Groups keyboard shortcuts have been updated
Dismiss
See shortcuts

Calling the question...

138 views
Skip to first unread message

Tom Diaz

unread,
Nov 14, 2024, 4:19:37 PM11/14/24
to LexTMMA
I don't always vote No on motions to call the question, but last night I did regarding Article 8.

Everyone can get tired by a long debate, and as Marge Battin said, sometimes the debates go on at length because "everything has been said, but not everyone has said it."  

I've always liked that quip but have not always liked actually ending debate.  Last night I was especially chagrined because there was a long queue of external speakers whose comments were not heard.   I'm always especially uneasy when that happens.  

In some cases, including last night, nonmembers wait a long time in the gallery and then do not get a chance to give us their opinion.  I know that some of them would have spoken in opposition to Article 8.  But there also were important proponents and supporters of Article 8.  I was not personally a supporter of the article but would have valued a more balanced debate with more heard from both.

These motions are of course not debatable, which gives them much of their power, but I will continue to weigh each such motion carefully.  I also will continue to vote No when it appears that not enough people have been heard and especially when the unheard people are nonmembers attending Town Meeting to participate in a specific debate.

Just one member's opinion...

Tom Díaz
Precinct 8

--
_______________________
Thomas R. Díaz
13 Lois Lane
Lexington, Massachusetts 02420

Nyles Barnert

unread,
Nov 14, 2024, 4:50:16 PM11/14/24
to Tom Diaz, LexTMMA
I think that one of the reasons that calling the question occurred was that the presentation and the statements by various boards and committees was excessively long. While Town Meeting members have 2 or 3 minutes, there does not appear to be any time restrictions on statements by boards or committees.
The TMMA executive committee should consider whether limits should be imposed on all speakers. That would provide more time for debate by members and the public.
Nyles Barnert
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LexTMMA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lextmma+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/CAMFDu-EgKj53R9N%2BQ7LneYHobpULS%3Dy3w1%2Bvq01wiS4Tv-sbAQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Avram Baskin

unread,
Nov 14, 2024, 5:13:04 PM11/14/24
to Nyles Barnert, Tom Diaz, LexTMMA
I always vote no one ending debate. Even though article 8 went my way, you never know when the next person to speak is going to say something new that will change your mind.

Avram Baskin
Be yourself, 
everyone else is already taken
Oscar Wilde

Donate to Support The Ukraine

On Nov 14, 2024, at 4:50 PM, 'Nyles Barnert' via LexTMMA <lex...@googlegroups.com> wrote:



Ruth Thomas

unread,
Nov 14, 2024, 5:24:14 PM11/14/24
to Nyles Barnert, Tom Diaz, LexTMMA
Board and Committees members have done all the work, giving of their time, expertise, and investigative skills for free to present information to TMMs who have the luxury of deciding how much preparation they will do prior to a vote on an article.

I thought Charles Lamb's review, chronology, background, and highlights, a digest if you will, of all the work Capital, Appropriation, Recreation, School, and School Building Committees have done diligently over several years to arrive at a plan to present to the Town (and MSBA) was tremendously effective and informative, not only for TMMs but also for citizens.  I had to stop myself from jumping out of my seat and yelling "Bravo!"  It deserved a standing ovation!!

So, I disagree. These unpaid public servants should be allotted presentation/report time commensurate with the time they put in on the Town's behalf.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/1819860109.178799.1731620991595%40connect.xfinity.com.

Meg Muckenhoupt

unread,
Nov 14, 2024, 5:45:41 PM11/14/24
to Tom Diaz, LexTMMA
I think the underlying question is, "What is the purpose of floor debate at Town Meeting?"

Prior to town meeting, we have access to the TMMA information session, the text of the articles, the slides and video presentations, committee reports by the Capital Expenditures Committee and the Appropriation Committee, and other committees when they are involved (such as the Community Preservation Committee), this list, the Lexington Observer, and emails, phone calls, and in-person conversations with our constituents.

