ACMI productions are only made possible with your support. Visit patreon.com slash ACMI to learn how you can help. Good evening. I'm calling to order this meeting of the Arlington Select Board on April the 1st. I am Select Board Chair Eric Helmuth. It was not an April Fool's prank that we had some technical problems this evening, getting the meeting going with our Zoom connection. So I'll explain what's going on for people who are in and observing on Zoom. Our ACMI has told us that the broadcast is functioning as normal. The individual Select Board members and key staff are logged on with our computers over Zoom when we're logging on. So we can hear people from Zoom in the room and I just realized I was on Zoom. All right, hold on a second. So Sean, I'm having to mute myself and I'm just now getting feedback when I unmute my laptop. So this is a problem. Testing one, two, three. All right, maybe it'll come up. Sean, if you can hear me, give us advice over the speaker or come on up. Testing again. OK, Sean, so whenever I unmute myself in Zoom, is it this machine here? Zoom is inspired now to take every individual source and just send it out of the monitor. The only reason it wasn't happening before was because this one knew anything from these, not to basically send it out, but sorry, that's the extent of that. Is there any way to just get rid of that and essentially have a Zoom meeting where we're all sitting here? These folks go up to this laptop. Everything else is just working through the computers. Yeah, so that's just kept all muted. Unless people on Zoom are talking, maybe have one dedicated computer.  Can't we all then now just turn our volumes up a little bit so we can hear another? Yeah, I think it's worth testing. We'll see, we could get audio feedback problems with individual speakers. The feedback is only when you crack the volume on just one central laptop. I think it uses the speaker. But feedback is from a microphone, right? Well, feedback is from individual laptop mics picking up the sound from another person's computer. Yeah, the Zoom, typically Zoom doesn't send out audio for your, when you are the speaker. And so typically that computer is the host. All these microphones act as the microphone for that computer. But yeah, that's what they didn't consider when you were probably spending up a stack of playing. And making matters worse, my Zoom connection just went down. So it flakes on and off anyway, normally. And it's just a function of this laptop, I think. So I'm not currently on Zoom, of course. It usually reconnects, but. Do we turn you on the volume? Yeah, until someone's Zoom speaking, now can you take me open the solutions, but. Okay. Hi, this is Chair Eric Helmuth. And if someone in Zoom can raise their hand, we're having some, obviously having some major technical problems with those in connection tonight. Someone in Zoom can raise their hand if you can hear me. Looks like we have everybody raising their hand. Okay, good. Thank you very much. Now let's promote somebody just as a test, maybe representative Garmelie. Actually, you know what? I'm just going to allow him to talk. So, because I think I'm a co-host. Representative Garmelie, can you hear me? Hey, Representative Garmelie, can you help us out here and let me know if you can hear me and you can try talking? I can hear you, Mr. Chairman. Can you hear me? Okay, now I'm going to turn on my speakers. I'll try again, Sean. I can hear you, Mr. Chairman. Okay, now. So we have some, I think we need to pick a laptop to have one laptop to have the sound. So, yeah, we're going to get the thing. Yeah, I'm going to turn my speaker all the way down. All right, I'm off. I can hear you. All right, thank you. Sounds like there's some sort of feedback. And I think the feedback was because my, I had my mic on and it was picking you up a little bit. So even from that distance, it's feeding back. They're very sensitive. How about now, can you still hear us? I can hear you. Okay, can you guys hear that loud enough? Yeah, ask me if you can hear me. Sean, are you able to hear the Chairman? I'm a little faint. I can hear you perfect, Ashley. Okay. Are you muted? So we have unmute every time you want to talk. All right, so I'm just, I'm testing now. This is the problem. Could I just sit here? What about that one? What about if I made that one, the one that talks and speaks and that way I can toggle you guys? No? Oh, you probably can't hear me. You just unmute and you can talk. Task. Task. Let's do the best we can. Yeah. We'll be here all night. Let's go. All right, we're just going to try to roll with this and see what happens. All right, let's get to roll with this and see what happens. So this is Chair Eric Helmuth. We're obviously having some technical difficulties with the Zoom. We're going to try this and see how it goes.   Yeah, no, I just, but I just got muted. Well, you... Yeah, we just need to mute the machine. You're muted, Mr. Chairman. You're unmuted. Okay, I'm back. Yeah. So each individual members and staff are on Zoom and we're trying to figure out how to do this without faulty feedback. Please stand by. I don't think there's any way around that. I don't think there is. I don't think we want this. Put the speaker down. Speaker on right now. Yeah, right. Well, I think... We only want this speaker on because someone is Zoom. Right, right. That's right. Yes, if you turn that speaker down. You know, just take a computer. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Did you turn the speaker off there? Yeah. All right. I used the wrong word. It should have been trying to speak it off. Yeah, okay. Okay, so we have... So when I go back off on Mike, so Sean's in the meeting now, so we won't hear him unless that speaker's turned back up or I suppose mine is. That's the only way we're going to get a Zoom participant's audio into this room. Okay. All right, I think we have a plan. I'm going to turn it down. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And that's fine as long as the public can hear what's going on in this room. So maybe as you begin your introduction, remarks, Mr. Chair, if you could just confirm, if members of the public could just raise their hand to confirm that they can hear you, hear us, that would constitute adequate alternative means for the public in terms of accessibility of this meeting. Okay, okay, okay. Yeah, we'll do a good test. All right, I think we have a plan and we'll go forward the best we can. That meeting is, I guess at first I'll just double check to make sure that the people on Zoom can hear me. So if John, Leslie, you're on Zoom right now, if you were able to hear me, would you raise your hand? Great, thank you, sir. Okay, so this meeting is being conducted in the select board chambers and at least to some extent over Zoom, as best we can, is being recorded and simultaneously broadcast on ACMI. You can find, if you're on Zoom or on ACMI, you can find the posted agenda items on the town's website, specifically the select board agendas and meeting and minutes page. And we have a makeshift Zoom solution right now. If at any point that fails, we'll make a decision here in the room. We do have a quorum of select board members. We can continue the meeting, but I think we will be sensitive to the fact that we've advertised a public hearing and we wanna make sure we will prioritize, including having to reconvene if needed, to make sure that the public does have a chance to participate. And I guess I'll say this, that because these are public hearings on warrant articles and it's very important, we'll give this the best go that we have. And as long as I am confident, Attorney Cunningham is confident that members of the public can fully participate over Zoom, we'll proceed. If at any point it becomes clear that we can't, I think I will suggest that we adjourn and we'll reconvene at another time. That's not good to you, sir. Yes, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Just pursuant to the old meeting log, the public has to have the opportunity to participate, both here and speak if allowed by the chair on these matters before the board tonight. And as long as they're able to do that, that constitutes adequate alternative means and that would satisfy the old meeting requirement and the meeting could proceed. And was you, were you unmuted on Zoom at the time when you were just speaking? Is the way I'll get used to this? That would be a negative. You might want to have a try that again. Just so we can get that ready to Zoom. So for select board members and staff, when you want to talk, we'll just unmute ourselves at our laptops. I think I'm unmuted now, Mr. Chair. Yes, you