Vote No on Amendment 18C1: Minimum Voter Count for CBAs

[Ashish Shrestha]

Amendment 18C1 would require 67% of all registered DSNC voters to vote in a CBA election for the result of the Community Benefit Agreement to be valid.  This is an untenable amendment and should be summarily rejected.

Our discussion about CBAs has been centered around Copper Mill, but most CBAs *are not* Copper Mill or SomerNova in Union Square.  The USNC has negotiated several lower-profile CBAs that have led to accomplishments including community centers, union labor and prevailing wage agreements, commitments to small businesses, etc.  These are what the average CBA is, and they are not going to trigger large turnout.  

For example, the recently discussed Broadway project is a candidate for a CBA, but it is not controversial enough to gather 67% of our total membership (meaning over 400 voters) to come out.  It would be a shame to lose community benefits because a project isn't controversial enough.

I suspect many people are hoping that this amendment will prevent controversial projects like Copper Mill.  The reality is that Copper Mill or Asana CBA votes that would redefine the square are going to easily hit the threshold.  The SomerNova project in USNC had over 2000 votes.  What this amendment threatens is not the large-scale projects that will gather everyone's attention, it's the smaller uncontroversial CBAs that can get us an extra few affordable homes or a community path extension or better labor rights that will be lost.

[Colin McMillen]

I strongly agree. Also, requiring a super-quorum for CBAs votes gives a strange incentive for people to formally *drop* their DSNC membership if the usual meeting time conflicts with their personal schedule (and for the engaged and active members to attempt to get less-engaged members to drop their memberships), which isn't something we should be encouraging or requiring.

Colin

[Edward Woll]

I do not think that DSNC members would be motivated to wage such a campaign to manipulate the vote, at least I hope not.  Our objective must be full participation and collaboration. 

Ed

On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 10:23 PM Colin McMillen <co...@mcmillen.dev> wrote:

I strongly agree. Also, requiring a super-quorum for CBAs votes gives a strange incentive for people to formally *drop* their DSNC membership if the usual meeting time conflicts with their personal schedule (and for the engaged and active members to attempt to get less-engaged members to drop their memberships), which isn't something we should be encouraging or requiring.

Colin

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DSNC Discussion" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dsnc-discussi...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/7e0d07ca-2c95-4892-8dee-9ab41bb00cb0%40app.fastmail.com.

[Alex Dehnert]

> if the usual meeting time conflicts with their personal schedule

FWIW, I think the expectation is that CBA votes would look kinda like
the Board elections -- OpaVote and a physical polling station, not a
vote at a normal meeting -- which reduces the impact of schedule
conflicts. That said, for somebody who's not voting online for whatever
reason, schedule conflicts are certainly possible, especially if there
was a small CBA with shorter voting hours.

> gives a strange incentive for people to formally *drop* their DSNC
> membership

On the flip side, this 2/3 voter turnout requirement would have odd
incentives for somebody *opposed* to a proposal:
Is it better to stay home and hope the turnout requirement isn't met?
Or is it better to show up and vote against?

Compounding this, a CBA vote failing just means that we don't get
whatever benefits are negotiated -- it doesn't guarantee the development
won't happen. The city generally decides that separately -- we expect
they'll consider the CBA vote outcome, but they don't need to follow it.
If the opponents all boycott the vote and it gets 95% support, but
"only" 50% of DSNC members turn out, the CBA vote fails and we don't get
those perks -- but would the city council really reject the proposal
when they see the 95% support?

I think a turnout requirement might paradoxically *discourage* turnout,
and act to sideline the DSNC.

In general, I think relatively easy-to-pass CBA requirements strengthens
the DSNC, because it makes it (a) more worth engaging (if we reject
every CBA because the bar is super-high, why bother trying?) and (b)
more likely that we successfully pass a CBA (and therefore get the
benefits) for the projects that have enough support for the city to approve.

> I do not think that DSNC members would be motivated to wage such a
> campaign to manipulate the vote, at least I hope not. Our objective
> must be full participation and collaboration.

It strikes me as unlikely we'll see a lot of people renouncing their
membership, but I absolutely expect an impact on how much recruiting
people do of their less-engaged friends.

~~Alex

On 7/25/26 00:32, Edward Woll wrote:
> I do not think that DSNC members would be motivated to wage such a
> campaign to manipulate the vote, at least I hope not.  Our objective
> must be full participation and collaboration.
>
> Ed
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 10:23 PM Colin McMillen <co...@mcmillen.dev

> <mailto:co...@mcmillen.dev>> wrote:
>
> __

> I strongly agree. Also, requiring a super-quorum for CBAs votes
> gives a strange incentive for people to formally *drop* their DSNC
> membership if the usual meeting time conflicts with their personal
> schedule (and for the engaged and active members to attempt to get
> less-engaged members to drop their memberships), which isn't
> something we should be encouraging or requiring.
>
> Colin
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "DSNC Discussion" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to dsnc-discussi...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:dsnc-discussi...@googlegroups.com>.

> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/
> dsnc-
> discussion/7e0d07ca-2c95-4892-8dee-9ab41bb00cb0%40app.fastmail.com

> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-
> discussion/7e0d07ca-2c95-4892-8dee-9ab41bb00cb0%40app.fastmail.com?
> utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "DSNC Discussion" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send

> an email to dsnc-discussi...@googlegroups.com <mailto:dsnc-
> discussion+...@googlegroups.com>.

> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-
> discussion/

> CAEVTO7JhAY8F6HC7dsud4uUrBYcCss7MSQ7ouUer0uDiAkqwsA%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/
> CAEVTO7JhAY8F6HC7dsud4uUrBYcCss7MSQ7ouUer0uDiAkqwsA%40mail.gmail.com?
> utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

[Christopher Beland]

TLDR: (1) Notice requirements are better than the turnout minimum proposed by 18C1; 67%+ turnout is unrealistic in local politics, and (2) a single large-turnout vote would set a too-high bar for any later votes by verifying lots of new members at the polls who don't return for later elections. (3) If an amendment like this is adopted, we should clarify when we are supposed to count "verified DSNC members". Same-day voter verification makes counting weird.

Long version:

(1) Turnout for the November 2025 general election for Somerville Mayor was only 39%, so it seems unwise to require a 67% turnout for a much lower-stakes vote like whether to sign a contract to get benefits from a single construction project.

The turnout requirement for elections for mayor and governor and president? None.

What government elections have instead are minimum publicity and advance notice requirements. DSNC votes have similar requirements by city ordinance, reflected in our bylaws. It would be unfair for a vote to happen without members being aware of it, and notice requirements prevent that. I think it's fair for some members to decide they don't know enough about an issue or it simply doesn't affect them enough to bother showing up, and knowingly leave a decision to whoever does turn out.

As long as they are publicly announced far enough in advance, important votes tend to get high turnout without any sort of requirement, because people actually care about them, they actually affect people's lives, and they get more attention in the news and at the water cooler and in your feeds.

(2) Because a lot of people would get verified at the polls for a large vote on something like Copper Mill, our required turnout minimum would be unreasonably high for the rest of the year (until unrenewed memberships expire). So voting on an important, controversial CBA followed by a no-brainer CBA a few months later would probably mean we couldn't sign the uncontroversial no-brainer, simply because not nearly as many people would be interested in weighing in. What's rather irrational about this is that if we voted on the no-brainer CBA before the important controversial CBA, the former would be a lot more likely to get signed. If we're going to have a turnout minimum, it should be anchored to something more stable.

(3) Prepare to think some light math thoughts.

18C1 adds the text:

and at least 2/3rds of verified DSNC members must cast ballots

Whether or not we could ever realistically hit 2/3rds turnout may depend on when we count "verified DSNC members". Here are some stats from the April 2026 board election (not a CBA vote, obviously):

• 271 already-verified members voted out of 437 verified at the start of election = 62% turnout of existing members
• 452 voted out of 618 members at the end of the election = 73% overall turnout
• 452 voted, compared to 437 members at the start of the election = 103% overall turnout

The reason we can have over 100% turnout in the last metric is that people can get verified at the polling station. The tally goes over 100% if more people get verified when they show up to vote than already-verified members stay home. It was nice that we had 181 new folks show up during the election to make up for the 166 existing members who didn't vote, but I think at some point we will reach everyone who is interested in a neighborhood council and membership will peak (except for annual resident churn). If that happens, we won't be able to count on lots of new members every election to boost turnout. So I think we would probably trend toward the 62% turnout level in the long term.

Obviously counting the number of verified members right before the election makes it much easier to reach the minimum turnout threshold, whatever it might be. I think that would also be the right way to clarify this type of requirement, for other math reasons.

If our April election had been a CBA with 18C1 in effect, if we set the turnout minimum by counting "verified DSNC members" right before voting starts, then 2/3 of 437 is 291. So the CBA would be valid if 291 existing members voted. If our fundamental concern is how well the vote represents the neighborhood, I think the CBA vote should also be valid if a mix of 291 existing members and new members vote; this treats existing and new members equally.

If we count "verified DSNC members" right after voting ends, then 2/3 of 618 is 412; we've added 121 voters to the required number, but there were 181 new voters. That means that new voters count as 67% of a person for turnout purposes, which seems irrational and somewhat unfair. It also means if we need to do extra publicity mid-election due to low turnout, the path of least work would be to try to get existing members to show up to vote instead of recruiting first-time voters.

Chris

[Rebecca Rogers]

Speaking only for myself: I wouldn't drop my DSNC membership or encourage anyone else to, to make it easier for a vote to meet the member turnout requirement.   But I *would* absolutely be much more careful when recruiting new members.  

For the past few months I have been an enthusiastic recruiter for the DSNC.  I bring membership forms with me whenever I go to a party or social event around town in case I see people there who live in the area and aren't members yet.  I'm always thrilled to sign up new members because there's absolutely no down side.  I treat it like a voter registration drive.  The more people who sign up the better because it's the first step to getting more involved later down the road.  Even for friends who I guess would be unlikely to vote often or at all, who aren't very involved in local politics, who often don't vote in local elections, I encourage them to join anyway just in case.

But with a CBA turnout requirement there is a real risk every time you verify a new member.  Are they really going to be committed to voting in all the CBA elections that come along?  I would probably dial back my recruiting activity for fear of jeopardizing future CBA votes.  I would limit my recruiting efforts to people who I know are already pretty involved in local politics.  

--Rebecca

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/CAEVTO7JhAY8F6HC7dsud4uUrBYcCss7MSQ7ouUer0uDiAkqwsA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Edward Woll]

Interesting Rebecca.  To me, the more members the better and the quorum requirement is an incentive to increase membership and their activity.  I  think our very effective outreach efforts bolster that as well as employing electronic voting at general and special meetings and automatic identification of membership in the sign-in process whether on-line or in person at meetings, especially with over 600 members now, and growing.

Also, the notion of having a limited number of meetings a year at which bylaw amendments will be considered makes sense.

Ed

[PJ Santos]

Given our high population of renters, I'm worried that our voter list will always have a small fraction of "former members who recently moved away". 

It also seems undemocratic to stack so much bias in favor of saying "no". 

We don't (and practically cannot) allow a vote to some of the main beneficiaries of any development, the new people who would live or work in a new building. 

Our membership underrepresents renters who would benefit more from increased housing options or community benefits that help the less fortunate. 

We have a supermajority requirement for approving CBAs. 

This proposal would tilt the balance even further towards folks who want to obstruct any change in the neighborhood. 

Ed, if you think the incentive for outreach and maintaining the membership roles is important, would you consider reversing the direction of this proposal? The reverse would be that: "CBA agreements are considered approved, unless a supermajority of members (that also satisfies a quorum requirement) vote against the CBA." This would: 

(1) satisfy your desire to have a motivating force for membership and activity  

(2) ensure that "no brainer" non-controversial proposals that don't stir up strong opinions can move forward easily and 

(3) helps correct some of the natural bias of our organization away from stable homeowners who have relatively less to materially gain from a successful CBA towards our more marginal residents who have difficulty participating in civic processes, but would benefit much more from the sorts of things we could negotiate for

Very good discussion, thank you everyone who's put so much work into thinking about the bylaws!

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/CF15C4F1-647E-431F-AC86-E87B7CC16DFD%40woll.us.

[PJ Santos]

Unless I'm confused, I thought the amendment was for 67%, which would require 400 people to vote. It's pretty easy to imagine that being tougher to hit for a low-stakes CBA. That creates a bunch of weird incentives, as a board member would I want to vote against pursuing CBAs with small projects if I thought we'd run into quorum issues? Would I want to avoid registering renters or Tufts students if I thought they'd cause problems with our voter rolls in a few months? 