During Town Meeting itself, we get to see the presentations and hear the Select Board and various committee's final votes on the articles. 

Sometimes, Town Meeting Members ask questions which are hard to answer ahead of time, or make original points. But sometimes, the "debate" seems to consist of rehashing points that have been made repeatedly in our community prior to Town Meeting. 

I trust our fellow Town Meeting Members to decide when they have heard enough.

Meg Muckenhoupt
Precinct 1



--

Avram Baskin

unread,
Nov 14, 2024, 5:52:00 PM11/14/24
to Ruth Thomas, Nyles Barnert, Tom Diaz, LexTMMA
When I ran for town meeting I knew there would be nights that would be a long, hard slog. Last night was one of them.

I think it was important for us to hear the complete readout from CEC. There were likely some town meeting members who had not read the report in advance. 

Avram Baskin
Be yourself, 
everyone else is already taken
Oscar Wilde

Donate to Support The Ukraine

On Nov 14, 2024, at 5:24 PM, 'Ruth Thomas' via LexTMMA <lex...@googlegroups.com> wrote:



Eran Strod

unread,
Nov 14, 2024, 6:03:45 PM11/14/24
to Avram Baskin, Ruth Thomas, Nyles Barnert, Tom Diaz, LexTMMA
This discussion touches on something that has never made sense to me.
Ending debate should require a 2/3 majority.
I recall one vote a few years ago in which the number of abstentions was greater than the difference between yes and no votes.
A majority vote to end debate could theoretically mean we are ending debate when 49% of members have not made up their mind.
Eran Strod
P6



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/27B77C64-7373-433E-9504-0ECF57AD2C65%40icloud.com.

Umesh

unread,
Nov 14, 2024, 6:13:42 PM11/14/24
to Tom Diaz, LexTMMA
Tom,

I completely agree with you. And I, too, vote NO when I don't think enough perspectives have been heard. I have seen a premature end to debate more times than I can count, and it's especially frustrating when there are long lines at the different microphones. I personally have removed myself from the queue if the TM ahead of me asks a virtually identical question.

My solution:
  1. Create a separate category for "Call the Question", and have the TMM select this button. Their name now has the label "Call Question"
  2. The TMM then must go to the end of the longest line (Question/Yes/No) and wait to be called by the moderator.
  3. Then follow normal procedure.
This won't address the fact that a large number of the public was waiting to speak, but at least far more TMMs will get to voice their views. Also, once this TMM with the Call Question label is identified in one of the lines, I think there would be less repetition and redundancy from other TMMs in their queues.

Deborah, what do you think?

Umesh Shelat, P7

On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 4:19 PM Tom Diaz <thoma...@gmail.com> wrote:
--

Scott Burson

unread,
Nov 14, 2024, 6:47:00 PM11/14/24
to LexTMMA
I disagree. I suggest making calling the question a privileged motion, and allow it to interrupt debate. We can put up some guardrails, so that some minimium time for debate must elapse before repeat motions. 

Scott Burson
Precinct 9



Matt

unread,
Nov 14, 2024, 9:22:58 PM11/14/24
to Scott Burson, LexTMMA
Hello Mr. Burson,

Regarding minimum debate time, in 2019 Town Meeting did amend the rules of debate such that during the first 10 minutes of debate on any motion, a subsidiary motion shall only be entertained at the discretion of the moderator.  A motion to move the previous question aka “call the question” is one of seven allowable subsidiary motions.

Very respectfully,

Matt Daggett
Precinct 2


On Nov 14, 2024, at 6:47 PM, 'Scott Burson' via LexTMMA <lex...@googlegroups.com> wrote:



Harry Forsdick

unread,
Nov 15, 2024, 6:38:35 AM11/15/24
to Matt, Scott Burson, LexTMMA
I was the TMM who called the question on the article 8 debate.

It just occurred to me that something has changed since our last session.  As moderator of the Lexington List, I recently decided to let discussion about building the new High School be discussed on the list -- normally this would be on the lex-polrel list because it was political.  I did this in an attempt to bring the issues relating to import changes in town to everybody, Town Meeting Members as well as any resident of Lexington.