are. As I mentioned, under the old meeting law, it's required that the public have adequate alternative means to participate in tonight's meeting because this was advertised as a hybrid meeting by the select board. So as long as the public can hear what's going on with all speakers can be heard clearly by either Zoom or phone or any other alternative means and they can participate if called upon by the chair, then the requirements of the old meeting will have been satisfied and this meeting can proceed. Thank you very much. Are we allowed, Attorney Cunningham, are we allowed to... Unmute. Unmute yourself. Attorney Cunningham, are we allowed to monitor the chat function in Zoom? As long as we're not participating, I guess. I have a chat. Well, I'm just, I have it open here and if someone can, if I'm speaking, someone can hear me, they can just say, can I hear you? It's disabled, I wonder if anything can be done. You want them just to raise their hand. Mr. Chair, if I may. Yes, sir. It'd be preferable if the chat preference, chat option were disabled and if the individuals in the listening public wanted to speak, perhaps raise their hand and then at appropriate time could be recognized by the administrator and then considered for comment by the board. And I will note that we do have the Q&A enabled as well so we can monitor that, which is a one-way communication. All right, and I was able to, I just kept my microphone on the whole time and I don't know that that created problems, so we might be all right. Okay, so I think it's enough preamble. Let's move ahead with our agenda and we'll start with the proclamations. We have a proclamation that is in this like board agendas and minutes. The text of there is there and it's for the Community Development Week, April 1 through 5. Now entertain a motion from the board. Move approval. Mrs. Mahan moves approval. Second. It's second for Mr. DeCorsi. Any further discussion? Okay, and a motion for Mrs. Mahan and seconded by Mr. DeCorsi. All in favor say nope. We're gonna do a roll call, aren't we? Nope. No, I'm gonna do it again. Just trying to get him. Who's muted? Okay, sorry, no he's not. Sorry, Mr. Chair, you don't have to do a roll call because all members are present. Physically present, all right. So all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? It is a five-nothing vote. Now we go on to the Consent Agenda. This is items three through six. We have the acceptance of funds from various entities from Colleen Leger, the Director of Health and Human Services, the Rotary Club of Arlington 100th Anniversary Banner Approval from Bill Hayner for the Rotary Club, request for a special one-day beer and wine license on April 13th at Robbins Memorial Town Hall for the Mononomy Beer Hall from Sarah Lundberg, Director of the Arlington Historical Society. We have another request for a special one-day beer and wine license on April 27th at the Arlington Community Center for an ACA, Arlington Center for the Arts Spotlight Fundraiser from the Executive Director Tom Formocola of the ACA. Move approval. Second. Okay, we have a motion to approve the Consent Agenda by Mr. Herd and seconded by Mr. Diggins. Any discussion? My hair. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? It is unanimous. That takes us to item seven, appointments. The Council on Aging, we have Melissa McInerney and Dr. McInerney, are you in the room or on Zoom? If you are on Zoom, please raise your hand and Zoom. Excuse me. Excuse me. They're coming in. I saw her too. Oh, there we go. Good evening, Dr. McInerney. So we're doing the best we can with our Zoom, but if you would just introduce yourself and say a little bit about your interest in serving. I really welcome the opportunity to be considered to serve on the Board for the Council on Aging. I'm an economist at Tufts and in my research, I study what can help more older adults participate in the safety net programs they're eligible for and what the benefits of those safety net programs are. And so I really welcome the chance to help adults in Arlington receive the benefits they're eligible for. And I'm especially excited about this year's, I guess launch of the new, is it the property tax circuit breaker? So I'd love to find a way to move my research into practice in Arlington. Fantastic. Thank you very much. I'll turn to the board. Mr. Heard. I'd like to move approval. And it's a little crazy and it's from listening to the feedback from our own voice, but it is funny that there's a number of volunteers on the town board. There are economics professors at Tufts University and I was an economics major at Tufts University, so it feels a little nostalgic, but certainly have an amazing resume and we're really happy that you stepped up and we're willing to serve. This is a very important board that we rely on and it helps seniors across the town. So thank you for your willingness to serve. Well done, Mr. Heard. Did he most, he most to present you. I'll second. All right, any further discussion? Mrs. Mohan, and unmute yourself, please. I think I have. So I want to say thank you to Dr. McEnany. I really appreciate you taking on this position as well as your resume curriculum vitae that you provided us and one of the things that's really important, similar to what you brought up about tonight, a warrant article that we're having to give seniors some relief, but is the outreach and being able to communicate with our seniors who sometimes age is not the only communication path. As we get older, I won't go into my bursitis or anything like that, but I do appreciate that you've definitely have a lot of experience with that, putting aside grants and rent writing and all that. And I know you'll be a good advocate for that. I was just wondering if you had like three or four sentences in terms of talking to the senior population, perhaps what your style is or things that you know have worked or anything that you'd like to bring to the council? Sure, so I look forward to learning more, but what I would love to bring to the council is a willingness to listen and to see how I can help. The particular angle I bring is an interest in the social safety net, but I know the council on aging serves many, many functions. So I'm very open to learning how I can be most helpful. Did that answer your question? You know, you definitely, and I mostly ask for people who are watching, they got a couple more, you know, a little bit more sense from you and I look forward to your service on the committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Mahan. Mr. Diggins, and unmute yourself, please. The only reason I'm not going on and on about how impressed I am is because of the audio issues and because we're getting a late start and I have some interesting questions, but I can get in touch with you later on, but truly impressive and thank you for joining in us with the council on aging. Thank you, Mr. Diggins. Any further discussion? Okay, we have an enthusiastic motion for approval by Mr. Herd and seconded by Mr. Diggins. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, is unanimous. Thank you for your patience this evening. Thank you so much for your willingness to serve. We are thrilled to have you on board. Okay, that takes us to traffic rules and orders. Other business, future select board meetings. So we are not dealing, we are just scheduled through next week, April the 8th. I believe that's right, Ms. Murr. That's correct. So April 15th is a holiday and, but how about the 22nd because when Tom, well that's a holiday as well, right? That's why we're not starting Tom meeting. So any thoughts from the board? Anybody who might be chair in the near future? Mr. Chairman. So it starts at 24th, right? Yeah, Tom meeting, Tom meeting begins at 24th. Yeah, I don't, I know that the 15th is the holiday week. I don't know if it makes sense to have the, something on the 17th. I don't know if there's anything further that we're going to need to do. But maybe there should be one meeting before Tom meeting. Yeah, I like the 17th. Would you prefer the 16th, Mr. Herd? That's a holiday. The 16th is? I thought it's 15. 