How do we get around that?
'candidate for the people to run' what does that mean? If you want to run just run. 'The people' vote for whomever they choose.
Means candidate representing (for) the people.
I'm sorry I mid-understood. I thought the people that got elected represented the people that elected them - unless there are different 'people' that I'm not aware of.
We just no money for it.
No extra town money = no YA job.
May 31, 9:22
Hey stupid.....
The retiree didn't submit the article to increase his pension, it was submitted by the board of selectmen, the chief of police, E.A, fincom and others. Due to a job related injury, the retiree was forced to retire, his salary was used to hire three new police officers. The town choice was, increase the pension or take it to court. Pay me now or pay me later, but you shall pay. The retiree, as the result of pain and suffering, received an additional $100,000 thousand dollars.
I appears from the votes at TM, that most members feel that the YA position is a position that we need to keep. I do agree that some of our young people need someone to talk to and they don't feel they can go to their parents. I have heard that the YA does good things for kids...so why is this position on the chopping block every year when our counselors in the schools are not? What about having the schools fund this position in the future? It probably would not get cut!
So maybe some of our counselors should be on the chopping block next year, instead.
3:53, technically, yes, that is if you can get past some of them with their agendas. I'm referring to special interests, bias, and relatives in the town employ, for example. A Board member with any of the above is not exactly representing the people.
That's why we need another form of government. Dartmouth has outgrown Town Meeting. When we form a Charter Com in 2010 to look at this, I hope we can elect people who will go in that direction. It's time!
The fiscal problems in Dartmouth were NOT created by Town Meeting. They were created by bad decisions made by former members of the Select Board and a handful of their key appointees.
Town Meeting is an easy target, but it's the WRONG target. To find the real culprits, the real sourcecof our problems, we need to look no further than Miller, Carney, Dias, Leduc, Gagne, and friends. We have now removed almost all of them except Dias. She is next.
Listen, I don't agree we need the Youth Advocate position but that's Town Meeting's call. They made it. Respect it. It is not the end of the world.
Nat Dias will go next. She voted for Copley at Town Meeting yesterday, she helped craft those "contracts for life", then she lied to us about it.
Post a Comment