This has resulted in a very long and complete discussion by both Town Meeting Members as well as residents of Lexington who are not on Town Meeting about the issues of Article 8.  I felt I had heard the arguments both For and Against the article.  While it is helpful to give non-TMMs the sense of inclusion in decision making in the town when they are allowed to state their opinion directly to Town Meeting, I do realize that not everyone on Town Meeting has read all of the traffic on the Lexington List about this topic.

In the future I will continue to allow discussion of issues before Town Meeting to happen on the Lexington List because I feel it is an important way to include more Lexington residents in on the discussion.  At the same time, I will be more careful about understanding where I have obtained my knowledge of non-TMMs point of view when I consider calling the question.

Regards,

-- Harry Forsdick
   Precinct 7



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/2567E762-9B64-4B97-95AD-D99D3E1016F6%40mattdaggett.org.

Scott Burson

unread,
Nov 15, 2024, 1:57:41 PM11/15/24
to Matt, LexTMMA
I have no objection to the current minimum debate time.  I am suggesting something very different: after the minimum has elapsed, I would make calling the question a privileged motion. That is, like a point of order, it could interrupt debate. If the call of the question prevails, debate is terminated. I think it reasonable to have additional protected time for debate, in the event a call of the question fails.

Scott Burson
Precinct 9

Jessie Steigerwald

unread,
Nov 15, 2024, 2:57:55 PM11/15/24
to Scott Burson, Matt, LexTMMA
Scott,

May I ask why you feel this change would be better than continuing the current practice? What problem are you hoping to solve? 


Sincerely,

Jessie

Jessie Steigerwald
Precinct 8

On Nov 15, 2024, at 1:57 PM, 'Scott Burson' via LexTMMA <lex...@googlegroups.com> wrote:



Scott Burson

unread,
Nov 15, 2024, 4:34:17 PM11/15/24
to Jessie Steigerwald, Matt, LexTMMA
Jessie,

Thank you for asking. I set forth some of my reasons in my original post on this subject. More broadly, I have increasingly felt that Town Meeting is not respectful of its members' time, and that measures should be taken to achieve a better balance between opportunity for debate and reasonable demands on members' time.

I have not researched the history of Motions to Call the Question and the subsequent votes when the motions are successful, but my observation over 20+ years in Town Meeting is that most such Motions in fact prevail, and when the vote on the article is taken, the division is not close. We have had many lop-sided votes where the losing proposition is supported by one third, or fewer members. Refer to the recent vote on Article 8, where the proponents barely mustered double digits. Despite more than a ten to one preponderance against the proposition, a larger number of members voted to continue debate than voted for the motion itself? It is important to ask what end further debate would serve. It is inconceivable that further debate could alter the outcome on the Article. Perhaps a handful of votes might change, but such a change is of no consequence. I understand that people, both members and members of the public, still wanted to be heard on the issue, but the business of Town Meeting is to decide issues, and has never purported to permit anyone who wishes to speak to an issue to do so; the fact that the Motion to call the question exists attests to this.

Why do I think the Calls of question should be privileged? Because as much as I admire our moderator's professionalism, her ability to recognize speakers can in effect prolong debate when the body, often a large portion of the body, has made up its mind, even if individuals remain undecided.

I acknowledge that some issues require more and longer consideration; in my estimation most such issues get their due. Premature calls of the question fail, but in my judgment such calls are rare. By the time most calls of the question pass, the division of the house is well settled. I acknowledge that a significant number of my fellow members enjoy debate, or if they don't enjoy it, view it as a democratic obligation to permit everyone to speak their opinion. That may have been a workable model when Town meeting consisted of the thirty to fifty white, male, propertied individuals who constituted the political universe of the Town, but we are a long way from that model of government, and the reality is that in a polity of more than 30,000, not everyone who may wish to be heard on an issue will be heard on the floor of Town Meeting. That is not to say that there are not opportunities to be heard: most issues that come to Town Meeting are the product of pains-taking process where input is vigorously solicited and considered.