15 is Patriots Day, right? Definitely not the 16th. Not the 16th. So 17, that's good. 17. Call it myself. What's up? Schedule for the 17th and if we're away, we're all right. Yeah, because we, I guess we were going to open up a warrant for a special Tom meeting, right? So imagine we'll have to do hearings for that too. And you're currently muted, Mr. Diggins. Sorry. I just have an announcement. So while I was talking, I saw Mr. Herd waving his hand. So did you want to say something so hard? No, I can't. So then how are we going to have the special Tom meeting? Because we've got to open a warrant for that. Well, I think we haven't gotten to the agenda item yet. But which is next. But maybe we can take that up when we get to that. Just continue the discussion there. But that would influence when we want to have our next meeting now. Well, the special Tom meeting will be, I mean, if we do that tonight, as anticipated on the next agenda item, then we'd still want to meet on the 17th, right? Yeah, okay. Right, right, right. So I was saying that would influence when we want to have another meeting. So definitely want to have one before Tom meeting because we're going to have to discuss some items. Oh, and put something on the warrant. Is that what you're saying? Yeah. Yeah. We have to meet on the 8th, correct? We have to meet on the 8th. We have to meet on the 8th, yeah. So we could do that. We could be a meeting. So we could do it then, right? Mr. Green? So with respect to the meeting on the 8th, what we were intending to propose on item nine for not only a date for the special Tom meeting, but then in item 10 for the opening and closing of the warrant was intended to be on April 9th. So that would actually fall after the 8th. So I would recommend a meeting on the 17th, if possible. Yeah, so we definitely want one, yeah. So can, do we at least have three people who can meet on the 17th? I know myself and Ms. Nahan, Ms. Degorsi. I have a question. Okay, so let's schedule the 17th and maybe talk about future meetings when we get to the 8th, when we're in a better shape. And yeah, I think maybe next week we can look ahead to Tom meeting and figure out which days we want to meet early to get some business done. Okay, so item nine, vote special Tom meeting date be determined, Mr. Feeney, and unmute yourself please. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So before the board this evening on item number nine is a request to consider calling a special town meeting this spring. This is necessary because the Attorney General's Office has identified a procedural flaw that needs to be cured with respect to article 12, the MBTA community zoning bylaw that was approved by special town meeting in October. So specifically the vote language considered by town meeting in October did not explicitly reference a zoning map that contained the multifamily housing overlay districts. The vote language referenced all of the associated textual bylaw amendments but it did not reference amending the zoning map with Arlington's proposed Section 3A districts. Of course, the zoning map and the detailed parcel listings were included in the ARB's report to town meeting. However, they just were not referenced in the actual vote language. So it seems the AGO is rightfully scrutinizing to the letter of the law with respect to the MBTA community's bylaw given the rise of litigation elsewhere and just wanting to ensure that everything is valid. So we are being asked to address this technicality with more specifically crafted language to accurately capture the vote for the record. We do not have to mend or make any adjustments to our districts which were already deemed compliant by the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities. So in regards to timing, a special town meeting can still happen within the annual town meeting though it would not be practical to do so earlier than May 8th which is the scheduled fifth session of town meeting. That was, of course, if the Board agrees to proceed in order to correct this issue that was identified. So while we work through these additional steps, the town and the Attorney General's Office entered into an extension of the statutory 90-day review period for that particular warrant article which will now expire on June 22nd. And I will note for the record that the Fossil Fuel-Free Demonstration Pilot begins on May 21st and our DOER, Department of Energy Resources, acceptance letter, acknowledged that the town may need to address or would need to address any issues that arose with the passage of the bylaw. So we have notified DOER of this potential development and don't foresee any issues with respect to our participation in the pilot but we have reached out to confirm that. So I believe that would be it for Article 9 and then obviously Article 10 if the Board does agree to move forward with calling a special town meeting, we could discuss the potential opening and closing date for the warrant. Thank you very much. It's very reassuring to know that it's looking like this will not disrupt the Fossil Fuel Pilot participation which was why we queued this up for the timing in the first place. So if I understand correctly, you're suggesting if the Board would want to do this that May 8th would be the first opportunity to actually vote to hold a special town meeting that date. Attorney Cunningham. Thank you Mr. Chair. Yes, to effectuate this change that has been requested by the Attorney General's Municipal Law Unit. Obviously this is a warrant article that would go before the ARB and because of the timeline needed to advertise those hearings and to conduct those hearings it really wouldn't be possible to include the special town meeting prior to the 8th of May. Gotcha. Okay, so I will turn to the Board for any discussion. One more motion please. Mrs. Mahon and unmute yourself please. Would it be appropriate, in my hearing tonight that we can make a motion to call for a special town meeting within the annual town meeting for May 8th, 2024 commencing at 8 p.m.? Yes, Attorney Cunningham is nodding his head. That would be my motion. Second. Any discussion from the Board? Mr. DeCorsi. Oh did you already second the start? I was going to second this is Mahon's motion but just maybe for the public's benefit too and Attorney Cunningham if you can just confirm the reason on this why we want to have a special is that otherwise we need the special town meeting to open and close before June 22nd and if potential is a danger although unlikely that the regular town meeting could extend beyond that date. Attorney Cunningham. That's correct, Mr. DeCorsi and thank you for making that clear for the public and this time on and I will say that in conversations with the Attorney General's office as Attorney Cunningham indicated they have found no fault with the district itself they have indicated no concerns regarding EOHLC's determination that the district is MBTA community's statute compliant. They're not asking us to take up any matters related to revision of the district. This would simply be a warrant article to accept to amend the zoning map of the town to include the district as was voted by special town meeting last fall. So it should be a fairly procedural matter but I want to stress that the AG's office is not saying that our district itself is problematic. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. DeCorsi. Further discussion? Okay, we have a motion to call a special town meeting on May 8th at 8 p.m. by Mrs. Mahan and seconded by Mr. Heard. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? It is unanimous. Thank you very much. This takes us to item 10 for approval connected to this, opening of the special town meeting warrant. Mr. Feeney, for turning on you. Turning on you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just remind the board as it knows that for special town meetings, five days notice is required under pursuant to our bylaws and the town meeting, the warrant for a special town meeting can be open and closed on the same day. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for turning on you. So the implication of that would be, I believe Mr. Feeney suggested May 9th or it's our April 9th as of the day. Sure to call you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, if the board is inclined to April 9th would work in terms of the timing required by the ARB to notice their hearings and conduct their hearings so that they could meet the May 8th special town meeting date. Okay. And I'm just noting, thank you to my vice chair, that Tom is a participant in Zoom and this is not an item, it's a public hearing but I wanna be sensitive to any technical problems that I may be having. So it looks like the hand is down so I'll assume that we're always well for now and when we get to the public hearing, we will allow. It's in chat, he wrote his thing. He did write a question in the chat stating that people speaking should, who are not speaking should mute. Longer comments, they're getting a lot of echo feedback. Thank you very much for that, Tom. So any speakers in the room, if you're not speaking, just mute yourself so you're finished. Thank you for that. And we will monitor the Q and A, if people in Zoom wanna contribute information like that, we very much appreciate it. I have a display here, he's muted, so I think we're good to go. Okay, so at this point, I would entertain a motion for opening the special town meeting warrant. Mrs. Mahan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to open special town meeting warrant on April 9th, 2024 at 8 a.m. and close the warrant for the special town meeting on April 9th at 4 p.m. Thank you very much. Let's get you muted there, all right. So we have a motion. Second. And a second by Mr. Herd. Any discussion? So we have a motion to open the warrant for the special town meeting called for April the 8th on April the 9th at 8 a.m. And closing at 4 p.m., seconded by Mr. Herd. All in favor, please? Say aye. Aye. Post. It is unanimous. Okay, this brings us to warrant article hearings. So I'm gonna take a block of articles out of order and I'll explain what we're gonna do here. We're gonna take article 14 a little bit later. That's the bylaw amendment focus residence picketing. We have a block of three warrant articles, articles 20, 21, and 22. Those are home rule legislation articles. Because of my employment by the state legislature, I need to recuse myself from those articles so that for those next three, I'll hand the meeting over to Vice Chair John Herd. And I would suggest to the incoming Vice Chair that he consider taking article 22 up first. That's the home rule legislation for lowering the voting age. The proponent is a high school student and this is literally a school night. And so that will be up to the Vice Chair, but that would be my suggestion. I think the other two articles are likely to be pretty swift. So we should get to article 14 in pretty short order following that. Good to go, Mr. Herd. All right, I'm gonna mute myself and leave the room. All right, all right, following the chair's sage advice. We're gonna take article 22 out of order. So this is article 22, it's home rule legislation for lowering the voting age to 16 in local elections. And Ms. Meyer, do we have in person? Excellent. I'm gonna go muted in a second if you could just introduce yourself and then you can get into your presentation, okay? My name is Sophie Shen. I use she, her pronouns, and I'm a junior at Arlington High School. I'm here today to talk to you about warrant article number 22. Next slide, please. There are numerous reasons why we should consider lowering the menace voting age to 16. Doing so can improve civic education, civic engagement, and empower young people. This is an abridged version of the slideshow just so that all viewers know that. We do have a full version on the town website already if you would like to view the extended version. Next slide, please. So the first topic we're going to discuss is improving civic engagement. Studies show that voting is a habit and that once someone votes in one election, they're more likely to vote in a subsequent election. And so lowering the voting age can serve as a catalyst for increased voter turnout. And voting, a higher turnout is better for our democracy because we get to hear a larger number of voices. And so if we encourage voting earlier on, then we'll see a pattern of voting emerge in our LinkedIn voters. Next slide, please. We're going to now discuss strengthening civics education. Next slide. It is crucial to prioritize voter education in high school because after 18, students will go into higher education and to the workforce with a full-time job, or whatever they choose to do beyond high school. And so reliable voter education becomes much more difficult. So Tufts University, which Mr. Herd has graduated from, has conducted several studies on voter education and voter turnout. And we found that black and Latinx voters are least likely to be taught about registering to vote and encouraged to vote by high school teachers. And so particularly if we lower the voting age, not only will it improve education for all, but it will also help to promote diverse voices, which is really important when it comes to town measures. We want to encourage young people to get to the ballot box. And our last main reason is to empower young people who are ready to vote. Next slide. Cold cognition is what makes up measured decision-making, I'm sorry. And so the dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex is really what is responsible for what is called cold cognition. And so at 15 years old, it is basically formed and fully developed. And cold cognition capability does not improve in later years, which is why 16 and 17-year-olds tend to score about the same as older adults on political interest and understanding, thus meaning that on a biological aspect, 16-year-olds are ready. Next slide, please. So on a similar vein, society acknowledges that 16 and 17-year-olds are capable and responsible. We are given the responsibilities of safe driving, working jobs and paying taxes, and in some cases, even being tried as adults for serious crimes. And so if we give teens these such responsibilities, then I believe that we should allow them to also vote for a school committee who represent them. Next slide. So another common myth that I often hear is that young people are not interested in politics, yet we see that some of the most popular extracurricular activities for high schoolers are Model Congress and Model UN, which are inherently political. Personally, I participate in Harvard Model Congress every year, and they told us that this year has been the largest on record of student participation. We also see, I guess in the real world, you could say, with protests that youth are highly active. For example, in the Vietnam War, the movement for peace was largely youth-led, and in the modern day, we see that climate activism is largely led by youth as well. Next slide, please. We also see that in Austria, whose voting age is already 16 years old, that when 16-year-olds are given the opportunity to vote, they take it. Their voter turnout is comparable to that of older adults. We see in this graph that the zero represents the average voter turnout, and that we see that there's a decline after a few years because between the ages of 18 and 25 years old, for example, there are major life transitions, such as going off to higher education or getting a full-time job, that make it a lot more difficult for voters to make it to the ballot box, since voter registration is tied to an address. And we see that in the United States, we do struggle with the same problems of young voters from 18 to 25 years old tending not to vote as often as their older counterparts. So lowering the voting age, hopefully we would see the same trends that we see in Austria, where it would promote more voting and more civic engagement from young voters. Next slide, please. And the last myth that I want to go over today is that this is just an extra vote for children's parents. Yet we see that in studies conducted in Scotland, whose voting age is also 16, that this is actually not the case. Teens are equally likely to vote the same as their parents as they are to vote differently. Next slide, please. So finally, if we were to make moves to lower the voting age, we would not be alone. Within the state, Boston, Cambridge, and Somerville have already submitted homeral petitions. And we see within the country and worldwide that there have been other efforts to lower the voting age. As mentioned earlier, Austria and Scotland are among some countries that have a voting age of 16 years old for their federal elections. And Representative Sean Garberley is actually here tonight on Zoom. He pens the bill H686, which would also do this on a state level. I'm sure he would be happy to answer any questions if you had any. Next slide, please. And so thank you all for listening. I will now take questions if you have any. We can also reference the larger slide show, which does have more facts and figures if you feel so compelled. Thank you. We'll first turn to the board to see if the board has any questions at this time for the proponent. Thank you, Mr. Chen. Thank you, Mr. Chen, for all that hard work. Definitely appreciate it. I'm just wondering, not that I would expect it, this has happened already because you're just putting the proposal before us and then it has to go, if successful, to-town meeting in the state house. But have you had any education or explanation amongst high school 16, 17 year olds, sort of an audience with them? Do you have any sense of if this is something that they're also kind of watching? And I say that in light of the fact that one of the things I and myself and my colleagues have been very encouraged by is especially the past few years, including this year, quite a few students from the high school and the middle school have participated in the warrant article hearing process with our fossil fuel warrant articles, with our ACE community electricity program, rate setting articles. Not only have they been participated, I and my colleagues have been really impressed with the level of knowledge and understanding. They're not just coming in saying, I think this is a good idea, vote for it. They give us a little meat behind it and they're obviously aware of what's going on. So I'm just wondering if, A, you have a sense right now, not that you could speak for an entire community population, or B, if you haven't really done that outreach yet or what you anticipate in the future, if successful? Yes, so, oh, I don't know, you're fine. Yeah, she just asked. Okay, sorry. Actually, the petition that I've collected signatures for largely was in part from teachers and also students who had recently turned 18. And so a lot of those students who signed my petition said that they would definitely support this measure and teachers who have observed students working in the school environment have observed the same thing, that students are eager, they're ready, they have learned a lot thus far in their education and they have an eagerness and an understanding about politics that would be conducive to allowing them to vote at 16 years old. I also mentioned this in one of my meetings at EMSCAN, which is Massachusetts Schools Climate Action Network, and that has been a very popular idea amongst the participants of that meeting. Thank you. Any other questions from the board? All right, at this time we'll start the public hearing portion. And I believe we can promote, represent Glock Garberley first and then anyone else that would like to speak either in the room or in Zoom, if you could just raise your hand so we get a sense of who wants to speak on this in the public portion. Nobody in the room? Is Representative Garberley with us? Yes, I also see a hand raised from the phone in EMSCAN. Yep, so we'll go to Representative Garberley first and Sean, can you hear us? I can't, thanks so much Vice Chair Hurd for taking me out of turn. Thank you Sophie for your inspiring presentation on this important issue. I also wanna thank the other members of the board, including member Diggins who has worked closely with the panel on this issue as well. I rise in strong support of the warrant article. I try not to come to the board. I don't think I've come to the board in my 16 years of being your rep, supporting a warrant article because I believe all of you are my colleagues, so I try not to go in front of you on specific issues, but I feel compelled to speak because it really is about a piece of legislation that I have filed for the past 10 years in the House of Representatives, which Sophie mentioned in her presentation, House 686, an act relative to age requirements and local elections. I feel really strongly about this bill to make it statewide. I think Sophie really in her arguments, she made a lot of important claims and pointed to many studies on why lowering the voting age is so important for municipal elections. For me, this is about creating engaged lifelong voters. And you starting at the municipal level for school committee and local office is a great way to create an engaged electorate, young people going as they get older, and it's really, really important. As well as there's been at least 10 cities and towns that have filed similar homeral authorization to the state legislature. Like I said, over the last 10 years from Cambridge to Boston to Lowell and out into the western part of the state. And in trying to get legislation passed statewide, it helps me as a member of the House to be able to point to cities or towns that have supported this effort. And it helps me to make the argument that this is something that the people of Massachusetts want and gives me a better chance and an opportunity to be able to get this piece of legislation passed in the state house. So I strongly support this concept. I really appreciate the board taking me out of turn. And I am grateful to Sophie for her outstanding work on this bill and this issue. All right. Thank you. Representative Garbley. We actually did take you intern. We didn't give you any special preference here. But just so you know. All right. So now we have two more hands raised in Zoom. So we're gonna start with the hand that is a phone number. So once we promote you, please unmute yourself and just give us your name and address for the record so we know who we're speaking with. And you'll have three minutes to speak. Chris already, can you hear me? I think it was you. I think it was me you may have been referring to. So Chris, you want the Zoom in two places? Cause I see your name Chris. I am because I'm not using the phone too. That's right. Cause I'm not using the audio on the computer. I don't have a microphone on it. Okay. Yep. Chris, you can go ahead. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Vice chair. And I'm frankly disappointed that your chairman recused himself cause I really didn't think he needed to. But in any case, I think this article is a really bad idea and I'd like to explain why. And I quote, the brain structure and function undergo considerable changes during adolescence. Adolescents are more vulnerable to irrational decision-making caused by impulsivity and reward or sensation seeking behavior due to their psychosocial immaturity. Children's brains, children's brain regions connect to impulse control and emotional maturity are still developing according to research. Now what I'm quoting there is by someone from the youth member for coalition for juvenile justice. And what I would say to your board, Mr. Chairman, is if juveniles and 16 year olds are not prepared to accept the laws of adults and be treated as adults in the legal system, then I don't see why they should be giving the right to vote in town. And I heard the argument made that they pay taxes. Well, they may pay meals taxes if they go to Starbucks or Dunkin' Donuts, but I don't think many 16 year olds pay property taxes and that's the principal tax in town. So I say no representation without taxation in Arlington. And I also take exception to the idea that this is not a political aspect or the political aspects of these types of votes and that they're not trying to support democratic candidates. And I would ask your board and the proponents to cite the numbers of cities and towns throughout the United States that are in red states that have enacted versus this type of legislation versus those in blue states. And I think you'll find overwhelmingly that this really is a political issue and a political ploy to elect more Democrats. So I hope you'll see through that attempt. And frankly, if students need better civic education to encourage them to vote, and that's a matter for the schools to address. I don't think it's something we should do by simply giving them the right to vote as minors. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Mr. Loretty. And I believe that is all the hands we have, Ms. Maher. That's correct. All right. And so we will turn back to the boards for any question, comments, or motions. Attorney Cunningham. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Just wanted to note that there is a draft motion in the material that's been provided to the select board that's been made available to the public. I know it's in the title of the draft foreign article, but it's a stress that this is for municipal elections only. This is not for state or federal elections for the public's clarification. And I also wanted to quickly and formalize this. Commended Ms. Chen on her advocacy. She reached out to the legal department and was very strong in her and provided materials that were very helpful. And the legal department's analysis was very much appreciated. Thank you, Attorney Cunningham. Now I will turn to the board. Ms. Maher. Is that okay? All right. I just wanted to make sure. And I want to thank you. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Thank the town council for pointing out that this is for a home rule legislation for 16 and 17 year olds for local elections only, which I think is the most appropriate for this type of initiative moving forward. And as I stated before, we've had over the past three to five years, especially the past two years, more and more increased, not just high school, which is 14 to 18, but also middle school students that have gotten involved, been civically engaged, and probably nine times out of 10, if not 10 out of 10, have spoken more eloquently than I have. So with that, I would like to move favorable action to file home rule legislation to lower the voting age to 16 in Arlington in local elections. Thank you, Mrs. Maher. Mr. Diggins. Mr. Vice-Chair, I'll second that. And I have a couple of questions, maybe just one. I'm not sure to whom I should address this at this point. I don't know if Rep. Garberley is still on. I need to unmute, thank you. Thank you. So I know that Rep. Garberley's legislation would make this automatic, being approved by the legislature. It doesn't have to come back to the municipalities for an election. When we discussed this, I think we could have gone one or two ways. It's automatic if the legislature signs off for the legislation, or it could come back to the Arlington residents for a vote. I guess I'll address this to Mr. Cunningham. Do you happen to know if all the other HRs by the other municipalities were automatic or did any of them... So Mr. Diggins, I think Attorney Munson's gonna take any questions on this article. Okay, all right. So sorry about that, you know, so. So do you happen to know if the other municipalities require that it be automatic or that it come back to any of them for a vote by their residents? So I can speak to the home roll petition that was filed in Boston, and the intention for that was for the legislature only to make clerical or very minor adjustments, I guess. And as far as I know, none of the home roll petitions that have been filed have actually been passed yet. I think they're still with the legislature. Does that answer your question? No, the question is, do they require me that the residents or the voters vote me to approve me? So the legislature would pass it, but then it would come back to the voters. Oh, I see. Do you wanna mute, so. Yeah, so now, Andrew, so again, speaking only on behalf of what I know happened in Boston, there was not that requirement, so the intention then would be when the legislature passed it and the governor signed it, it would take effect upon passage. So this is a little bit strategic on my part me, but also trying to get a sense of where the legislature's head is. So my sense is that generally me, the legislature would prefer that the state be as uniform as possible. Me, that's my sense. Certainly Representative Garberly can tell me if that's incorrect. I guess somewhat unrelated is if Representative Garberly, Bill is such that it's automatic. I would be curious if we put one in that came back, required that it comes back to the voters, meaning how the legislature would respond to that. So my suspicion is that me, this will have a hard time with the legislature because my first statement that is that they like everything to be uniform, so either they will probably just pass a Representative Garberly's bill or not pass anything, but if there is any sense on their part that they don't want to be forced any municipality to do something, me then they, if we've had an hours me that it could come back to the voters, me then that it might increase the chances that if Mr. Garberly's bill didn't make it, being hours would stand a better chance. I am going to turn to attorney cutting him. Thank you Mr. Vice-Chair and just to respond to Mr. Diggity's question, there would note as currently constituted in the draft motion there'd be no requirement that it come back to Arlington if it were passed by the state legislature. And although there's no way for us to know exactly what the state legislature is going to do, I think that, I think that Representative Garberly probably had it correct that this, even if this homeroom petition were unsuccessful that Arlington files, it would be a demonstration to those in the state that the more communities that are filing this homeroom petitions indicates a broader base of support and perhaps would help Representative Garberly in his pursuit to pass statewide legislation. Understood me, but having it be such that it would have to come back to Arlington residents, you know voters, me for approval, wouldn't signal anything negative with respect to Representative Garberly's bill, right? You know, so it's really a matter of whether we wanted to come back me to the Arlington residents, or voters, you know, and I can appreciate me wanting to just have it done, you know, but as I said, I think it gives the legislature an option, you know, that they might find, you know, more appealing because, so I just put that out there may it is something to consider, you know, so that's all, thank you. Yeah, Mr. Tacorsi. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman and Ms. Jen, thank you very much for the presentation. I will be supporting Mrs. Mahan's motion and I think I want to address a couple things, but first of all, I think your common myth number one about the 16 and 17 year olds, that to me is a strong argument for asking for permission, the legislature, the town asking for permission for 16 and 17 year olds to vote the fact that 16 and 17 year olds can drive. They can work jobs, some choose to and some don't, that's irrelevant, but you are working at 16, you're paying state and federal income taxes and you're contributing to I believe Social Security at that point as well and some of our rate comes from the state, so the fact that it's, whether it's property tax or not is frankly for me irrelevant, it's really the fact that you're out there and you're following things, I think it's great at the local level, I look back. When I was 16, it was 1980, it was a presidential election, I know there's a lot of people, a lot of students focusing on elections and I think that's probably the case issue or in a presidential election year and as Mrs. Mahan said, more of our high school students, middle school students are engaged in local affairs and frankly above 18 and older, we've done such a great job getting out and voting either when you see 20, 25% turn out at local election, so I think for all those reasons, it makes good sense at the local level. I think I'm comfortable with if town meeting goes along with this petitioning the legislature not coming back and having a vote on it, but I think it's also significant for the legislature to see how many towns are gonna do this because unfortunately this is probably gonna take a while but as we see more communities maybe attempt to do this, maybe there'll be more momentum at the state level, it'd be great if it happens right away and I appreciate you bringing this forward and all the work that you did and all the materials that you provided that are available both to us and to the public through our agenda. Thank you, Mr. Corsi. Mr. Dagan, did you second the motion? I thought so, but I certainly wanted to, so thank you. Yeah, I just wanted to make sure. All right, thank you for the presentation. When I first saw this, I had some concerns but I think your presentation for me, it was the myth number three that addressed my concerns and so you're certainly well-prepared for what the concerns of the board was gonna be and I just thought that 16, 17 year olds have the parents have a fair amount of influence on what they do and it could just be an extension of their vote but I mean you certainly came prepared with evidence to refute that thought and at the same time it will still be reflective of the general population, I guess, if you would assume that most kids vote the way their parents raised them but it's not always the case. So I'm happy to support this. I think this will further the conversation at the State House, the more towns that citizen towns have passed this and I anticipate it will still have an uphill battle given the current votes on the home road legislations that's been sent to them thus far but again, it keeps the conversation going and the more people that say hey, this looks like a pretty good idea, the more likely the legislature is to move and come around on it. So thank you for your work. Hopefully you don't have too much homework to go home to but we are, thanks for sticking in with us tonight through. Usually our meetings are much more efficient than this so you can come back to another meeting when we're working a little smoother. So with that, I believe we're ready for a motion unless there's any final discussion. We have a motion for favorable action by Mrs. Mahan, seconded by Mr. Diggins, all in favor say aye. Aye. All that are opposed. That is a unanimous vote. Thank you. Mr. Vice Chair. Yes, Mr. Diggins. Okay, I just see a few words about this article. Primarily about the proponent. So this is, we're taking up article 20 on legislation relative to the town clerk. No, no, no, no. So it's just a few words about the proponent. Yes. So