My Turn

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.

By Sarah Postlethwait

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Gary Taylor on his victory. It was a huge turnout and you have a strong following! Thank you for the years of service you have given this town already and will continue to offer in the future.

I would also like to thank the nearly 700 of my neighbors, friends, and complete strangers who went out on a limb to vote for me. I am incredibly grateful for your support!

I know many of those people voted for me because they were also frustrated with the lack of community collaboration and transparency experienced in the past few months. I hope that Mr. Taylor will consider the voice of the 42% of residents who cast a vote in my favor and push for changes in the process going forward. Doing so will ensure 100% of the town wins.

I was moved by a group of seventh-graders who came over to speak to our crowd of sign holders Monday. Those children were very concerned about the Lincoln that may be awaiting them when they are adults, and they felt their voices were also unheard. I informed them of their ability to bring a citizen’s petition to town meeting on any topic that they felt passionate about, and had an idea of how to improve. They were intrigued and invigorated to learn that their voices could actually count. They could have a say in their future, too. I hope they feel compelled to actively participate in our town government, and I hope that is a theme we can see continuing in the adult population, as well. An active engaged community makes a better end product.

• I am incredibly grateful for the work that hundreds of my fellow residents who are associated with the LRHA accomplished in the past seven months to help protect our town. Due to their keen observations and unwavering persistence, the HCA rezoning that passed on Saturday was a vastly different article than what it was intended to be in September. They have also greatly contributed to democracy in our town at the same time.

• The total number of housing units that could be built was reduced from over 1,400 to 800. A 67% total housing increase within a half-mile radius would have been detrimental to our town.

• The state changed its model used by all towns to take into account wetlands, and allow for less density around them — helping preserve Lincoln’s environment, but also the environment of countless other towns in our state.

• They brought attention to the bylaw that allowed a developer to count any “street-activated use” as commercial — including lobbies, residential gyms, common spaces, and leasing offices — which could have been detrimental to retail business at the mall if left in the wrong hands.

• They brought attention to the lack of affordable housing being required, and as a result, the Planning Department promised to resubmit a new feasibility study that can support 15% affordable housing. This will help save our limited affordable housing trust funds, so it can be used to create a more diverse affordable housing stock.

• They helped shed light on the negative impact on our beloved businesses if a hundred housing units would have been allowed to be built on the mall, resulting in the amendment presented by the RLF at town meeting.

• They brought attention to the lack of environmental protections in both the HCA and general zoning bylaws, which will hopefully result in protections for open undeveloped space and mature trees in the near future.

• Their push for clickers at Town Meeting resulted in this article being brought to Town Meeting and approved. As a result, much smoother and shorter Town Meetings will hopefully be in our future, allowing even more residents the ability and desire to participate.

• They made residents aware of buses that helped many citizens have access to town meeting. Hopefully the town will continue the bus service in the future due to the limited parking available at the school for town meeting.

• They advocated for people with disabilities to be able to participate in town meetings remotely, resulting in a town policy change that will continue into the future.

• They advocated for the Town Meeting process to be reevaluated, including having a written set of Town Meeting rules, a policy for relevant town boards to be permitted to speak from the podium, and a request for more balanced presentations that include any dissenting voices of the presenting board to have equal podium time. As a result, the Select Board has promised to establish a committee that will address these concerns and look into making Town Meeting more fair and balanced, giving residents real choices rather than asking for a rubber stamp of approval.

While our work is not done, I can’t but help feel grateful for all that we have accomplished, and I hope that all of our fellow residents feel the same. I especially hope that all residents, no matter their view or age, will feel motivated to continue being active and engaged citizens, positively contributing to our beautiful town.

Thank you again for your support, Lincoln.

“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.

By Edward Young

Although the moderator said that none of the controversial procedures followed at [Saturday’s] Town Meeting should be considered as precedents, they raise questions that should be addressed when the town considers Town Meeting procedures comprehensively later this year, if not sooner. Here is how the moderator regulated who spoke, when and where.

Prior to the meeting, the moderator had announced that a group of over 300 residents — who had petitioned for time for a spokesperson to speak from the podium, with slides, in opposition to voting now on the announced resolution regarding a draft HCA bylaw nine months before the deadline for HCA compliance — would instead speak for ten minutes from microphones in the auditorium, without slides, and that a spokesperson for another group of residents who favored voting on the resolution now would be allowed to speak in the same manner. Presumably, only town officials and members of town advisory committees, all of whom favored immediate adoption of the resolution, would be allowed to speak from the podium or present slides.

Two members of the Planning Board who had voted against the draft bylaw in its current form also asked to be able to speak from the podium, as their three fellow Planning Board members who had voted in favor were allowed to do without time limit. This was denied, and they were restricted to getting in line for two minutes each at the microphone. Instead of allowing the two members to say themselves whatever they wanted to say from the podium, in their own tone of voice and in the fresh context of whatever was being said at the meeting, another Planning Board member chose to read aloud, in their own tone of voice, a public statement that the two members had made some weeks before.

Neither group of residents, nor the two Planning Board members, has any financial stake in the outcome of the HCA vote.

However, before either group was allowed to speak, the Rural Land Foundation — which is not a part of town government, and which has a financial stake of millions of dollars in the outcome of the HCA vote — was allowed to speak from the podium, with slides. This came as a complete surprise to the voters in the auditorium.

By being recognized first, the RLF was enabled to move a detailed amendment to the HCA resolution that precluded discussion of the main motion for quite some time. The RLF flashed on the screen a series of highly complicated charts that were not handed out before the meeting and which voters had not had a chance to review.

After the amendment had been discussed and voted on, the two groups of residents were finally allowed to speak on the (amended) main motion. The opponents of the motion were called on first and the proponents had the chance to rebut what they said. It would be interesting to know if that order of speaking was decided by coin flip or other neutral method.

The two Planning Board members were patient enough to eventually make it through the microphone line for two minute comments.

That’s how discussion was handled at Town Meeting.

So I submit that a robust examination of the fairness or unfairness of what just happened at Town Meeting is very much in order. I wonder if anyone would care to provide reasons in justification for it?

“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.