I have a particular peeve about the question microphone. On the one hand, individual questions often go into details that, had the member been more attentive to the process, attended public meetings, read the careful CEC and Appropriations Committee reports, etc., would be answered. I understand the urgency of scratching an itch, but is it an appropriate use of other members' time to resolve the doubts of one member? Second, a number of members posing questions are in fact making substantive argumentation for or against an article. Because we only time the member while they are actually speaking, they often make substantive argument for far longer than the three minutes we allow straight forward proponents.

While I am on my soap box, let me also say that our amendment process, in my judgment, leads to profligate squandering of town meeting members' time, and risks terrible decisions that are extensive pre-town meeting process is intended to avoid. A topic for another post.

Scott Burson
Precinct 9

andrei rădulescu-banu

unread,
Nov 15, 2024, 6:02:36 PM11/15/24
to Scott Burson, Jessie Steigerwald, Matt, LexTMMA
Asking  those questions takes time, but also ensures staff are prepared to answer from any angle. Even when the article passes anyway, it is a better product.

It is good to have different waves of reviews, from different contexts - first from informed board members, second from semi-informed town meeting members - then, third, from voters at large, who may not be steeped in the details of the process - but actually underwrite the whole thing by paying taxes.

Andrei Radulescu-Banu, Pct 8

Avram Baskin

unread,
Nov 15, 2024, 6:23:34 PM11/15/24
to andrei rădulescu-banu, Scott Burson, Jessie Steigerwald, Matt, LexTMMA
Scott, 

I already mentioned this in a different post on this topic.

I guess we have a different view about what constitutes “wasting time”.

Town meeting is a few nights once or twice a year. When I ran for town meeting i realized that some nights would be a long, hard, slog. 

Avram Baskin
Be yourself, 
everyone else is already taken
Oscar Wilde

Donate to Support The Ukraine

On Nov 15, 2024, at 6:02 PM, andrei rădulescu-banu <bitdr...@gmail.com> wrote:



Scott Burson

unread,
Nov 15, 2024, 8:55:15 PM11/15/24
to Avram Baskin, LexTMMA
I have sat through long deliberations where the time spent is entirely justified. Frequently, these Articles involve zoning, but there are a range of issues that merit prolonged, useful discussion. My point is that prolonging debate after the issue is settled for a large majority of members serves no civic purpose and is disrespectful of the majority of members.

Scott Burson
Precinct 9

Avram Baskin

unread,
Nov 15, 2024, 9:58:42 PM11/15/24
to Scott Burson, LexTMMA
I always vote no when someone calls the question.  I have no way of knowing if the next person to speak will say something new that will cause me to change my vote.

Noah Michelson

unread,
Nov 15, 2024, 11:05:33 PM11/15/24
to LexTMMA
The problem with this attitude is twofold:

1) Taking such an absolute stance belies an unwaveringness that contradicts the supposed idea of being so open to change, and
2) The matter of closing debate is one of probability. While it is always technically possible that new relevant points may be added, the longer debate goes on the less likely that becomes. One can always add another monkey to the typing pool, but the probability of the next Shakespeare emerging still remains small.

Lexington is home to uniquely long Town Meetings. A large portion of the Commonwealth finishes their annual business in a matter of a night or two. Debate should end when everything has been said, even if it hasn't been said by everybody. If every TMM were to take their full 3 minutes, every article would take well over 9 hours. Unnecessarily extending an already lengthy process puts undue burdens on the time of members, and thus limits the accessibility of being a TMM. I question the judgement of anyone that thinks that could be in any way productive.

Noah Michelson
Precinct 1

"I don't know, but some people without brains do an awful lot of talking" - L. Frank Baum

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/449D2B24-773B-40E2-AD04-2C5BFB8DA327%40icloud.com.

Mark Andersen

unread,
Nov 16, 2024, 12:19:18 PM11/16/24
to Noah Michelson, LexTMMA
Seconding Eran above...about the problem with a mere majority shutting down discussion.