I just wanted to say that I was truly impressed being working with Ms. Chen. So she brought this article, the idea up, made up and initially being thinking about what we'd seen on some of the polls, made up. I was hesitant, just personally, I would not have moved something like this on my own. But I just wanted to be supportive and she I thought made a really good case. And the caliber of work that she did was really very impressive. If there's just one person that deserves to vote at a younger age, it would be Ms. Chen. It would be worth it just for that. But I've also worked with me a lot of the young, using young adults in town. And so she's not unique, not only in Arlington, but also just being all over me. And so it's really good to see me using young adults and really trying to get more involved. And so I'm glad we did this. And I didn't want to try to push the agenda too hard or push the motion too hard earlier on. So I just wanted to save it for now. Thank you. All righty. Ditto. All right. Now we're going to take up article 20, Home Rule legislation relative to the town clerk. And Mr. Feeney, who's presenting on this? Attorney Monson? Convenient. All right. Attorney Monson. Thank you, Vice Chair. So this is a home rule petition for the select board to ask for authority from the town for you all to file a home rule petition to convert the elected town clerk position to an appointed position. There are other municipalities that have done this before, not just for the town clerk position, but for the collector treasurer, for example, in Westwood, both Wenham and Rutland have had home rule legislation actually signed by the governor this year as special acts doing the same thing. And so there is some draft vote language and a draft home rule petition and the materials for you. It's kind of a compilation of some of the different acts that have been passed. I will note that this question is going to be on the ballot. And so there will be a timing matter to make sure that the effective date that is in the home rule petition is going to obviously be aligned with any sort of elect ballot action. And I will also note to that the board should consider some bylaw amendments that also will need to happen to just make it consistent. And in terms of the particulars of the home rule petition, I think the home rule petitions are give broad authority to legislative bodies to be able to be flexible with the type of language you wanna include. It's sometimes better to include more particulars than not such as who the appointing authority is going to be, whether it's a fixed term or serves at the pleasure of the appointing authority, any sort of duties you wanna codify. And then in this particular matter, making sure that the current elected term of the town clerk is not cut short by the home rule legislation. So I'm happy to answer any questions that you have. Thank you, Attorney Monson. Any questions from the board? Mr. Diggins. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. So those details that you mentioned, when will we work those out? I'm sorry. You're muted, Mr. Diggins. I'm so bad at this. So those details that you mentioned that you say it'd be better to have, or some cases people decide, that you better have when we work those out? So. So loud. That's me. That's me. So I'll let Attorney Cunningham tell me if I'm wrong, but some of those discussions could happen, obviously, here in an open forum and to make sure that we're compliant with open meeting law. There is draft language that, I'm happy to walk through right now certain provisions and I can explain kind of where those came from in the meeting materials, if that's helpful. I would say not now, but I just want to have a sense of when and who. So okay, great. Thank you. Mrs. Mahon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not asking for a big long protracted because as you just stated, and Mr. Diggins, not to get ahead of ourselves, but if this does go to town meeting, town meeting passes, if the voters pass it, the future amendments regarding classification, position classification, compensation, how to consider the category, independent, et cetera. If the first two pieces of the process, town meeting in the voters at large here in the town of Allenton, when we do get to that part in the amendments that you cited with that, I think I know the answer, but is that something this board individually can remedy or is that something this board individually can remedy with a warrant article to go to town meeting for a final vote? So if you could just speak on that. So if I understand your question correctly, it's kind of the order of things in which they need to happen. So essentially what you would want to do is not want to make any sort of amendment on the bylaws, obviously until you had the final language of the home rule petition. And I do believe that your instincts were right on that with respect to it being a warrant article. Any additional questions? Mr. DeCorsi. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman. I set a question for the board. I mean, I understand why this is here, why we need to take action, but we've got the ballot question that we're asking the voters to vote this upcoming week, whether we want to convert the town clerk position. It seems to me that we may want to wait for the results of that before we take action. And just a question just for to allow the voters to do their job and come back to us on that. And I know we'll have time, maybe a question for you or turning Cunningham on that on the timing of the actions. Attorney Cunningham. Well, first I want to thank Deputy Town Council Munson for all of her work on this. Tremendous, great job as usual. But to answer Mr. DeCorsi's question, I would say that, I mean, procedurally the board could take the approach of a will report as it has done already this warrant article season. If it was inclined to allow the voters to consider this matter first at the upcoming town election. And then at a later date before town meeting, at before annual time meeting, take some sort of vote regarding favorable action or some other action that the board wanted to take. It could do that as a procedural path forward. Further question, Mr. DeCorsi? If we waited until Monday, we still have time before we complete our report. Is that right? I just like to hear from other members, but I mean, I wonder if we consider tabling this rather than doing a will report until Monday evening. Mr. DeGunson? I'm certainly fine with waiting in order to provide more detail. So if we weren't so close to the election, you know, lots of early voting already, I would be inclined to flesh out as much detail as possible about this because that to me makes the decision easier. Me and all men, certainly the devil slash genius need are in the details, meaning when it comes to something like this in and so, but that's moved at this point. You know, I mean, so I would say with respect to town meeting me, my inclination would be to provide as much detail as possible because I enjoyed that the process of thinking things through, but I can certainly hear the argument that that's still not enough time need for us to think things through clearly, I mean, and I think that's the winning argument. I mean, and so whatever amount of time and whatever venue we need to, or whatever manner we need in order to provide a really good set of details is what we should do. Well, let me do this because we do have to have public comments before we make any motion. So let's go to public comment and then we'll have discussion about, you know, what we want to do as far as any motions. So at this time, we're going to open the public comment section of the hearing if you are either in the room or on Zoom and you'd like to speak to this article, please raise your hand. I think we know from the last one that is Mr. Loretty and we will wait for Mrs. Maher to promote Mr. Loretty. He should be able to speak. My turn is right. You want me to go ahead? Yep. Mr. Loretty, this guy. Thank you. I would just make one request of the board on this and if you read the memo from Council that he sent on this article, he seemed to be suggesting that you can completely ignore the vote of the voters this Saturday on this question. And even if they reject the proposal to make the town clerk an appointed position, you could go right ahead and submit this home rule legislation to town meeting if you permission. And the state legislature could approve the conversion of that position to an appointed position. I'm asking your board to disavow that claim. Frankly, I'm not sure it's right. Town council sites like towns like Wenham that have