I'd also point out that in your 9-person scenario it would only take 4 people to reject the hypothetical CBA. If nobody feels strongly about a proposed CBA, then perhaps we should default to allowing it to pass as opposed to stopping it? I'd obviously hope all CBA votes get more than 9 ballots cast, but I think there's some serious concerns about hamstringing the organization that need to be addressed!

On Sat, Jul 25, 2026 at 1:15 PM Frank Mals <malsb...@gmail.com> wrote:

The theoretical discussions about how all this might play out are interesting and debatable. The reality right now is that a CBA could pass with a ⅔ majority with no turnout requirement.  So if CBA vote were to happen and only 9 people voted all it would take is six people to pass a CBA.  

This might sound unlikely but something almost exactly like that happened at a recent special meeting about the Elmway Action Group’s wishes for Elm Street.  

Without getting into the merits of the Elmway Action Group’s proposals and the hard work that went into them, these are the facts of what happened at that meeting:

-The purpose of the meeting was to vote on whether or not the DSNC should send a letter to city officials advocating for the Elmway Action Group’s proposals

-Eleven people attended the meeting

-Comments were made during the meeting that the vote should not take place because the meeting was so poorly attended.

-The rebuttal to these comments was that the quorum for a DSNC meeting is eight people, and based on that the vote could take place. 

-The vote to send the letter passed with five votes. 

This was not an uncontroversial topic, yet the DSNC sent an official advocacy letter to the city officials because five members voted for it. That is a wake up call that our systems need strengthening. 

Now, to Ed Woll’s amendment: There are currently about six hundred DSNC members. If we required 20% of members to vote on a CBA that would mean we’d need to generate a turnout of about one-hundred and twenty people.  

Keep in mind about 20k people live in 02144. 

As a board member, I consider good turnout to meetings and elections as a signal that we are doing a good job engaging the community. If we are effective as I think we can be, we will have no problem achieving the turnout Ed’s proposal envisions. 

Regards,

Frank

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/CAEDUMSyMirogavO-dueWhWxuExUT-uG4ixA-6njP7c8_GMQuYg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rebecca Rogers]

Just to pipe in again, I think it's helpful to stay focused on the details of amendment 18C1, the subject of this thread.  Amendment 18C1 would add a new requirement that any successful CBA vote would have to have voter turnout of 2/3 (or 67%) of the total verified membership in order to be successful (this in addition to the existing requirement that 2/3 of votes cast me in favor of the CBA).  I belive our current membership is 676, which means that if a CBA vote were held tomorrow it would require voter turnout of .67 x 676 =  452 voters.  

Some of you may have heard Ed Woll discuss a different idea, not up for a vote at Monday's meeting but probably in the near future, which would raise our existing requirement for a meeting quorum from 8 people to 20% of our membership.  Frank, it sounds like that's the proposal you're referring to in your message.  That is NOT the proposal in amendment 18C1 that we will be voting for on Monday.  Again, I think it's helpful to distinguish between amendments for voter turnout, like amendment 18C1, and amendment for meeting quorums, which will be addressed soon not NOT on Monday.

--Rebecca

On Sat, Jul 25, 2026 at 1:15 PM Frank Mals <malsb...@gmail.com> wrote:

The theoretical discussions about how all this might play out are interesting and debatable. The reality right now is that a CBA could pass with a ⅔ majority with no turnout requirement.  So if CBA vote were to happen and only 9 people voted all it would take is six people to pass a CBA.  

This might sound unlikely but something almost exactly like that happened at a recent special meeting about the Elmway Action Group’s wishes for Elm Street.  

Without getting into the merits of the Elmway Action Group’s proposals and the hard work that went into them, these are the facts of what happened at that meeting:

-The purpose of the meeting was to vote on whether or not the DSNC should send a letter to city officials advocating for the Elmway Action Group’s proposals

-Eleven people attended the meeting

-Comments were made during the meeting that the vote should not take place because the meeting was so poorly attended.

-The rebuttal to these comments was that the quorum for a DSNC meeting is eight people, and based on that the vote could take place. 

-The vote to send the letter passed with five votes. 

This was not an uncontroversial topic, yet the DSNC sent an official advocacy letter to the city officials because five members voted for it. That is a wake up call that our systems need strengthening. 

Now, to Ed Woll’s amendment: There are currently about six hundred DSNC members. If we required 20% of members to vote on a CBA that would mean we’d need to generate a turnout of about one-hundred and twenty people.  

Keep in mind about 20k people live in 02144. 

As a board member, I consider good turnout to meetings and elections as a signal that we are doing a good job engaging the community. If we are effective as I think we can be, we will have no problem achieving the turnout Ed’s proposal envisions. 

Regards,

Frank

On Sat, Jul 25, 2026 at 10:41 AM PJ Santos <peej...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/CAEDUMSyMirogavO-dueWhWxuExUT-uG4ixA-6njP7c8_GMQuYg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Frank Mals]

The theoretical discussions about how all this might play out are interesting and debatable. The reality right now is that a CBA could pass with a ⅔ majority with no turnout requirement.  So if CBA vote were to happen and only 9 people voted all it would take is six people to pass a CBA.  

This might sound unlikely but something almost exactly like that happened at a recent special meeting about the Elmway Action Group’s wishes for Elm Street.  

Without getting into the merits of the Elmway Action Group’s proposals and the hard work that went into them, these are the facts of what happened at that meeting:

-The purpose of the meeting was to vote on whether or not the DSNC should send a letter to city officials advocating for the Elmway Action Group’s proposals

-Eleven people attended the meeting

-Comments were made during the meeting that the vote should not take place because the meeting was so poorly attended.

-The rebuttal to these comments was that the quorum for a DSNC meeting is eight people, and based on that the vote could take place. 

-The vote to send the letter passed with five votes. 

This was not an uncontroversial topic, yet the DSNC sent an official advocacy letter to the city officials because five members voted for it. That is a wake up call that our systems need strengthening. 

Now, to Ed Woll’s amendment: There are currently about six hundred DSNC members. If we required 20% of members to vote on a CBA that would mean we’d need to generate a turnout of about one-hundred and twenty people.  

Keep in mind about 20k people live in 02144. 

As a board member, I consider good turnout to meetings and elections as a signal that we are doing a good job engaging the community. If we are effective as I think we can be, we will have no problem achieving the turnout Ed’s proposal envisions. 

Regards,

Frank

On Sat, Jul 25, 2026 at 10:41 AM PJ Santos <peej...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/CAEDUMSyMirogavO-dueWhWxuExUT-uG4ixA-6njP7c8_GMQuYg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Frank Malsbenden]

Rebecca and PJ you’re right I got the two proposals mixed up!  

Regarding the Ed’s 2/3 proposal for Monday’s meeting my thinking still follows the same line. 450 votes for a CBA should be entirely achievable if our outreach is effective. Again there are 20k people in 02144 alone.  

I am not comfortable with votes with a turnout of laughably small numbers, whether the issue is high stakes or not. Yikes! 

Regards,

Frank 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 25, 2026, at 1:42 PM, Rebecca Rogers <rebe...@gmail.com> wrote:



[Marilyn]

I want to reiterate what was mentioned in a previous email. CBA voting should be different from a meeting vote with online voting and multiple in person chances available. It is very unlikely only a small number will vote.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/47E65E06-FD56-49C1-ADEC-DE2C0A850C04%40gmail.com.

[Colin McMillen]

Turnout for the two most recent US presidential elections was among the highest it's ever been -- and is still lower (65% and 63%) than the 67% threshold that is being proposed here. The historical average is more like 55-60%. It seems unlikely that people are going to show up in greater numbers to vote on a CBA than to vote on the President of the US.

As others have mentioned in the thread, many of our potential voters will become ineligible from month to month, because renters move in and out of the neighborhood boundaries year to year based on changing rents and availability. It's a big administrative burden for the DSNC to re-establish the number of *actually* eligible members before every single CBA vote. Especially since someone who moved *away* has no particular need or desire to reply to queries of the form "oops I no longer live here and shouldn't be considered an active member any more". And AFAIK there's no way of automatically determining someone moved out (and even if there were we'd need to take care to not disenfranchise people by being overly aggressive in purging membership roles.)

Colin

[Frank Malsbenden]

Hi Colin, thanks for your reply!  I don’t think administrative burden is something that should get in the way of resolving a set up in which the we can take actions or pass CBA’s with eight or nine votes cast. As i illustrated earlier this has already happened and could happen again. This goes to the credibility of the body in general.  

Ed’s made the point a few times, and I think there’s a lot of wisdom in the concept, so I’ll reiterate it so we don’t lose it in this discussion, engagement is a metric of success. If we hold ourselves to achieving high counts in attendance and turnout well leave no doubt that the community is engaged in our efforts.  

Regards,

Frank 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 25, 2026, at 2:52 PM, Colin McMillen <co...@mcmillen.dev> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/4073c1fa-667c-4a7c-b172-471757b10efb%40app.fastmail.com.

[Colin McMillen]

I think setting a non-percentage-based threshold (like "at least 100 votes required for quorum on any CBA vote") would have many of the same upsides and significantly fewer downsides. 

[Frank Malsbenden]

Hi Colin, I like the percentage option because it factors in the growth I hope we achieve!  

Regards,

Frank 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 25, 2026, at 3:33 PM, Colin McMillen <co...@mcmillen.dev> wrote:



[David Booth]

On 7/25/26 13:15, Frank Mals wrote:
> The theoretical discussions about how all this might play out are
> interesting and debatable. The reality right now is that a CBA could
> pass with a ⅔ majority with no turnout requirement.  So if CBA vote were
> to happen and only 9 people voted all it would take is six people to
> pass a CBA.
>
>
> This might sound unlikely but something almost exactly like that
> happened at a recent special meeting about the Elmway Action Group’s
> wishes for Elm Street.
>
>
> Without getting into the merits of the Elmway Action Group’s proposals
> and the hard work that went into them, these are the facts of what
> happened at that meeting:
>
>
> -The purpose of the meeting was to vote on whether or not the DSNC
> should send a letter to city officials advocating for the Elmway Action
> Group’s proposals
>
> -Eleven people attended the meeting
>
> -Comments were made during the meeting that the vote should not take
> place because the meeting was so poorly attended.
>
> -The rebuttal to these comments was that the quorum for a DSNC meeting
> is eight people, and based on that the vote could take place.

That is an incomplete explanation. The reason I -- and perhaps others
-- were comfortable going ahead with the vote was because the proposal
had been discussed so many times before, a great deal effort had been
put in to actively seek feedback on it (including from area businesses),
numerous refinements were made to address concerns that were raised, the
proposal was for a "quick build" (which means that it could easily be
undone if it did not work out well), *and* the overwhelming feedback
received to date had been positive. After all that, the official vote
felt more like a formality than anything else.

Furthermore, it was merely a letter to the City *advocating* the
project. It had no binding effect whatsoever on the City.

Under the circumstances, I see nothing at all wrong with the fact that
it passed with five votes.

Thanks,
David Booth

>> <co...@mcmillen.dev <mailto:co...@mcmillen.dev>> wrote:
>>
>> __

>> I strongly agree. Also, requiring a super-quorum for
>> CBAs votes gives a strange incentive for people to
>> formally *drop* their DSNC membership if the usual
>> meeting time conflicts with their personal schedule
>> (and for the engaged and active members to attempt to
>> get less-engaged members to drop their memberships),
>> which isn't something we should be encouraging or
>> requiring.
>>
>> Colin
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed
>> to the Google Groups "DSNC Discussion" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
>> emails from it, send an email to dsnc-

>> discussion+...@googlegroups.com <mailto:dsnc-
>> discussion+...@googlegroups.com>.

>> To view this discussion visit https://
>> groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-

>> discussion/7e0d07ca-2c95-4892-8dee-9ab41bb00cb0%40app.fastmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/7e0d07ca-2c95-4892-8dee-9ab41bb00cb0%40app.fastmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to
>> the Google Groups "DSNC Discussion" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
>> from it, send an email to dsnc-

>> discussion+...@googlegroups.com <mailto:dsnc-
>> discussion+...@googlegroups.com>.

>> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/
>> msgid/dsnc-discussion/

>> CAEVTO7JhAY8F6HC7dsud4uUrBYcCss7MSQ7ouUer0uDiAkqwsA%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/CAEVTO7JhAY8F6HC7dsud4uUrBYcCss7MSQ7ouUer0uDiAkqwsA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> Google Groups "DSNC Discussion" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
> it, send an email to dsnc-

> discussion+...@googlegroups.com <mailto:dsnc-
> discussion+...@googlegroups.com>.

> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/

> dsnc-discussion/CF15C4F1-647E-431F-AC86-E87B7CC16DFD%40woll.us
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/
> CF15C4F1-647E-431F-AC86-E87B7CC16DFD%40woll.us?
> utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "DSNC Discussion" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to dsnc-discussi...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:dsnc-discussi...@googlegroups.com>.

> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/

> dsnc-discussion/CAEDUMSyMirogavO-dueWhWxuExUT-
> uG4ixA-6njP7c8_GMQuYg%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/
> msgid/dsnc-discussion/CAEDUMSyMirogavO-dueWhWxuExUT-
> uG4ixA-6njP7c8_GMQuYg%40mail.gmail.com?
> utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "DSNC Discussion" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send

> an email to dsnc-discussi...@googlegroups.com <mailto:dsnc-
> discussion+...@googlegroups.com>.

> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-

> discussion/CAGzeWuN8yn72pZZKjmgKFXc0eN1aVV4-
> AjPAdRPzRRmvWt-2ag%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/
> dsnc-discussion/CAGzeWuN8yn72pZZKjmgKFXc0eN1aVV4-
> AjPAdRPzRRmvWt-2ag%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

[David Booth]

On 7/25/26 10:41, PJ Santos wrote:
> Given our high population of renters, I'm worried that our voter list
> will always have a small fraction of "former members who recently moved
> away".

If someone lived in the Davis Square area and became a DSNC member, but
then moved away, I think they should still be allowed to vote, because
they obviously still care enough about Davis Square to be involved in
its future. Furthermore it is quite likely that they *want* to live in
Davis Square again.

I suggest we allow verified membership to last indefinitely, as long as
the member remains active in DSNC, even if that member moves out of the
Davis Square area. Once a year, DSNC could email all members who have
not voted in the past 3(?) years, saying: "Click here if you wish to
continue your DSNC membership". That would also be much easier to
administer than repeated verifications.

Thanks,
David Booth

[Frank Mals]

Hi David, thanks for the excellent feedback. I do have to disagree with your framing that "the overwhelming feedback received to date had been positive."  The topic was discussed at the May meeting and there were enough questions and concerns among commenters that the decision was made to hold a special meeting on the matter. 

Unfortunately, only eleven people attended that meeting, and among those eleven people only five thought sending the letter was a good idea. I don't think we truly know what support the effort does or doesn't have. I don't think sending an official letter of advocacy is a small matter and I want to be sure as shootin' that we know levels of support before we take action. 

I'm worried about  the cynicism that would start to grow among members, potential members or key groups like the Merchants Group if we were to continue to take official actions with a shockingly low number of proponents or buy-in. 

I use the Elmway Action vote as background for why I think we need to shore up our structure, not as a criticism of the Elmway Action Group. 

Regards,

Frank

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dsnc-discussi...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/cba21fb8-becc-4bb3-b5dc-315a1face574%40dbooth.org.

[Christopher Beland]

On Sat, 2026-07-25 at 19:27 -0400, Frank Mals wrote:

I do have to disagree with your framing that "the overwhelming feedback received to date had been positive."  The topic was discussed at the May meeting and there were enough questions and concerns among commenters that the decision was made to hold a special meeting on the matter. 
Unfortunately, only eleven people attended that meeting, and among those eleven people only five thought sending the letter was a good idea.

If it were only those 11 people weighing in on that decision, I would agree. But you left out the biggest meeting of all that we had on this project, the open house at Dragon Pizza that occurred between the two meetings that you did mention. We talked with a lot of residents and a few business owners and went through a lot of questions and concerns, and asked everyone to bottom-line their feelings on the project as for or against. We got 50 signatures, and they did in fact overwhelmingly support it. I assume a lot of people didn't then come back for the second special meeting on the project because they had already given their input.

This meeting was advertised to the entire DSNC and the results were mentioned at the June 3 special DSNC meeting that you attended, Frank. I don't think it's entirely fair to complain about low participation levels when not counting the highest-participation part of the process.

That said, it would not have been the end of the world if we had already raised our quorum requirement to 20 and had been forced to wait until the June 29 general meeting to vote on the Elm Street Quick Build letter. (Or send out a reminder email on the spot to get more people to Zoom in.) The purpose of having a special meeting was to make room on the regular meeting agenda for other business, and to allow more time for in-depth discussion. If people want higher vote tallies (which in this case, I think is reasonable), then maybe the thing to do is to schedule business to be voted on at regular meetings, and do community announcements and presentations and discussion at special meetings.

Chris

[Michael Chiu]

Chris,

Reiterating 2 points that I've made to the Board, but not to the broader membership:

• I agree that the Elmway proposal had more support than the 5 votes received at the special meeting.  That is why I advocate that DSNC NOT take official votes on these sorts of advocacy issues.  Sending a letter to the City from a 600+ person organization based on 5 votes doesn't send a strong message.  I think it would have been much MORE effective, and much LESS contentious, if the Elmway Action Group sent a letter on behalf of the individual members with their 50 signatures.  
• I will also point out that, following the vote, the DSNC sent a letter to the City on behalf of the organization supporting the recommendations of the Elmway Action Group.  From what I can tell (from seaching my email), this letter has never been disclosed to the DSNC membership, and  thus they do not know what is being advocated for on their behalf.

Michael

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DSNC Discussion" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dsnc-discussi...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/f2039a8a2cc2215f62b7fbaba82c9078cbe3647d.camel%40alum.mit.edu.

[Elaine Almquist]

Neighbors,

I'd also like to add a reminder to this discussion that the approval for the Elmway meeting was brought to the better-attendance monthly membership meeting, and the people who advocated to move the Elmway proposal to a topic-specific meeting were also the ones who had not yet participated in the process that already went on for over a year. And, the people who voted against it or abstained had not been to any of those other outreach meetings except a few folks who were at one Merchant's meeting, and nobody opposed it then, either.

The idea that this had any level of opposition that would have given us pause on the recommendation to the city is just inaccurate. We need to let this horse be dead.

We keep notes from all meetings, and they are in the meeting notes folder. We don't typically inform over our membership lists what was voted on at the last meeting, or email out the notes of a meeting once it's over. Since this keeps coming up, though, we can add a link to it to our meeting notes tomorrow and I've added a PDF copy of the email we sent here.

Best,

Elaine

Elaine F. Almquist

(she/her/hers)

BlueSky @EAlmquist  Instagram: @EFAlmquist
Phone: 978.375.2448

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/CAKhjUPeqdb1YkFLwZTVUY9fCaoEuiAKa7%2B9R-Z%3Dspu1Gc%2BU5yA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ashish Shrestha]

I want to re-center this discussion around the proposed amendment, but I think the Elmway Action Group is an excellent example of the issue that this amendment creates.  I personally did not attend the voting meeting for the Elmway proposal.  That is because, despite it being well-advertised during monthly meetings, over email, and in my conversations with DSNC members for months, I simply didn't think I should bother voicing my opinion.

The group had been working on a proposal for a long time and I didn't have the time to dive into the details and bring myself up-to-speed to the point that I thought I could make an intelligent vote.  That opinion seems relatively common considering, of the attendees, 22% abstained.

Similarly, during the Bylaws Working Group, we found that of the ~20 people signed up, only ~7 were interested in regular attendance.  The rest had joined the group to be informed, but not to join in active participation.

That's all to say that engagement only goes so far.  We can't force people to care about a given topic.  The idea that low voter turnout for a heavily advertised CBA with months of notice, a week of voting, and the ability to vote remotely, necessarily implies poor leadership and outreach rather than simply voter apathy falls flat.  There are likely to be many CBAs that are simply uninteresting and people will ignore.  If a CBA is simply trading an extra floor of housing for a Project Labor Agreement to force the developer to use union labor, do we really think it's possible to get 400+ people to turn out for that vote?  I think the vast majority of people will simply ignore it because it doesn't interest them, regardless of how much we shout about it from the roofs.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/CAEK62JfRqhFXBjZgWHhB6HutvmRGL2aSmP0Q59J1e%2BGpmoqZGQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Frank Mals]

Hi everyone, thanks for continuing the discussion.  As I've stated before, I have no criticism of The Elmway Action Group. The folks who worked on the proposal are well intentioned and the work contains some innovative ideas.  But the conditions that gave the green light to a letter of advocacy about the proposal to the city council, with only five votes, are hard to justify. 

I was one of the 22% of voters (four of us) to abstain. I can't speak for anyone else, but I abstained because the attendance of the meeting was too low. I heard the rationale that there was good turnout for the meeting at Dragon Pizza and that forty odd people there were in support of the proposals. In a neighborhood the size of ours, this is not a strong enough signal for me on a matter so consequential. 

I also heard the rationale that two merchants were supportive and the remaining merchants were non-committal. To interpret this as anything other than an absence of support is puzzling, and stranger still as a signal of support. I actually think this is where we are on the shakiest ground. The Elmway Proposals could have a direct effect on members of a fellow neighborhood organization but we went ahead and sent the letter without a true read on their buy-in.  

When city councilors or city officials get the results of a CBA vote, or receive a letter from us and they hear that only nine people voted, or a measure received only five votes, how seriously do we expect them to take future actions from us?

Whether it's a CBA vote, or a vote to send official communications of support, when the DSNC takes action we should have a clear understanding of neighborhood buy-in. If we adopt Ed's amendment it will ensure that when we take action, it will mean something. 

Regards,

Frank

[Alex Dehnert]

The motion (including the email) was also emailed out to the whole
membership before the special meeting:
https://groups.google.com/g/DavisSquareNC/c/asm2-UdKQNw/m/mAC8r8x-CwAJ

Anyone who was curious about the outcome could certainly have checked or
asked. (I assume, but have not carefully checked, that the email that
was sent was the email in that motion.)

On 7/26/26 18:47, Elaine Almquist wrote:
> Neighbors,
>
> I'd also like to add a reminder to this discussion that the approval for

> the Elmway meeting *was* brought to the better-attendance monthly

> membership meeting, and the people who advocated to move the Elmway
> proposal to a topic-specific meeting were also the ones who had not yet
> participated in the process that already went on for over a year. And,
> the people who voted against it or abstained had not been to any of
> those other outreach meetings except a few folks who were at one
> Merchant's meeting, and nobody opposed it then, either.
>
> The idea that this had any level of opposition that would have given us
> pause on the recommendation to the city is just inaccurate. We need to
> let this horse be dead.
>
> We keep notes from all meetings, and they are in the meeting notes

> folder. <https://docs.google.com/document/
> d/1oU0Xa0Q6_GVFuAk85ys6MdQqKTSlo_Km_sr6-z57sNE/edit?usp=sharing> We

> don't typically inform over our membership lists what was voted on at
> the last meeting, or email out the notes of a meeting once it's over.
> Since this keeps coming up, though, we can add a link to it to our
> meeting notes tomorrow and I've added a PDF copy of the email we sent

> here <https://drive.google.com/file/d/18XDrrHEVRTanXva8u3aQigDQdByZK9Xq/
> view?usp=drive_link>.
>
> Best,
> Elaine
> *
> *
> *Elaine F. Almquist*
> /(she/her/hers)/
>
> BlueSky @EAlmquist <https://bsky.app/profile/
> ealmquist.bsky.social> Instagram: @EFAlmquist <https://
> www.instagram.com/efalmquist/>

> Phone: 978.375.2448
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 26, 2026 at 5:38 PM Michael Chiu <michael...@gmail.com
> <mailto:michael...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Chris,
>
> Reiterating 2 points that I've made to the Board, but not to the
> broader membership:
>

> * I agree that the Elmway proposal had more support than the 5

> votes received at the special meeting.  That is why I advocate
> that DSNC NOT take official votes on these sorts of advocacy
> issues.  Sending a letter to the City from a 600+ person
> organization based on 5 votes doesn't send a strong message.  I
> think it would have been much MORE effective, and much LESS
> contentious, if the Elmway Action Group sent a letter on behalf
> of the individual members with their 50 signatures.

