Re: [LexTMMA] Calling the question...

[Steven Kaufman]



Nyles, Good point. The long and unbounded committee readouts can be a form a filibustering preventing real debate. Did that go on for over 20 minutes yesterday? 

Otherwise when the pro and con arguments become redundant and the same points have been said over and over think it is ok to end debate. 

-Steve

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



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

On 11/14/2024 4:19 PM EST Tom Diaz <thoma...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

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

Text: (781) 454-9946

 

--
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.

--
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/1819860109.178799.1731620991595%40connect.xfinity.com.

[Vicki Blier]

Nyles~
Speaker time allocations are not under the control of the TMMA.
You can ask the TMMA Executive Committee to talk it over at a meeting, but  the Town Moderator is really where you should go with this thought.
Personally, I think we should give the statutory committees all the time they need. It's rare that they go longer than a minute or two.

Charles Lamb's Tour de Force last night was extremely helpful and I wouldn't have wanted to miss a minute of it.

Vicki Blier
Pct. 9
(not as TMMA Moderator)

[Deborah Brown]

My personal opinion on this is very simple: I strongly oppose efforts to create a one-size-fits-all set of requirements/guardrails before the meeting can decide it has heard enough debate. You will quickly find yourselves at the mercy of a rigid formula that doesn't fit all circumstances. Instead, I prefer preserving a system that trusts the meeting's judgement in each individual set of circumstances. The one changes in the bylaws that you may want to consider, and which I wouldn't oppose, is changing the required vote quantum for calling the question from a simple majority to a 2/3 majority. 

I will note that had this been in effect last night, all three votes to call the question (on Articles 7, 8, and 9) would have passed, although the vote on Article 7 would have been a squeaker - just passing by one vote. And as always, remember that abstentions do not count in the vote totals.

Just my two cents...

Best,

Deborah

[Harry Forsdick]

Vicki,

I agree with your opinion. It seemed that Charles felt pressured to deliver the Capital Expenditures Committee's opinion quickly. In fact, I wished he had taken more time to present this significant opinion. Committee members invest considerable effort into these reports, and they deserve ample time to articulate their findings effectively.

-- Harry Forsdick

    Precinct #7

Harry Forsdick Town Meeting Member Precinct 7 ha...@forsdick.com www.forsdick.com

46 Burlington St. Lexington, MA 02420 (781) 799-6002 (mobile)

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/a3189ee3-0f02-4cec-9b9d-cfc0f75de05en%40googlegroups.com.