We had a situation last year where just over 50% closed debate, and many of us had not made up our minds - so it was a bit difficult in the end to vote.
If the 50% who had "heard enough" were all on one side, then it would not really matter.  But that was not the case.  2/3rds would make it more likely that the motion could be carried anyway by the people who "heard enough".



Therefore, I would support a motion in spring 2025 to change the by-laws as follows:
* 2/3rd vote required to end debate short of 45 minutes.

We could also change when the time starts, such as making the time start from when all the reports are read, since that's when town meeting discussion begins.  Then it could be 30 mins.

Totally open to discussion - I just think this needs to be a bit higher hurdle to shut down debate too swiftly.


The reason I think a time limit makes sense here is so the 2/3rd vote does not become some sort of delay procedure which is used to disrupt town meeting by having a minority position hold the meeting indefinitely hostage (as we see in the US Senate).

I hope this finds reception here.
Mark

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/CAH9uJDV1NUfKOMCpFHohzz76jV%2B-FM4HJd5Hsgw6SG_2x%2Bxndg%40mail.gmail.com.


--

afribush

unread,
Nov 16, 2024, 6:41:23 PM11/16/24
to LexTMMA
I agree with Scott Burson and Noah Michelson's points about the need to be respectful of TM members' time. If we say that we want a diverse group of citizens to volunteer to serve in Town Meeting, then I think that we should care about this.

Over the years, many of us have had conversations about how in some precincts, there are not enough TM candidates to fill all the slots, and about how parents with children at home choose not to run because of the long evening meetings.   Recently, at least one longstanding TM member wrote to the group saying that she will miss us all, but she is 80 and can't stay up that late anymore.  Meanwhile, I doubt that I am the only member who starts work early in the morning.

I too have wondered why many Articles generate a long discussion which is followed by a lopsided vote.  Our brilliant moderator does her absolute best at keeping speakers to their allotted times, and in enforcing all the rules, but I don't know if there is a reliable mechanism to prevent a speaker from saying something that has already been said.

Andrea Fribush
Precinct 6

Linda Boardman Liu

unread,
Nov 16, 2024, 8:26:37 PM11/16/24
to afribush, LexTMMA
Andrea - Thank you for highlighting this issue about long evenings - starting at 730 was probably designed to give people a chance to get there after dinner, but the late evenings that result from the late start time are tough (I do not think you and I are the only people with early work days!).  I have wondered about starting at 7 (or even earlier?!) instead of 730; having a hard stop at 10 PM; expecting us as members to have viewed the videos in advance so as not need to watch them in session, etc ... in my work, we try to avoid meetings that can be emails (meaning something that can be read / viewed independently) and save precious in person meeting time for robust debate and engagement that is so important to making good decisions.  Perhaps in the future we can move in that direction (although I am certain there are governance expectations around all this I do not fully understand).

Linda Boardman
Precinct 4     

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/4dae8e23-f7ba-422e-8ef6-c78689110ae0n%40googlegroups.com.

Ryan Wise

unread,
Nov 17, 2024, 10:27:31 AM11/17/24
to lex...@googlegroups.com
Most things on this subject have been said, if not by me.  One point that factors into why I voted to end debate has not.  Most TMs knew something that the general public did not: the motion was going to fail.  

After (just) 3 years on TM, this was overwhelmingly clear to me, as I suspect it was for most of you.  Based on TM’s general sensitivity to process, the near-unanimous committee/Select Board votes, the lack of engagement at the TM info session, and individual conversations, this was sure to be a lopsided no.  

But that was not clear to the constituents I spoke with in the run up.  Whether for or against, they knew that the path of a major town initiative might be radically shifted by TM, and had no sense for the likely outcome.  When I shared my expectation for the vote, constituents were quite surprised.

In this case, I felt that cutting off debate was also respectful of the public's time.  I'd note that other votes have been different -- cutting off debate on the Indigenous People’s Day article last year left some public members visibly upset.  

