My Turn: What happened at Town Meeting?

By Barbara Peskin

We expect our elected officials to be fair and the Town Meeting moderator to be impartial. Whether you were “No for Now” or “Heck Yeah” at the March 23 Town Meeting, make a note of the following (you can watch the recording of the meeting here):

1. Two elected Planning Board members, a resident group (Lincoln Residents for Housing Alternatives or LRHA) supported by 311+ signatures, and a town board (the Agricultural Commission or AgCom), requested and were denied podium time or use of slides. The decision maker was the moderator. The Select Board supported the moderator’s decision.
2. The issue of podium time was hotly discussed at the March 18 Select Board meeting (illuminating recording here). The Selects, Planning Board chair, moderator, and many members of the public engaged in two hours of discussion. Residents shared that the visual impact of slides is powerful.
3. A moderator’s meeting was held on March 20. It was open to the public, in person only, not hybrid, and not recorded despite requests. Anyone who would speak from the podium was required to be present. The moderator assigned a minute by minute presentation run down, including who would speak from the podium, for how long and whether they could have slides. Article 3 would be presented by the Planning Board chair. The Rural Land Foundation (RLF) was not on the presenter list, nor did they speak at the moderator’s meeting. Representatives of LRHA and Heck Yeah groups were present and were allotted 10 minutes from floor mikes (no podium, no slides).
4. The March 23 Town Meeting recording shows that when the chair of the board of the RLF rises from the audience and stands at the podium, the moderator does not appear surprised. This is contrary to the schedule outlined to the public at the March 20 moderator’s meeting, and to the public discussion at the March 18 Select Board meeting. The RLF is a private entity, with a financial interest in the outcome of the vote, yet the moderator watches the RLF chair walk up to the podium and say, “Good morning. [I am c]hair of the board of trustees for the Rural Land Foundation.” The RLF chair speaks for close to three minutes, supported by slides, uninterrupted by the moderator. She closes with “…the RLF would like to offer a compromise on the HCA. Madam Moderator, may I have permission to amend the proposed bylaw of Article 3?” The unsurprised response from the moderator: “Yes.” A slide of the RLF amendment is then placed on the screen and read.
5. Next, the town counsel states the “printed version of the motion” he had been given was technically different from what was read, and corrects it for the record. Both the printed version and slide of the amendment had to have been submitted to town counsel and the technology coordinator prior to the start of Town Meeting, since the RLF chair did not hand either of them anything when she arrived at the podium.
6. Next, the Planning Board chair, without asking for a turn, appears to be expected by the moderator as the scheduled speaker after the RLF. The Planning Board chair goes to the podium and says the amendment “is compliant. It has been vetted” [by Utile, the town’s consultant].
7. After an HCAWG member, Planning Board Chair, Finance Committee member, Select Board member, a second HCAWG member, and then the RLF chair speak from the podium, the moderator calls for comments from the floor. The first mike comment comes from a “No for Now” supporter completely surprised by the amendment. The second person the moderator calls on is a “Heck Yeah” resident whose prepared statement supports and includes reference to details of the RLF amendment.

When you watch the recording of the Town Meeting, notice that the proponents associated the RLF’s Amendment with the word “compromise.” The proposed amendment was not a “compromise.” A compromise is defined as “an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions; an ability to listen to two sides in a dispute, and devise a compromise acceptable to both.”

A tactical surprise by one side is not a compromise. The LRHA residents, who were always open to compromise and discussion and who attended almost every Select Board and Planning Board meeting since the State of the Town in September, were not told about nor asked for input on the RLF amendment. The dissenting Planning Board members and the AgCom were also kept in the dark. This does not bring the town together in compromise. It exacerbates the town division. Just repeating the word compromise does not make it so.

Here is what the LRHA, AgCom, and No for Now residents hoped for: green space and tree protection, increased setbacks, and reducing density both at the mall and in the Lincoln Station area by finding another parcel in Lincoln to include for compliance. The compromise they sought demonstrated respect for the land and people that live and work in the rezoned area. There was time to come to true compromise.

The moderator gave the private RLF access to the podium yet denied it to elected officials and other residents requesting to balance information presented. Is that impartial?

The presentation of the amendment appeared to be tightly controlled and coordinated behind the scenes. The orchestrated amendment tactics worked in favor of the proponents. Article 3 passed by a slim margin: “Heck Yeah” at 52% to “No for Now” at 48%. These last-minute machinations may well have affected the outcome of this very close vote. The loss will be most palpable to the people who live and work in the rezoned area.

I have been a proud resident of Lincoln for 29 years. I am not proud of the way our town leaders pulled the strings to squeak out an affirmative vote on the HCA in March, when we had plenty of time remaining this year to respond to public feedback and reach a real “compromise.” We can do better, and going forward, we must do better.

---

“My Turn” is a forum for readers to offer their letters to the editor or views on any subject of interest to other Lincolnites. Submissions must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Items will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Submissions containing personal attacks, errors of fact, or other inappropriate material will not be published.