> * I will also point out that, following the vote, the DSNC sent a

> letter to the City on behalf of the organization supporting the
> recommendations of the Elmway Action Group.  From what I can
> tell (from seaching my email), this letter has never been
> disclosed to the DSNC membership, and  thus they do not know
> what is being advocated for on their behalf.
>
> Michael
>
> On Sat, Jul 25, 2026 at 9:31 PM 'Christopher Beland' via DSNC

> Discussion <dsnc-di...@googlegroups.com <mailto:dsnc-

> discu...@googlegroups.com>> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2026-07-25 at 19:27 -0400, Frank Mals wrote:
>
>> I do have to disagree with your framing that "the overwhelming
>> feedback received to date had been positive."  The topic was
>> discussed at the May meeting and there were enough questions
>> and concerns among commenters that the decision was made to
>> hold a special meeting on the matter.
>> Unfortunately, only eleven people attended that meeting, and
>> among those eleven people only five thought sending the letter
>> was a good idea.
>>
> If it were only those 11 people weighing in on that decision, I
> would agree. But you left out the biggest meeting of all that we
> had on this project, the open house at Dragon Pizza that
> occurred between the two meetings that you did mention. We

> talked with a /lot/ of residents and a few business owners and

> went through a lot of questions and concerns, and asked everyone
> to bottom-line their feelings on the project as for or against.
> We got 50 signatures, and they did in fact overwhelmingly
> support it. I assume a lot of people didn't then come back for

> the /second/ special meeting on the project because they had

> already given their input.
>
> This meeting was advertised to the entire DSNC and the results
> were mentioned at the June 3 special DSNC meeting that you
> attended, Frank. I don't think it's entirely fair to complain

> about low participation levels when /not counting the highest-
> participation part of the process/.

>
> That said, it would not have been the end of the world if we had
> already raised our quorum requirement to 20 and had been forced
> to wait until the June 29 general meeting to vote on the Elm
> Street Quick Build letter. (Or send out a reminder email on the
> spot to get more people to Zoom in.) The purpose of having a
> special meeting was to make room on the regular meeting agenda
> for other business, and to allow more time for in-depth
> discussion. If people want higher vote tallies (which in this
> case, I think is reasonable), then maybe the thing to do is to
> schedule business to be voted on at regular meetings, and do
> community announcements and presentations and discussion at
> special meetings.
>
> Chris
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> Google Groups "DSNC Discussion" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from

> it, send an email to dsnc-
> discussion+...@googlegroups.com <mailto:dsnc-
> discussion+...@googlegroups.com>.

> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/
> dsnc-discussion/
> f2039a8a2cc2215f62b7fbaba82c9078cbe3647d.camel%40alum.mit.edu

> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/
> f2039a8a2cc2215f62b7fbaba82c9078cbe3647d.camel%40alum.mit.edu?
> utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "DSNC Discussion" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to dsnc-discussi...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:dsnc-discussi...@googlegroups.com>.

> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/

> dsnc-discussion/CAKhjUPeqdb1YkFLwZTVUY9fCaoEuiAKa7%2B9R-
> Z%3Dspu1Gc%2BU5yA%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/
> msgid/dsnc-discussion/CAKhjUPeqdb1YkFLwZTVUY9fCaoEuiAKa7%2B9R-
> Z%3Dspu1Gc%2BU5yA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "DSNC Discussion" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send

> an email to dsnc-discussi...@googlegroups.com <mailto:dsnc-
> discussion+...@googlegroups.com>.

> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-
> discussion/

> CAEK62JfRqhFXBjZgWHhB6HutvmRGL2aSmP0Q59J1e%2BGpmoqZGQ%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/
> CAEK62JfRqhFXBjZgWHhB6HutvmRGL2aSmP0Q59J1e%2BGpmoqZGQ%40mail.gmail.com?
> utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

[Alex Dehnert]

I think we have (informal) tiers of involvement.

A bunch of people live/work/etc. in the area and are eligible for
membership, but haven't necessarily done anything with DSNC (Frank
mentioned 20K? I vaguely recall seeing 10K at some point)
Some people have gotten verified and joined the mailing list (~600?)
Some people will vote a couple times a year online or at polling booths
(~400?)
Some people routinely come to general meetings (50-100?)
Some people participate through committees weekly (25?)

I'm excited to grow any of those tiers! Getting somebody who lives in
the neighborhood to join the mailing list, even if they don't bother to
vote, seems like a win to me.

My concern is that any sort of threshold for engagement at one tier
that's based on another tier says "if you get a bunch of people more
engaged at one tier, you better also be able to get some people to move
to the next tier as well". If the outreach committee comes up with a
brilliant idea to get more people verified and on our mailing list
(tabling at ArtBeat?), that's great. We should do that!

I don't want people to be worried "but will those people vote in the
CBA?". This is particularly true because the people we haven't reached
yet for e.g. membership but reach in the future will probably be on
average a little less civically engaged than our current membership
(who, after all, found us without our future outreach). That's fine, but
it means they'll probably be *harder* to convert into (e.g.) regular
voters. We got ~400 voting members out of ~600 verified members. I bet
our next 600 verified members will yield fewer voting members -- going
by Somerville turnout, maybe 300.

If every new member comes with an obligation to convert a fraction of
them to regular voters, that's a disincentive to recruit those new
members. If we're struggling to get CBA turnout, and somebody proposes a
brilliant scheme to get new members, I worry the response will not "yes!
go for it", it'll be "ugh that's going to make my turnout problem
worse". Even if people aren't consciously making deciding to avoid
growing the organization because it'll make CBA's harder, I worry it'll
subconsciously demoralize recruiters or force people to focus their
limited effort on modestly-effective attempts to boost CBA turnout,
rather than more effective or more personally engaging efforts to boost
total membership, meeting turnout, or committee engagement. Personally,
I think growing any of those other tiers would be great too, and if
somebody's skills lend themselves to focusing on growing those tiers,
they should work on that.

> Hi Colin, I like the percentage option because it factors in the
> growth I hope we achieve!

In short, I dislike it because I worry it *discourages* the growth in
total membership we hope to achieve, because any new member will make
our other operations harder, and it's a lot easier to just not recruit
than it is to figure out how to get somebody to vote.

~~Alex

>>>>>> <rebe...@gmail.com <mailto:rebe...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Just to pipe in again, I think it's helpful to stay focused on

>>>>>> the details of amendment 18C1 <https://docs.google.com/
>>>>>> document/d/1O-2HcM-SaG1iMa3UE6BPloUzkj9GeqWl1Q_AM1ylh30/edit?
>>>>>> usp=sharing>, the subject of this thread. Amendment 18C1
>>>>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1O-2HcM-
>>>>>> SaG1iMa3UE6BPloUzkj9GeqWl1Q_AM1ylh30/edit?usp=sharing> would

>>>>>> add a new requirement that any successful CBA vote would have

>>>>>> to have *voter turnout of 2/3 (or 67%)* of the total verified

>>>>>> membership in order to be successful (this in addition to the
>>>>>> existing requirement that 2/3 of votes cast me in favor of the
>>>>>> CBA).  I belive our current membership is 676, which means
>>>>>> that if a CBA vote were held tomorrow it would require voter
>>>>>> turnout of .67 x 676 =  452 voters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some of you may have heard Ed Woll discuss a different idea,
>>>>>> not up for a vote at Monday's meeting but probably in the near
>>>>>> future, which would raise our existing requirement for a

>>>>>> *meeting quorum from 8 people to 20%* of our membership.

>>>>>> Frank, it sounds like that's the proposal you're referring to
>>>>>> in your message.  That is NOT the proposal in amendment 18C1
>>>>>> that we will be voting for on Monday.  Again, I think it's

>>>>>> helpful to distinguish between amendments for *voter turnout*,
>>>>>> like amendment 18C1, and amendment for *meeting quorums*,

>>>>>>> <rebe...@gmail.com <mailto:rebe...@gmail.com>>

>>>>>>> <mailto:co...@mcmillen.dev>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> __

>>>>>>> I strongly agree. Also, requiring a
>>>>>>> super-quorum for CBAs votes gives a
>>>>>>> strange incentive for people to formally
>>>>>>> *drop* their DSNC membership if the usual
>>>>>>> meeting time conflicts with their
>>>>>>> personal schedule (and for the engaged
>>>>>>> and active members to attempt to get
>>>>>>> less-engaged members to drop their
>>>>>>> memberships), which isn't something we
>>>>>>> should be encouraging or requiring.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Colin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> You received this message because you are
>>>>>>> subscribed to the Google Groups "DSNC
>>>>>>> Discussion" group.
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop
>>>>>>> receiving emails from it, send an email

>>>>>>> to dsnc-
>>>>>>> discussion+...@googlegroups.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:dsnc-
>>>>>>> discussion+...@googlegroups.com>.

>>>>>>> To view this discussion visit https://
>>>>>>> groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-
>>>>>>> discussion/7e0d07ca-2c95-4892-8dee-9ab41bb00cb0%40app.fastmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/7e0d07ca-2c95-4892-8dee-9ab41bb00cb0%40app.fastmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> You received this message because you are
>>>>>>> subscribed to the Google Groups "DSNC
>>>>>>> Discussion" group.
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop
>>>>>>> receiving emails from it, send an email to

>>>>>>> dsnc-discussi...@googlegroups.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:dsnc-
>>>>>>> discussion+...@googlegroups.com>.

>>>>>>> To view this discussion visit https://
>>>>>>> groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/
>>>>>>> CAEVTO7JhAY8F6HC7dsud4uUrBYcCss7MSQ7ouUer0uDiAkqwsA%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/CAEVTO7JhAY8F6HC7dsud4uUrBYcCss7MSQ7ouUer0uDiAkqwsA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>

>>>>>> --
>>>>>> You received this message because you are
>>>>>> subscribed to the Google Groups "DSNC Discussion"
>>>>>> group.
>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
>>>>>> emails from it, send an email to dsnc-

>>>>>> discussion+...@googlegroups.com
>>>>>> <mailto:dsnc-discussi...@googlegroups.com>.

>>>>>> To view this discussion visit https://
>>>>>> groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/

>>>>>> CF15C4F1-647E-431F-AC86-E87B7CC16DFD%40woll.us
>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-
>>>>>> discussion/CF15C4F1-647E-431F-AC86-
>>>>>> E87B7CC16DFD%40woll.us?
>>>>>> utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed
>>>>>> to the Google Groups "DSNC Discussion" group.
>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving

>>>>>> emails from it, send an email to dsnc-
>>>>>> discussion+...@googlegroups.com <mailto:dsnc-
>>>>>> discussion+...@googlegroups.com>.

>>>>>> To view this discussion visit https://
>>>>>> groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/

>>>>>> CAEDUMSyMirogavO-dueWhWxuExUT-
>>>>>> uG4ixA-6njP7c8_GMQuYg%40mail.gmail.com <https://
>>>>>> groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/
>>>>>> CAEDUMSyMirogavO-dueWhWxuExUT-
>>>>>> uG4ixA-6njP7c8_GMQuYg%40mail.gmail.com?
>>>>>> utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
>>>>> Google Groups "DSNC Discussion" group.
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from

>>>>> it, send an email to dsnc-
>>>>> discussion+...@googlegroups.com <mailto:dsnc-
>>>>> discussion+...@googlegroups.com>.

>>>>> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/

>>>>> msgid/dsnc-discussion/47E65E06-FD56-49C1-ADEC-
>>>>> DE2C0A850C04%40gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/
>>>>> dsnc-discussion/47E65E06-FD56-49C1-ADEC-
>>>>> DE2C0A850C04%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>> Groups "DSNC Discussion" group.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>>>> send an email to dsnc-discussi...@googlegroups.com

>>>> <mailto:dsnc-discussi...@googlegroups.com>.

>>>> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/

>>>> dsnc-discussion/4073c1fa-667c-4a7c-
>>>> b172-471757b10efb%40app.fastmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/
>>>> msgid/dsnc-discussion/4073c1fa-667c-4a7c-
>>>> b172-471757b10efb%40app.fastmail.com?
>>>> utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "DSNC Discussion" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send

> an email to dsnc-discussi...@googlegroups.com <mailto:dsnc-
> discussion+...@googlegroups.com>.

> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-

> discussion/3A7FC897-2247-4A74-8A16-99991099586F%40gmail.com <https://
> groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-
> discussion/3A7FC897-2247-4A74-8A16-99991099586F%40gmail.com?
> utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

[Alex Dehnert]

> Whether it's a CBA vote, or a vote to send official communications
> of support, when the DSNC takes action we should have a clear
> understanding of neighborhood buy-in. If we adopt Ed's amendment it
> will ensure that when we take action, it will mean something.