I've found votes to end debate just as nuanced as the articles themselves.  We may want to tinker, but I wouldn't radically change the process here.

Ryan Wise
Pct 6

Laura Swain

unread,
Nov 17, 2024, 3:13:35 PM11/17/24
to LexTMMA
On the related question about start time, I do think starting TM at 7:30 is a relic from when most members had a job that they commuted to/from. I would support a change to as early at 6:30 but even 7 to 10 would help. I know that not many folks are up before 6 am (but I am and so meetings past 10 are quite late). As for other ways to make the meeting shorter; it should be a requirement to watch any videos before the meeting but that is nearly impossible to enforce. Committees should be expected to prepare slides. In that manner, the person summarizing the slides would do just that, and not mention every item on the slide. Can the executive board take a look at changing the meeting time to earlier if many TMMs would prefer that?

Although I had concerns that so many members of the public did not have an opportunity to speak, I did receive many emails on Article 8 so at least in that sense, some members of the public were "able to be heard".

Laura Swain
Precinct 2

Meg Muckenhoupt

unread,
Nov 17, 2024, 5:22:32 PM11/17/24
to Laura Swain, LexTMMA
Even if every citizen in the gallery had spoken on Wednesday night, that number still would have been a tiny percentage of Lexington's population, which stands at roughly 34,000 residents.

How often is it feasible to let every Lexington resident present have their say at Town Meeting? 

How representative are the voices of people who show up to speak at Town Meeting? Does it matter?

FYI judging by this chart, most communities of more than 40,000 residents in Massachusetts have a council and aldermen or a mayor, not Representative Town Meeting.
https://dlsgateway.dor.state.ma.us/reports/rdPage.aspx?rdReport=Community_Comparison_Report

Meg Muckenhoupt
Precinct 1

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/0881829b-2395-4833-bf18-0dcca40305ebn%40googlegroups.com.

b...@metaprosystems.com

unread,
Nov 17, 2024, 5:43:09 PM11/17/24
to meg...@gmail.com, Laura Swain, LexTMMA

I want to chime in on this issue. I have often voted to call the question I have even called the question myself. But I feel there are times when the question is called prematurely. One time I was in line with a question and because I didn’t get an answer, I voted No. Another time I was in line to support a measure, and the question was called, and the measure was defeated by three or four votes.

 

Members instinctively vote to call the question every time. We should instead give it some thought and occasionally vote to continue debate.

 

Bob Avallone

Robert Rotberg

unread,
Nov 17, 2024, 10:20:39 PM11/17/24
to Bob, Meg Muckenhoupt, Laura Swain, LexTMMA
Bob and other TMs

I prefer to give everyone a chance to be heard, at least TMs who want to explain their votes or ask questions. That is why for 50 years in TM I have always voted against calling the question. It seemed fairer.  And in the bad old days before technology and Joe Pato came to the rescue, I had to embarrass myself and my fellow Pct 3 colleagues by bellowing “no” on voice votes against closing debate.  I wish more of us would vote against closing debate in the spring, especially when there is a queue of persons wanting to speak.

Robert Rotberg
Pct 3


Conflict Mitigation Newsletter

Overcoming the Oppressors (2023)

Tom Diaz

unread,
Nov 18, 2024, 6:48:42 AM11/18/24
to b...@metaprosystems.com, LexTMMA
Bob, I agree with you.

I was not looking for a change to rules  I just wanted to express the hope that people give the motions more thought.   The motions nearly always carry, but when there are still citizens waiting to be heard I think it could cause hurt feelings and ill will.

Tom Diaz
Precinct 8


Todd O. Burger

unread,
Nov 18, 2024, 8:47:23 AM11/18/24
to lex...@googlegroups.com

I don't know when others have their evening meal, but normally we have ours at 7 or 7:30. I move it back to 6:30 on TM nights. I would not want to move it to 5:30 or 10:00. If the start time of a TM were changed at all, I would prefer an 8:00 PM start, and would not object to an 11 PM finish.

Todd Burger, TMM Pct 9

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages