Did the pursuit of ‘efficiency’ stifle Town Meeting debate?
The essential function of Town Meeting — debate — requires respect across us all, but not self-appointed “management.”
As Town Meeting wound down, one citizen arose repeatedly, for practically all the final articles, to “call the question.” He became the arbiter for when to cut off debate. The rest of us acceded.
As the chair of the Town Meeting Study Committee told us when we began, the committee worked to find the way between good function for Town Meeting, on the one hand, and efficiency, on the other. Our arbiter had been a member of the now-completed committee. His repeated stepping in to end debate fit, fairly directly, with the committee’s concern for efficiency.
Then, whither function? Two of those final articles won majorities, but not the two-thirds they required to pass. With few or no people in line for the “con” mic, but several folks still in the “pro” line, the arbiter signaled truncation of debate about these two articles. Particularly the first of the two, for a parking bylaw change, was complicated. I, for one, was waiting to hear the final input from those who thought we should go there.
We cannot know the counterfactual, whether those voices not heard may have stirred enough votes for a two-thirds. Perhaps not — we just don’t know. But I think we can say that the essential function of Town Meeting — debate — requires respect across us all, but not self-appointed “management” from the floor of the meeting.
You may see this differently, of course. If so, let’s talk.
David Allen
Heaths Bridge Road