The binary passage or rejection of a CBA vote does one very concrete
thing, and it's not "endorse the project" (the A is for "agreement", not
endorsement). It means we go ahead and sign a legally binding agreement
with a developer where they promise to give us shiny things (community
spaces, extra affordable housing, union labor, ...) and we (AIUI) give
them basically nothing. (The city council, maybe, votes to give them a
zoning change, but that's a separate vote.)

There's also endorsement value, of course, but the city council (and
reporters, the mayor, etc.) aren't required to just look at the binary
pass/reject outcome for the CBA. If 400 of 618 members turn out for a
CBA and 95% of them vote for it, under this amendment, the CBA will
fail. We won't get our shiny things. But will city council really look
at that vote and say "oh, there's no community support, better reject
this?". I doubt it. I think they'll conclude there's strong community
support and approve the project. This seems like a *really bad outcome*
for us.

In general, I think we should have a slightly lower threshold for CBA
approval than really reflects deep community support, because if a CBA
narrowly passes, people can go to city council and say "that was a
narrow passage, you should reject the project anyway", and the negative
consequences are minimal (we have a contract that doesn't go into
effect). OTOH, a narrow rejection when the bar is high risks city
council approving the project and us not getting the benefits, which
seems like a really bad outcome.

I'd actually be much happier setting a higher turnout requirement for a
pure-endorsement vote than for a CBA, because an endorsement vote is
really about neighborhood buy-in.

~~Alex

> approval for the Elmway meeting *was* brought to the better-

> attendance monthly membership meeting, and the people who
> advocated to move the Elmway proposal to a topic-specific
> meeting were also the ones who had not yet participated in the
> process that already went on for over a year. And, the people
> who voted against it or abstained had not been to any of those
> other outreach meetings except a few folks who were at one
> Merchant's meeting, and nobody opposed it then, either.
>
> The idea that this had any level of opposition that would have
> given us pause on the recommendation to the city is just
> inaccurate. We need to let this horse be dead.
>
> We keep notes from all meetings, and they are in the meeting

> notes folder. <https://docs.google.com/document/
> d/1oU0Xa0Q6_GVFuAk85ys6MdQqKTSlo_Km_sr6-z57sNE/edit?
> usp=sharing> We don't typically inform over our membership lists

> what was voted on at the last meeting, or email out the notes of
> a meeting once it's over. Since this keeps coming up, though, we
> can add a link to it to our meeting notes tomorrow and I've

> added a PDF copy of the email we sent here <https://
> drive.google.com/file/d/18XDrrHEVRTanXva8u3aQigDQdByZK9Xq/view?

> usp=drive_link>.
>
> Best,
> Elaine
> *
> *
> *Elaine F. Almquist*
> /(she/her/hers)/
>
> BlueSky @EAlmquist <https://bsky.app/profile/
> ealmquist.bsky.social> Instagram: @EFAlmquist <https://
> www.instagram.com/efalmquist/>

> Phone: 978.375.2448
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 26, 2026 at 5:38 PM Michael Chiu
> <michael...@gmail.com <mailto:michael...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Chris,
>
> Reiterating 2 points that I've made to the Board, but not to
> the broader membership:
>

> * I agree that the Elmway proposal had more support than

> the 5 votes received at the special meeting.  That is
> why I advocate that DSNC NOT take official votes on
> these sorts of advocacy issues.  Sending a letter to the
> City from a 600+ person organization based on 5 votes
> doesn't send a strong message.  I think it would have
> been much MORE effective, and much LESS contentious, if
> the Elmway Action Group sent a letter on behalf of the
> individual members with their 50 signatures.

> * I will also point out that, following the vote, the DSNC

> sent a letter to the City on behalf of the organization
> supporting the recommendations of the Elmway Action
> Group.  From what I can tell (from seaching my email),
> this letter has never been disclosed to the DSNC
> membership, and  thus they do not know what is being
> advocated for on their behalf.
>
> Michael
>
> On Sat, Jul 25, 2026 at 9:31 PM 'Christopher Beland' via
> DSNC Discussion <dsnc-di...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:dsnc-di...@googlegroups.com>> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2026-07-25 at 19:27 -0400, Frank Mals wrote:
>
>> I do have to disagree with your framing that "the
>> overwhelming feedback received to date had been
>> positive."  The topic was discussed at the May meeting
>> and there were enough questions and concerns among
>> commenters that the decision was made to hold a
>> special meeting on the matter.
>> Unfortunately, only eleven people attended that
>> meeting, and among those eleven people only five
>> thought sending the letter was a good idea.
>>
> If it were only those 11 people weighing in on that
> decision, I would agree. But you left out the biggest
> meeting of all that we had on this project, the open
> house at Dragon Pizza that occurred between the two

> meetings that you did mention. We talked with a /lot/ of

> residents and a few business owners and went through a
> lot of questions and concerns, and asked everyone to
> bottom-line their feelings on the project as for or
> against. We got 50 signatures, and they did in fact
> overwhelmingly support it. I assume a lot of people

> didn't then come back for the /second/ special meeting

> on the project because they had already given their input.
>
> This meeting was advertised to the entire DSNC and the
> results were mentioned at the June 3 special DSNC
> meeting that you attended, Frank. I don't think it's
> entirely fair to complain about low participation levels

> when /not counting the highest-participation part of the
> process/.

>
> That said, it would not have been the end of the world
> if we had already raised our quorum requirement to 20
> and had been forced to wait until the June 29 general
> meeting to vote on the Elm Street Quick Build letter.
> (Or send out a reminder email on the spot to get more
> people to Zoom in.) The purpose of having a special
> meeting was to make room on the regular meeting agenda
> for other business, and to allow more time for in-depth
> discussion. If people want higher vote tallies (which in
> this case, I think is reasonable), then maybe the thing
> to do is to schedule business to be voted on at regular
> meetings, and do community announcements and
> presentations and discussion at special meetings.
>
> Chris
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to
> the Google Groups "DSNC Discussion" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails

> from it, send an email to dsnc-
> discussion+...@googlegroups.com <mailto:dsnc-
> discussion+...@googlegroups.com>.

> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/
> d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/

> f2039a8a2cc2215f62b7fbaba82c9078cbe3647d.camel%40alum.mit.edu <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/f2039a8a2cc2215f62b7fbaba82c9078cbe3647d.camel%40alum.mit.edu?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> Google Groups "DSNC Discussion" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails

> from it, send an email to dsnc-
> discussion+...@googlegroups.com <mailto:dsnc-
> discussion+...@googlegroups.com>.

> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> msgid/dsnc-discussion/

> CAKhjUPeqdb1YkFLwZTVUY9fCaoEuiAKa7%2B9R-
> Z%3Dspu1Gc%2BU5yA%40mail.gmail.com <https://
> groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/
> CAKhjUPeqdb1YkFLwZTVUY9fCaoEuiAKa7%2B9R-
> Z%3Dspu1Gc%2BU5yA%40mail.gmail.com?
> utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> Google Groups "DSNC Discussion" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from

> it, send an email to dsnc-
> discussion+...@googlegroups.com <mailto:dsnc-
> discussion+...@googlegroups.com>.

> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/
> dsnc-discussion/

> CAEK62JfRqhFXBjZgWHhB6HutvmRGL2aSmP0Q59J1e%2BGpmoqZGQ%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/CAEK62JfRqhFXBjZgWHhB6HutvmRGL2aSmP0Q59J1e%2BGpmoqZGQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "DSNC Discussion" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send

> an email to dsnc-discussi...@googlegroups.com <mailto:dsnc-
> discussion+...@googlegroups.com>.

> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-
> discussion/

> CAGzeWuO73cceiJhXrXNuQqUM5evw_AxMqRxXvxQtTRHhw%3D66JQ%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/
> CAGzeWuO73cceiJhXrXNuQqUM5evw_AxMqRxXvxQtTRHhw%3D66JQ%40mail.gmail.com?
> utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

[Derrick Rice]

I want to push back on the possibly implied characterization that opposing a voting threshold equates to being comfortable "with votes with a turnout of laughably small numbers".

I am opposed to adding a voting threshold for CBAs. I am also very much uncomfortable with small turnout for importance community decisions. However, I see the best mechanism for ensuring turnout to be notice periods, outreach, multi-day voting, and same-day voter registration. We have all these mechanisms and I have no reason to believe that we'll encounter an situation of embarrassingly low turnout.

Adding a voter requirement to bylaws will have unintended harmful consequences, with little practical upside. (1) It complicates outreach to engage new members, for the reasons Rebecca mentioned. I strongly support getting as many people verified to vote as possible, and not having to pause to think "Wait but what if this person never shows up, and makes it hard to hit voter thresholds?" (2) It creates significantly administrative work, namely in having to maintain an up-to-date list of verified members, i.e. requiring some sort of "expiration" on membership. That will itself cause a whole host of debate and time/energy spent for no community benefit.

This amendment is unnecessary and creates more challenges than it solves. Our energy can be better spent on outreach and engagement efforts to strengthen the neighborhood council in general.

Final comment: I worry that some of the motivation for this amendment and others like it may be coming from a place of concern that someone will maneuver to hold a vote or meeting in secret, to accomplish their political objectives despite the DSNC membership's collective values. I don't assume any particular person feels that way, but the tone of some of the dialogue suggests something like this may be lurking beneath the surface, perhaps even only in the hypothetical. If so, I feel this reveals a deep mistrust of your neighbors. I generally trust the elected Board to ensure no such shenanigans occur.

[Alan Ball]

If someone lived in the Davis Square area and became a DSNC member, but then moved away, they should join the community group where they live. What they "want" to do in the future is irrelevant. If they move back we should welcome them to rejoin.

Thanks,

AL

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DSNC Discussion" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dsnc-discussi...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/4b13bcc1-8c88-47f9-8c07-25cdd5101987%40dbooth.org.

--

Alan Ball

A.B.I.D.

Alan Ball Industrial Design Inc.

50 Francesca Ave

Somerville, Ma 02144

(617) 718-9342 office

(617) 733-2663 mobile

alb...@abidstudio.com

[Meredith Porter]

> If someone lived in the Davis Square area and became a DSNC member, but then moved away, they should join the community group where they live. What they "want" to do in the future is irrelevant. If they move back we should welcome them to rejoin.

According to the neighborhood councils ordinance, they can't be members if they're outside the area. Sec. 7-221(a)(4) provides:

The bylaws shall clearly identify how membership and voting rights are established. Only those persons within the boundaries of the neighborhood who have affirmatively joined the council may be counted as members.

Best regards,

Meredith Porter ("Merit," he/him)

---

From: "Alan Ball" <alb...@abidstudio.com>
To: "David Booth" <da...@dbooth.org>
Cc: dsnc-di...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 11:37:01 AM
Subject: Re: [DSNC-Discussion] Allowing former Davis Square residents to continue their membership

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/CALDkL1dRPzeGMg0G6PS63FpOPbsDcfBQuwNc6QQnGyOJxndnoQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[David Booth]

On 7/27/26 11:48, Meredith Porter wrote:
> According to the neighborhood councils ordinance, they can't be members
> if they're outside the area. Sec. 7-221(a)(4) provides:
>
> The bylaws shall clearly identify how membership and voting rights are
> established. Only those persons within the boundaries of the
> neighborhood who have affirmatively joined the council may be counted as
> members.

Thanks for that info. I withdraw my suggestion.

David

[Alex Dehnert]

I'm not entirely sure how to interpret that part of the ordinance. I
think the operative part is really "you can't count everyone as members,
they need to do something".

7-221a2 *requires* including non-residents ("Membership shall be open to
all persons who [...] own a place of business or work or attend school
within the boundaries of the neighborhood"). It also allows others with
"close connections": "These requirements shall not preclude a
neighborhood council from, at their discretion, expanding their
membership criteria to include other groups with close connections to
the neighborhood."

It seems to me that "former residents" *could* be included (another
"group with close connections") if we wanted to. (I think it makes sense
to me to require ongoing volunteering, etc. rather than mere former
residence to qualify for membership, but I don't think there's an issue
with the ordinance.)

~~Alex

https://online.encodeplus.com/regs/somerville-ma-coo/doc-viewer.aspx?secid=1594#secid-1594

On 7/27/26 11:48, Meredith Porter wrote:

>> If someone lived in the Davis Square area and became a DSNC member, but then moved away, they should join the community group where they live. What they "want" to do in the future is irrelevant. If they move back we should welcome them to rejoin.
>
> According to the neighborhood councils ordinance, they can't be members
> if they're outside the area. Sec. 7-221(a)(4) provides:
> The bylaws shall clearly identify how membership and voting rights are
> established. Only those persons within the boundaries of the
> neighborhood who have affirmatively joined the council may be counted as
> members.
>
> Best regards,
> Meredith Porter ("Merit," he/him)
>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From: *"Alan Ball" <alb...@abidstudio.com>
> *To: *"David Booth" <da...@dbooth.org>
> *Cc: *dsnc-di...@googlegroups.com
> *Sent: *Monday, July 27, 2026 11:37:01 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [DSNC-Discussion] Allowing former Davis Square residents

> <mailto:dsnc-discussion%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.

> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/
> dsnc-discussion/4b13bcc1-8c88-47f9-8c07-25cdd5101987%40dbooth.org

> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-
> discussion/4b13bcc1-8c88-47f9-8c07-25cdd5101987%40dbooth.org>.

>
>
>
> --
> Alan Ball
> A.B.I.D.
>
> Alan Ball Industrial Design Inc.
> 50 Francesca Ave
> Somerville, Ma 02144
>
> (617) 718-9342 office
> (617) 733-2663 mobile

> alb...@abidstudio.com <mailto:alb...@abidstudio.com>

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "DSNC Discussion" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send

> an email to dsnc-discussi...@googlegroups.com <mailto:dsnc-
> discussion+...@googlegroups.com>.

> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-
> discussion/

> CALDkL1dRPzeGMg0G6PS63FpOPbsDcfBQuwNc6QQnGyOJxndnoQ%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/
> CALDkL1dRPzeGMg0G6PS63FpOPbsDcfBQuwNc6QQnGyOJxndnoQ%40mail.gmail.com?
> utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "DSNC Discussion" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send

> an email to dsnc-discussi...@googlegroups.com <mailto:dsnc-
> discussion+...@googlegroups.com>.

> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-

> discussion/1972737728.28650236.1785167328277.JavaMail.zimbra%40rcn.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-
> discussion/1972737728.28650236.1785167328277.JavaMail.zimbra%40rcn.com?
> utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

[David Booth]

On 7/27/26 13:46, Alex Dehnert wrote:
> I'm not entirely sure how to interpret that part of the ordinance. I
> think the operative part is really "you can't count everyone as members,
> they need to do something".
>
> 7-221a2 *requires* including non-residents ("Membership shall be open to
> all persons who [...] own a place of business or work or attend school
> within the boundaries of the neighborhood"). It also allows others with
> "close connections": "These requirements shall not preclude a
> neighborhood council from, at their discretion, expanding their
> membership criteria to include other groups with close connections to
> the neighborhood."
>
> It seems to me that "former residents" *could* be included (another
> "group with close connections") if we wanted to. (I think it makes sense
> to me to require ongoing volunteering, etc. rather than mere former
> residence to qualify for membership, but I don't think there's an issue
> with the ordinance.)

Great points. Having now re-read the ordinance, I think you are correct
in your interpretation. Otherwise Section 7-221.a.2.b would make no sense:

"These requirements shall not preclude a neighborhood council
from, at their discretion, expanding their membership criteria to
include other groups with close connections to the neighborhood."

https://online.encodeplus.com/regs/somerville-ma-coo/doc-viewer.aspx?secid=1594#secid-1594

Thanks,
David Booth

>
> ~~Alex
>
> https://online.encodeplus.com/regs/somerville-ma-coo/doc-viewer.aspx?

[Rachel Rosenberg]

Hi all,

Wherever this discussion lands, I think it is important for all to be aware that DSNC president Elaine Almquist moved out of Davis Sq a couple of months ago.  If we're debating whether someone outside of Davis Square should be allowed to be a DSNC member, what about DSNC president??

Best,

Rachel

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dsnc-discussi...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/c27c957d-b5c7-459a-ba40-122706c5e3ca%40dbooth.org.

[Elizabeth Merrick]

To me it seems absurd in general for membership to be open to people who do not live, work, own businesses in the Davis Square neighborhood. I thought the group is supposed to represent the interests of people in the neighborhood.

Elizabeth Merrick 

Get Outlook for iOS

---

From: dsnc-di...@googlegroups.com <dsnc-di...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Rachel Rosenberg <rachelro...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:12 PM
To: David Booth <da...@dbooth.org>
Cc: dsnc-di...@googlegroups.com <dsnc-di...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [DSNC-Discussion] Allowing former Davis Square residents to continue their membership

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/CAN%2BJWrM79VmRLSU2BQ1fMFb3uin%3D_s9vJSfXOfAuygR6VAKhtg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Edward Woll]

Some of you have expressed concern about turnout for a CBA vote on “small” projects for lack of interest.

We need to be aware of the limitation of the Ordinance that DSNC would only have authority to negotiate a CBA if the project "significantly impacts the area within the council's boundaries” as proscribed by Ordinance Section 7-225.

Sec. 7-225. Community benefits agreement negotiation.

1. (a)
   A recognized neighborhood council may negotiate a community benefits agreement with a developer whose project, or a combination or series of projects, significantly impacts the area within the council's boundaries.
2. (b)
   In the event that a development project impacts an area that falls within the boundaries of two or more recognized neighborhood councils, the affected councils shall work as a unit to represent their areas in the negotiation of a community benefits agreement.

(Ord. No. 2023-11, 4-13-2023)

Effective on: 4/13/2023

The Board would be obligated to point out to our membership that the project would have a significant impact, which would catalyze high attendance.  So DSNC would not be involved with a CBA on a three-family building where they agree to plant an extra tree, which Chris seemed to conjecture would warrant a CBA.

Ed

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dsnc-discussi...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/b95eeea9-4e96-47f5-adf1-b73878fa1dcd%40dehnerts.com.

[Rebecca Rogers]

"Small" is a relative description, I suppose.  Union Square is negotiating a CBA for a 9 story building in an area zoned for 5, if I'm reading the documents correctly.  That is an example of a "smaller" development that might not have the visibility of a Copper Mill (26 stories of residential in a parcel zoned for commercial core 4), and might have trouble attracting the necessary member interest to reach a 2/3 turnout requirement. 

I remain concerned that the DSNC would not be able to negotiate CBAs for lower-profile developments if this amendment were to pass.

--Rebecca

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "dsnc-bylaws" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dsnc-bylaws...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-bylaws/B2DA5591-4270-419D-99EA-049204FD320D%40woll.us.

[PJ Santos]

I think the major concern is your proposal would lead to rejecting projects or cbas that have widespread support, both due to practical reasons (people move, our voter rolls will never be 100% up to date) and a worry that the turnout threshold you've requested is higher than is typical in federal, let alone local elections.

Maybe a compromise would be we require a vote where 2/3 of members must vote in favor to open cba negotiations. If that threshold is not cleared, the Board is required to write a letter to the city council that the project is not controversial enough to justify a CBA and that it should proceed through the city council? 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DSNC Board" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dsnc-board+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-board/B2DA5591-4270-419D-99EA-049204FD320D%40woll.us.

[Meredith Porter]

Hi David and Alex, I've spent many hours going over this and I can't see how the ordinance can be interpreted as allowing anyone outside of the boundaries of the neighborhood to be counted as a member:

Only those persons within the boundaries of the neighborhood who have affirmatively joined the council may be counted as members. (Sec. 7-221(a)(4))

Membership shall be open to all persons who reside within the neighborhood, or own a place of business or work or attend school within the boundaries of the neighborhood. (Sec. 7-221(a)(2))

There's nothing resembling:

> "you can't count everyone as members, they need to do something".

Sec. 7-221(a)(2)(b) still makes sense:

> These requirements shall not preclude a neighborhood council from, at their discretion, expanding their membership criteria to include other groups with close connections to the neighborhood.

This allows the criteria for membership to be extended to others within the neighborhood who do not own a place of business or work or attend school there to be counted as members, such as those who volunteer or receive support services there.

There is no provision for including as members those outside of the boundaries of the neighborhood, but within 1/2 mile. In order to comply with the ordinance and retain the current membership (except for those residing outside Somerville), the neighborhood boundaries would need to be expanded, but limited to the City of Somerville. The distinctions between those within 1/2 mile of the boundaries and those within the boundaries would need to be removed, and the purview of the DSNC would be expanded to a much larger area as well.

Alternatively, amendments could be made to the ordinance.

Best regards,

Merit

---

From: "'Elizabeth Merrick' via DSNC Discussion" <dsnc-di...@googlegroups.com>
To: "Rachel Rosenberg" <rachelro...@gmail.com>, "David Booth" <da...@dbooth.org>
Cc: dsnc-di...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 2:21:49 PM

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/8569B990-33AF-3F4A-9BBC-14B69D60A137%40hxcore.ol.

[Edward Woll]

The ordinance is quite specific and emphatic in using the word “significant” as to the impact on the entire area in the DSNC boundaries.  The ordinance does not use the word small. In only used it in the context of Chris’s tree example.

Ed

[Ashish Shrestha]

The ordinance does not define "significant".  Changing an area from MR4 to MR6 would require a zoning change which could be categorized as "significant" due to the legislative work required, but would also be only an increase from 4 to 6 stories and unlikely to garner much debate.  Technically it would also be increasing the maximum height by 50% which would be a significant increase, but everyone I've spoken to has said that 6 stories is uncontroversial (many even agreeing to up to ~9 stories for Copper Mill)

[Edward Woll]

To confirm that the boundaries mean something, look at the definitions, which, like many other provisions, stress the boundary limitations.  The language as to membership is quite clear.  

Neighborhood council shall mean a voluntary organization, council, or association formed by property owners, residents, worker and/or tenants within a specified geographic boundary within the city and governed by a set of written bylaws.

"As for Section 7-221(a)(2)b, which says: These requirements shall not preclude a neighborhood council from, at their discretion, expanding their membership criteria to include other groups with close connections to the neighborhood."

Does that mean that a person who lives in Boston but who haas parents living in Somerville has a “close connection”? Or that a person who lives elsewhere in Massachusetts but is a member of a national organization that has a Chapter in Somerville has a “close connection”?  

My opinion is no and that the application of that provision should be quite limited.  

Ed Woll

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/159919185.29499569.1785180033712.JavaMail.zimbra%40rcn.com.

[Colin McMillen]

It's not our place, as members of DSNC, to legislate what's meant by "significant" in the ordinance. That's on city council, the mayor, and their lawyers. We could argue with each other all day about whether a given project counts as "significant" or not but at the end of the day it's on the city itself to decide what the threshold is, or should be. There's no wording anywhere in the ordinance that implies that a vote quorum is necessary or sufficient to establish "significance".

[Colin McMillen]

Without speaking to the broader question of whether people who move away from Davis should be allowed to continue being members, I think for the case of Elaine Almquist specifically, continued membership is justified by the current bylaws:

"Any person may participate as a Member who: [...] Regularly volunteers at an organization/agency located within the Neighborhood Boundaries"

The DSNC is a nonprofit organization that is definitionally within the Neighborhood Boundaries, and being an actively-involved officer of a nonprofit is sufficient to establish Elaine as a valid member.

I would say that if Elaine runs for re-election to a board position, she would not count toward the quota of "at least 1 Davis Square renter" any more.

Best,

Colin

[Alex Dehnert]

My inclination is that "within the boundaries of the neighborhood" is
poorly drafted and should just be ignored, but setting that aside...

One way to interpret the ordinance is:
"Of people within the boundaries of the neighborhood: only those who

have affirmatively joined the council may be counted as members."

(whereas, perhaps, we could make the mayor an ex officio member and
count them as a member without them taking explicit action)

I generally find "person within the boundaries" to be weird for
membership: does the membership need to fluctuate as people in and out
of the boundaries? Does this cover anybody who has ever entered the
boundaries? Do people need a connection (residence, employment) to some
more stationary nexus within the boundaries? Is there any reason why
that nexus can't be "one of the nearby T stops to home" (as it is for
the residence category" or "a place that I volunteer"?

7-221a2b certainly seems to envision including people who don't live or
work within the boundaries. (For people who don't have the ordinance in
front of them, it's "These requirements shall not preclude a

neighborhood council from, at their discretion, expanding their
membership criteria to include other groups with close connections to

the neighborhood." -- Merit's "This allows [...]" is his text, not an
example from the ordinance.)

> There is no provision for including as members those outside of the
> boundaries of the neighborhood, but within 1/2 mile.

Perhaps the most persuasive evidence that the +1/2 mile thing is fine:
AIUI we've run this by a bunch of city councilors and none have objected
or even commented on it. (They did comment on "genuine local interest"
and express mild discontent, which is why we're voting tonight on
removing it. I think we got a comment on including non-Somervillens for
residence, but AIUI it was more "huh, interesting" than "this is bad".)


> There's nothing resembling:
>> "you can't count everyone as members,they need to do something".

That's my summary of 7-221a4. It's certainly not a direct quote.

~~Alex

On 7/27/26 15:20, Meredith Porter wrote:
> Hi David and Alex, I've spent many hours going over this and I can't see
> how the ordinance can be interpreted as allowing anyone outside of the
> boundaries of the neighborhood to be counted as a member:

> *Only those persons within the boundaries of theneighborhood who have
> affirmatively joined the council may be counted**as members.* (Sec.
> 7-221(a)(4))
> Membership shall be open to all persons who reside *within the
> neighborhood*, or own a place of business or work or attend
> school*within the boundaries of the neighborhood.* (Sec. 7-221(a)(2))
>
> There's nothing resembling:
>> "you can't count everyone as members,they need to do something".

>
> Sec. 7-221(a)(2)(b) still makes sense:
> > These requirements shall not preclude a neighborhood council from, at
> their discretion, expanding their membership criteria to include other
> groups with close connections to the neighborhood.
> This allows the criteria for membership to be extended to others within
> the neighborhood who do not own a place of business or work or attend
> school there to be counted as members, such as those who volunteer or
> receive support services there.
>
> There is no provision for including as members those outside of the
> boundaries of the neighborhood, but within 1/2 mile. In order to comply
> with the ordinance and retain the current membership (except for those
> residing outside Somerville), the neighborhood boundaries would need to
> be expanded, but limited to the City of Somerville. The distinctions
> between those within 1/2 mile of the boundaries and those within the
> boundaries would need to be removed, and the purview of the DSNC would
> be expanded to a much larger area as well.
>
> Alternatively, amendments could be made to the ordinance.
>
> Best regards,
> Merit
>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From: *"'Elizabeth Merrick' via DSNC Discussion" <dsnc-
> discu...@googlegroups.com>
> *To: *"Rachel Rosenberg" <rachelro...@gmail.com>, "David Booth"
> <da...@dbooth.org>
> *Cc: *dsnc-di...@googlegroups.com
> *Sent: *Monday, July 27, 2026 2:21:49 PM

> *Subject: *Re: [DSNC-Discussion] Allowing former Davis Square residents
> to continue their membership
>

> To me it seems absurd in general for membership to be open to people who
> do not live, work, own businesses in the Davis Square neighborhood. I
> thought the group is supposed to represent the interests of people in
> the neighborhood.
>
> Elizabeth Merrick
>
>

> Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* dsnc-di...@googlegroups.com <dsnc-
> discu...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Rachel Rosenberg
> <rachelro...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, July 27, 2026 2:12 PM

> *To:* David Booth <da...@dbooth.org>

> *Cc:* dsnc-di...@googlegroups.com <dsnc-di...@googlegroups.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [DSNC-Discussion] Allowing former Davis Square residents

> to continue their membership
> Hi all,
>
> Wherever this discussion lands, I think it is important for all to be
> aware that DSNC president Elaine Almquist moved out of Davis Sq a couple
> of months ago.  If we're debating whether someone outside of Davis

> Square should be allowed to be a DSNC /member/, what about DSNC /
> president/??

> viewer.aspx?secid=1594#secid-1594 <https://online.encodeplus.com/
> regs/somerville-ma-coo/doc-viewer.aspx?secid=1594#secid-1594>

>
> Thanks,
> David Booth
>
> >
> > ~~Alex
> >
> > https://online.encodeplus.com/regs/somerville-ma-coo/doc-

> viewer.aspx <https://online.encodeplus.com/regs/somerville-ma-coo/
> doc-viewer.aspx>?

> > secid=1594#secid-1594
> >
> > On 7/27/26 11:48, Meredith Porter wrote:
> >>> If someone lived in the Davis Square area and became a DSNC member,
> >>> but then moved away, they should join the community group where
> they
> >>> live. What they "want" to do in the future is irrelevant. If they
> >>> move back we should welcome them to rejoin.
> >>
> >> According to the neighborhood councils ordinance, they can't be
> >> members if they're outside the area. Sec. 7-221(a)(4) provides:
> >> The bylaws shall clearly identify how membership and voting
> rights are
> >> established. Only those persons within the boundaries of the
> >> neighborhood who have affirmatively joined the council may be
> counted
> >> as members.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Meredith Porter ("Merit," he/him)
> >>
> >>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> *From: *"Alan Ball" <alb...@abidstudio.com

> <mailto:alb...@abidstudio.com>>
> >> *To: *"David Booth" <da...@dbooth.org <mailto:da...@dbooth.org>>
> >> *Cc: *dsnc-di...@googlegroups.com <mailto:dsnc-
> discu...@googlegroups.com>

> >> *Sent: *Monday, July 27, 2026 11:37:01 AM
> >> *Subject: *Re: [DSNC-Discussion] Allowing former Davis Square
> >> residents to continue their membership
> >>
> >> If someone lived in the Davis Square area and became a DSNC member,
> >> but then moved away, they should join the community group where they
> >> live. What they "want" to do in the future is irrelevant. If
> they move
> >> back we should welcome them to rejoin.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> AL
> >>
> >> On Sat, Jul 25, 2026 at 6:54 PM David Booth <da...@dbooth.org
> <mailto:da...@dbooth.org>

> discussion+...@googlegroups.com <mailto:dsnc-
> discussion%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> >>     <mailto:dsnc-discussion%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:dsnc-discussion%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>>.

> >>     To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/

> msgid/ <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/>
> >>     dsnc-
> discussion/4b13bcc1-8c88-47f9-8c07-25cdd5101987%40dbooth.org
> <http://40dbooth.org>
> >>     <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc- <https://
> groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc->
> >>     discussion/4b13bcc1-8c88-47f9-8c07-25cdd5101987%40dbooth.org
> <http://40dbooth.org>>.

> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Alan Ball
> >> A.B.I.D.
> >>
> >> Alan Ball Industrial Design Inc.
> >> 50 Francesca Ave
> >> Somerville, Ma 02144
> >>
> >> (617) 718-9342 office
> >> (617) 733-2663 mobile
> >> alb...@abidstudio.com <mailto:alb...@abidstudio.com>

> <mailto:alb...@abidstudio.com <mailto:alb...@abidstudio.com>>

> >>
> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >> Groups "DSNC Discussion" group.
> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
> it, send
> >> an email to dsnc-discussi...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:dsnc-discussion%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> <mailto:dsnc- <mailto:dsnc->
> >> discussion+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:discussion%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>>.

> >> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/

> dsnc- <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc->
> >> discussion/
> >>
> CALDkL1dRPzeGMg0G6PS63FpOPbsDcfBQuwNc6QQnGyOJxndnoQ%40mail.gmail.com
> <http://40mail.gmail.com>
> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/ <https://
> groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/>
> >>
> CALDkL1dRPzeGMg0G6PS63FpOPbsDcfBQuwNc6QQnGyOJxndnoQ%40mail.gmail.com
> <http://40mail.gmail.com>?

> >> utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
> >>
> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >> Groups "DSNC Discussion" group.
> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
> it, send
> >> an email to dsnc-discussi...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:dsnc-discussion%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> <mailto:dsnc- <mailto:dsnc->
> >> discussion+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:discussion%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>>.

> >> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/

> dsnc- <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc->
> >>
> discussion/1972737728.28650236.1785167328277.JavaMail.zimbra%40rcn.com <http://40rcn.com>
> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc- <https://
> groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc->
> >>
> discussion/1972737728.28650236.1785167328277.JavaMail.zimbra%40rcn.com <http://40rcn.com>? utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

> >
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "DSNC Discussion" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to dsnc-discussi...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:dsnc-discussion%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/

> dsnc-discussion/c27c957d-b5c7-459a-ba40-122706c5e3ca%40dbooth.org
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/c27c957d-
> b5c7-459a-ba40-122706c5e3ca%40dbooth.org>.

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "DSNC Discussion" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to dsnc-discussi...@googlegroups.com <mailto:dsnc-
> discussion+...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-
> discussion/

> CAN%2BJWrM79VmRLSU2BQ1fMFb3uin%3D_s9vJSfXOfAuygR6VAKhtg%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/
> CAN%2BJWrM79VmRLSU2BQ1fMFb3uin%3D_s9vJSfXOfAuygR6VAKhtg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "DSNC Discussion" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to dsnc-discussi...@googlegroups.com <mailto:dsnc-
> discussion+...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-

> discussion/8569B990-33AF-3F4A-9BBC-14B69D60A137%40hxcore.ol <https://
> groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-
> discussion/8569B990-33AF-3F4A-9BBC-14B69D60A137%40hxcore.ol?

> utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "DSNC Discussion" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to dsnc-discussi...@googlegroups.com <mailto:dsnc-
> discussion+...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-

> discussion/159919185.29499569.1785180033712.JavaMail.zimbra%40rcn.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-
> discussion/159919185.29499569.1785180033712.JavaMail.zimbra%40rcn.com?
> utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

[Alex Dehnert]

We're certainly not *required* to include the groups you mentioned --
the ordinance says "at [DSNC's] discretion". Nobody has proposed
including those groups, so the question of whether that connection is
close enough to be allowed under 7-221a2b hasn't been tested. I agree
that I would not support categorically granting membership to either of
those groups.

On 7/27/26 15:47, Edward Woll wrote:
> To confirm that the boundaries mean something, look at the definitions,
> which, like many other provisions, stress the boundary limitations.  The
> language as to membership is quite clear.
>
>

> *Neighborhood****council* shall mean a voluntary organization, council,

> or association formed by property owners, residents, worker and/or
> tenants within a specified geographic boundary within the city and
> governed by a set of written bylaws.
>
> "As for Section 7-221(a)(2)b, which says: These requirements shall not
> preclude a neighborhood council from, at their discretion, expanding
> their membership criteria to include other groups with close connections
> to the neighborhood."
>
> Does that mean that a person who lives in Boston but who haas parents
> living in Somerville has a “close connection”? Or that a person who
> lives elsewhere in Massachusetts but is a member of a national
> organization that has a Chapter in Somerville has a “close connection”?
>
> My opinion is no and that the application of that provision should be
> quite limited.
>
> Ed Woll
>
>
>
>> On Jul 27, 2026, at 1:20 PM, Meredith Porter <art...@rcn.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi David and Alex, I've spent many hours going over this and I can't
>> see how the ordinance can be interpreted as allowing anyone outside of
>> the boundaries of the neighborhood to be counted as a member:

>> *Only those persons within the boundaries of theneighborhood who have
>> affirmatively joined the council may be counted**as members.* (Sec.
>> 7-221(a)(4))

>> Membership shall be open to all persons who reside *within the
>> neighborhood*, or own a place of business or work or attend

>> school*within the boundaries of the neighborhood.* (Sec. 7-221(a)(2))
>>
>> There's nothing resembling:
>> > "you can't count everyone as members,they need to do something".

>>
>> Sec. 7-221(a)(2)(b) still makes sense:
>> > These requirements shall not preclude a neighborhood council from,
>> at their discretion, expanding their membership criteria to include
>> other groups with close connections to the neighborhood.
>> This allows the criteria for membership to be extended to others
>> within the neighborhood who do not own a place of business or work or
>> attend school there to be counted as members, such as those who
>> volunteer or receive support services there.
>>
>> There is no provision for including as members those outside of the
>> boundaries of the neighborhood, but within 1/2 mile. In order to
>> comply with the ordinance and retain the current membership (except
>> for those residing outside Somerville), the neighborhood boundaries
>> would need to be expanded, but limited to the City of Somerville. The
>> distinctions between those within 1/2 mile of the boundaries and those
>> within the boundaries would need to be removed, and the purview of the
>> DSNC would be expanded to a much larger area as well.
>>
>> Alternatively, amendments could be made to the ordinance.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Merit
>>

>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From: *"'Elizabeth Merrick' via DSNC Discussion" <dsnc-
>> discu...@googlegroups.com>
>> *To: *"Rachel Rosenberg" <rachelro...@gmail.com>, "David Booth"
>> <da...@dbooth.org>
>> *Cc: *dsnc-di...@googlegroups.com
>> *Sent: *Monday, July 27, 2026 2:21:49 PM

>> *Subject: *Re: [DSNC-Discussion] Allowing former Davis Square
>> residents to continue their membership
>>

>> To me it seems absurd in general for membership to be open to people
>> who do not live, work, own businesses in the Davis Square
>> neighborhood. I thought the group is supposed to represent the
>> interests of people in the neighborhood.
>>
>> Elizabeth Merrick
>>
>>

>> Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* dsnc-di...@googlegroups.com <dsnc-

>> discu...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Rachel Rosenberg
>> <rachelro...@gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Monday, July 27, 2026 2:12 PM

>> *To:* David Booth <da...@dbooth.org>

>> *Cc:* dsnc-di...@googlegroups.com <dsnc-di...@googlegroups.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [DSNC-Discussion] Allowing former Davis Square

>> residents to continue their membership
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Wherever this discussion lands, I think it is important for all to be
>> aware that DSNC president Elaine Almquist moved out of Davis Sq a
>> couple of months ago.  If we're debating whether someone outside of

>> Davis Square should be allowed to be a DSNC /member/, what about
>> DSNC /president/??

>> https://online.encodeplus.com/regs/somerville-ma-coo/doc-
>> viewer.aspx?secid=1594#secid-1594 <https://online.encodeplus.com/
>> regs/somerville-ma-coo/doc-viewer.aspx?secid=1594#secid-1594>
>>

>> Thanks,
>> David Booth
>>
>> >
>> > ~~Alex
>> >

>> > https://online.encodeplus.com/regs/somerville-ma-coo/doc-
>> viewer.aspx <https://online.encodeplus.com/regs/somerville-ma-coo/
>> doc-viewer.aspx>?

>> > secid=1594#secid-1594
>> >
>> > On 7/27/26 11:48, Meredith Porter wrote:
>> >>> If someone lived in the Davis Square area and became a DSNC
>> member,
>> >>> but then moved away, they should join the community group
>> where they
>> >>> live. What they "want" to do in the future is irrelevant. If they
>> >>> move back we should welcome them to rejoin.
>> >>
>> >> According to the neighborhood councils ordinance, they can't be
>> >> members if they're outside the area. Sec. 7-221(a)(4) provides:
>> >> The bylaws shall clearly identify how membership and voting
>> rights are
>> >> established. Only those persons within the boundaries of the
>> >> neighborhood who have affirmatively joined the council may be
>> counted
>> >> as members.
>> >>
>> >> Best regards,
>> >> Meredith Porter ("Merit," he/him)
>> >>
>> >>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> *From: *"Alan Ball" <alb...@abidstudio.com

>> <mailto:alb...@abidstudio.com>>
>> >> *To: *"David Booth" <da...@dbooth.org <mailto:da...@dbooth.org>>
>> >> *Cc: *dsnc-di...@googlegroups.com <mailto:dsnc-
>> discu...@googlegroups.com>

>> >> *Sent: *Monday, July 27, 2026 11:37:01 AM
>> >> *Subject: *Re: [DSNC-Discussion] Allowing former Davis Square
>> >> residents to continue their membership
>> >>
>> >> If someone lived in the Davis Square area and became a DSNC member,
>> >> but then moved away, they should join the community group where
>> they
>> >> live. What they "want" to do in the future is irrelevant. If
>> they move
>> >> back we should welcome them to rejoin.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >>
>> >> AL
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Jul 25, 2026 at 6:54 PM David Booth <da...@dbooth.org
>> <mailto:da...@dbooth.org>

>> >>     send an email to dsnc-
>> discussion+...@googlegroups.com <mailto:dsnc-
>> discussion%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
>> >>     <mailto:dsnc-discussion%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
>> <mailto:dsnc-discussion%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>>.
>> >>     To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/
>> msgid/ <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/>
>> >>     dsnc-
>> discussion/4b13bcc1-8c88-47f9-8c07-25cdd5101987%40dbooth.org

>> <http://40dbooth.org/>

>> >>     <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc- <https://
>> groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc->
>> >>
>> discussion/4b13bcc1-8c88-47f9-8c07-25cdd5101987%40dbooth.org

>> <http://40dbooth.org/>>.

>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Alan Ball
>> >> A.B.I.D.
>> >>
>> >> Alan Ball Industrial Design Inc.
>> >> 50 Francesca Ave
>> >> Somerville, Ma 02144
>> >>
>> >> (617) 718-9342 office
>> >> (617) 733-2663 mobile
>> >> alb...@abidstudio.com <mailto:alb...@abidstudio.com>

>> <mailto:alb...@abidstudio.com <mailto:alb...@abidstudio.com>>

>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> >> Groups "DSNC Discussion" group.
>> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
>> it, send
>> >> an email to dsnc-discussi...@googlegroups.com

>> <mailto:dsnc-discussion%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
>> <mailto:dsnc- <mailto:dsnc->
>> >> discussion+...@googlegroups.com
>> <mailto:discussion%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>>.
>> >> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/
>> msgid/dsnc- <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc->
>> >> discussion/
>> >>

>> CALDkL1dRPzeGMg0G6PS63FpOPbsDcfBQuwNc6QQnGyOJxndnoQ%40mail.gmail.com <http://40mail.gmail.com/>

>> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/ <https://
>> groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/>
>> >>

>> CALDkL1dRPzeGMg0G6PS63FpOPbsDcfBQuwNc6QQnGyOJxndnoQ%40mail.gmail.com <http://40mail.gmail.com/>?

>> >> utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> >> Groups "DSNC Discussion" group.
>> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
>> it, send
>> >> an email to dsnc-discussi...@googlegroups.com

>> <mailto:dsnc-discussion%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
>> <mailto:dsnc- <mailto:dsnc->
>> >> discussion+...@googlegroups.com

>> <mailto:discussion%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>>.
>> >> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/
>> msgid/dsnc- <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc->
>> >>

>> discussion/1972737728.28650236.1785167328277.JavaMail.zimbra%40rcn.com <http://40rcn.com/>

>> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc- <https://
>> groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc->
>> >>

>> discussion/1972737728.28650236.1785167328277.JavaMail.zimbra%40rcn.com <http://40rcn.com/>? utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

>> >
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "DSNC Discussion" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>> send an email to dsnc-discussi...@googlegroups.com

>> <mailto:dsnc-discussion%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.
>> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/

>> dsnc-discussion/c27c957d-b5c7-459a-ba40-122706c5e3ca%40dbooth.org
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/c27c957d-
>> b5c7-459a-ba40-122706c5e3ca%40dbooth.org>.

>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "DSNC Discussion" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>> an email to dsnc-discussi...@googlegroups.com <mailto:dsnc-
>> discussion+...@googlegroups.com>.
>> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-
>> discussion/

>> CAN%2BJWrM79VmRLSU2BQ1fMFb3uin%3D_s9vJSfXOfAuygR6VAKhtg%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/CAN%2BJWrM79VmRLSU2BQ1fMFb3uin%3D_s9vJSfXOfAuygR6VAKhtg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "DSNC Discussion" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>> an email to dsnc-discussi...@googlegroups.com <mailto:dsnc-
>> discussion+...@googlegroups.com>.
>> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-

>> discussion/8569B990-33AF-3F4A-9BBC-14B69D60A137%40hxcore.ol <https://
>> groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-
>> discussion/8569B990-33AF-3F4A-9BBC-14B69D60A137%40hxcore.ol?

>> utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "DSNC Discussion" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>> an email to dsnc-discussi...@googlegroups.com <mailto:dsnc-
>> discussion+...@googlegroups.com>.
>> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-

[Edward Woll]

The DSNC Board will have to decide what is a significant enough project that would warrant spending time, resources, and goodwill in negotiating a CBA and holding a week-long election.  It is a contextual decision. 

Significant is a commonly used statutory word.  Per Google AI, which I believe is a reasonably reliable source for this for Somerville zoning laws which can apply in the context of a single building, or a lot, or possibly a large development area, the f defoniotnsis contextual. 

Under Somerville, Massachusetts zoning law, the phrase "significant impact" is not given a single rigid, standalone definition in the Somerville Zoning Ordinance (SZO). Instead, the city evaluates impact based on specific contextual thresholds. [1]

For further information about the Union Square project cited by Rebecca, the square footage of the project is more square footage of gross floor area than the Copper Mill tower (327,062 sf) .

Boynton Gateway Owner, LLC is a joint venture real estate entity formed by CV Properties, LLC and Cannon Hill Capital Partners (previously noting affiliations with funds like Columbia Property Trust). It serves as the owner and developer of the Boynton Gateway project, a 336,000-square-foot life science and lab office building located in Somerville, Massachusetts. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Ed

[Christopher Beland]

DSNC is not limited by what the city or its ordinance thinks is significant; we are a private corporation, and can sign a legally binding contract with whatever developer we chose.

-B.

[Derrick Rice]

Just to back up what Christopher just said, quoting Councilor Ben Ewen-Campen at the most recent City Council meeting:

I do think it's important to just say, [City Council approval of a NC] does not confer any magical or legal powers on any group of people. They can get together and start calling themselves a neighborhood council, right? Anybody can do that at any time, and they have the same legal authorities that any other group of people has. What this does is this is just a way of saying the city council, as you said, has kicked the tires.

- Derrick Rice (he/him)

On Mon, Jul 27, 2026, at 16:19, 'Christopher Beland' via dsnc-bylaws wrote:

DSNC is not limited by what the city or its ordinance thinks is significant; we are a private corporation, and can sign a legally binding contract with whatever developer we chose.

-B.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "dsnc-bylaws" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dsnc-bylaws...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-bylaws/0716534634a7e66fe4e97627a596cb2ca8a50284.camel%40alum.mit.edu.

[Meredith Porter]

Hi Alex, that's an interesting interpretation, but it seems unlikely to me!

Sec. 7-221(a)(4):

Only those persons within the boundaries of theneighborhood who have affirmatively joined the council may be counted**as members.

> One way to interpret the ordinance is:

> "Of people within the boundaries of the neighborhood: only those who have affirmatively joined the council may be counted as members."

Under this interpretation, membership is more restricted for those within the boundaries of the neighborhood. Those outside the boundaries may be counted as members regardless of whether they have affirmatively joined the council.

Best regards,
Merit

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex Dehnert" <al...@dehnerts.com>
To: "Meredith Porter" <art...@rcn.com>, "David Booth" <da...@dbooth.org>
Cc: "Rachel Rosenberg" <rachelro...@gmail.com>, "Elizabeth Merrick" <ebm...@comcast.net>, dsnc-di...@googlegroups.com, "Alan Ball" <alb...@abidstudio.com>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 4:01:49 PM
Subject: Re: [DSNC-Discussion] Allowing former Davis Square residents to continue their membership

My inclination is that "within the boundaries of the neighborhood" is
poorly drafted and should just be ignored, but setting that aside...

One way to interpret the ordinance is:

"Of people within the boundaries of the neighborhood: only those who

have affirmatively joined the council may be counted as members."

(whereas, perhaps, we could make the mayor an ex officio member and
count them as a member without them taking explicit action)

I generally find "person within the boundaries" to be weird for
membership: does the membership need to fluctuate as people in and out
of the boundaries? Does this cover anybody who has ever entered the
boundaries? Do people need a connection (residence, employment) to some
more stationary nexus within the boundaries? Is there any reason why
that nexus can't be "one of the nearby T stops to home" (as it is for
the residence category" or "a place that I volunteer"?

7-221a2b certainly seems to envision including people who don't live or
work within the boundaries. (For people who don't have the ordinance in

front of them, it's "These requirements shall not preclude a

neighborhood council from, at their discretion, expanding their
membership criteria to include other groups with close connections to

the neighborhood." -- Merit's "This allows [...]" is his text, not an
example from the ordinance.)

> There is no provision for including as members those outside of the
> boundaries of the neighborhood, but within 1/2 mile.

Perhaps the most persuasive evidence that the +1/2 mile thing is fine:
AIUI we've run this by a bunch of city councilors and none have objected
or even commented on it. (They did comment on "genuine local interest"
and express mild discontent, which is why we're voting tonight on
removing it. I think we got a comment on including non-Somervillens for
residence, but AIUI it was more "huh, interesting" than "this is bad".)

> There's nothing resembling:
>> "you can't count everyone as members,they need to do something".

That's my summary of 7-221a4. It's certainly not a direct quote.

~~Alex