done that without a vote like we're having on Saturday. But the town of Wenham has an open town meeting. So the very same people that vote in the town meeting are the people who would vote in on a ballot question. That's not the case in Arlington. Now maybe you know why you were elected to your office but I don't think I was elected to a town meet as a town meeting member to disenfranchise the people in my precinct when it comes to voting for other positions in the town. So I'd like you to be very clear that you will not put this article forward unless the voters on Saturday approved the conversion of that position to an appointed office. And I think that needs to be made very clear because I haven't heard any discussion or explicit discussion of that tonight but that sure seems to me what town council was saying in his memo to you. So I would leave it at that. I think this is a question that needs to be left to the voters. I certainly don't support it but I will respect their decision decision and I would ask you to do the same. Thank you. All right, thank you, Mr. Loretty. Are there any other hands raised Ms. Meyer? Seeing no other hands raised. And no other hands in the room. So we will close the public hearing portion and we'll go back to the board for any further motions or comments. Mrs. Mann. Just a quick question through you, Mr. Chair on two town council or deputy town council. Am I correct that I have two options? I can move to will report or could I move to postpone to the April 8th meeting? I'm kind of leaning towards a ladder but what would you advise? Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Turn to come in. Yes, Mrs. Mann, both of those are options. I think that we may run into timeline issues with the printing of the select board report. Obviously there's a meeting for the select board on April 8th, whatever action is taken there. We'd have to do graph votes and comments. It could be difficult. I mean, the next meeting after that is the 17th, I believe, as voted tonight. I'm not sure that we'd be able to get that in the report to town meeting but that we could do it a different way but that may present some issues on the print. Okay, then I'll make a motion to will report. We have a motion to will report. I'll second it. Seconded by Ms. Diggins. Any further discussion? All right, on a motion by. I guess, so I just want to make sure. So will we be discussing this at all on the 8th? Okay, all right, that's fine. So I'm fine, I'm even better, is it now? All right, a motion by Mrs. Mahan, seconded by Mr. Diggins. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? It is a unanimous vote and that takes us to Article 21, Home Rule legislation to amend the senior citizen property tax exemption. Mr. Towne Manager. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this warrant article was originally submitted on behalf of the Board of Assessors to sort of act as a placeholder while we contemplated the rollout and implementation of the senior circuit tax breaker that was approved at the last time we were at the ballot. But I will note that as additional information emerged and as the Board of Assessors at their meeting on March 18th at which Chairman Helmuth and Member DeCorsi, myself and Deputy Towne Manager and Finance Director, Alex McGee were in attendance. We came to the, you know, we sort of reached an agreement that it was best that we take no action on this article and the Board voted to recommend that the Select Board also take no action on this article until, you know, we may take it up in the future but at this time there's just not enough information to consider what the implications may be with respect to how this is going to roll out with the number of participants that may be eligible, the amount of money that it may cost and the number of things that we need to come to focus before considering a measure like this further. Any questions for the Towne Manager? With that, we will open the public portion of this hearing. If you have any comments to make on this article, please raise your hand in Zoom, 3, 2, 1, seeing none. We will close the public comment portion of this hearing Do we have any motions? Mr. Dacorsi. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman. I'll move no action. I want to thank Mr. Feeney for the summary of what took place at the Board of Assessors meeting. We have a motion by Mr. Dacorsi. I'll second. Seconded by Mr. Diggins. Any further comments or discussions? On motion by Mr. Dacorsi, seconded by Mr. Diggins. All in favor say aye. Aye. Oppose. That is a unanimous vote. And I'll bring back my esteemed colleague. Congratulations, Mr. Vice Chair. I trust everything went well. Okay, so I believe that brings us to article 14. This is the, oh, thank you. By-law amendment focused, residents picketing. I think we're going to start with the town manager followed by attorney Coyne. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So as the Board is aware, there have been multiple targeted demonstrations outside of the governor's private residence to date. Some of these have had significant impacts on the neighborhood as a whole, especially those that have occurred late in the evening. Following at least one of those demonstrations, Town Hall, we started to receive a number of neighborhood inquiries about why town officials were allowing this to occur given that the affected residents live on a network of private ways. However, the town was not in a position to restrict in any way this activity due to the classifications of the roads, given that they are statutory private ways and in effect had to remain open to the public. So the town was only in a position to enforce current by-laws that would ensure roads and sidewalks did not be, are not obstructed in that loud speakers were not used after 9 p.m. Didn't provide a large number of options for the town in response. So residents then question, what else could be done to prevent this activity moving forward so they could enjoy peace and quiet in their neighborhood? So upon concluding research with town council regarding potential policy proposals, the option before the Board this evening emerged after the Board had convened its meeting to discuss potential warrant articles. So in light of the closing warrant, I inserted this article to preserve the Board's ability to consider a measure that may provide some relief to residents should the Board see fit. So though this proposal certainly arises from experiences in a particular location, it certainly aims not to target any specific group, but it would instead apply to any groups targeting a specific residents and that could be any residents in town. So one thing I will note is that we did, as a courtesy, make the Governor's team aware of this proposal and I would note that it's expected the Governor would support the measure if it did ultimately advance if the Board saw fit and if town meetings saw fit. So with that, I wanna thank Chief Larity's in attendance this evening as an available for questions regarding any calls for service to date as a result of some of the demonstrations or the implications of this potential bylaw on the Arlington Police Department and I thank the legal department for their research in due diligence and considering the different potential options that may benefit this neighborhood. And of course, if the Chair would indulge, I would turn it over to Town Council to discuss further the language that was proposed. Thank you very, one moment. Thank you very much, Mr. Feeney. And now I will ask Attorney Cunningham or Town Council to make additional comments, go ahead and unmute, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, just to further the discussion. Yeah, this was an important issue. Obviously First Amendment concerns are something that are very seriously considered subject to a heightened level of security for important reasons that we wanna protect the people's right to speak and their First Amendment rights are not infringed upon. However, there are certain instances and it's outlined in the memorandum that's been provided at the Board and is available to the public on the Select Board's website. The reasons why this particular proposed bylaw is legally permissible and does not violate the constitutional rights of First Amendment. Specifically, as is cited in the memorandum, the Frisbee v. Schultz case, which is a 1988 U.S. Supreme Court case, took on this issue that was a community in Wisconsin that had a similar issue where they had individuals targeting residents of a, in that case it was an abortion doctor, groups of about 20 people in the town enacted this type of targeted picketing residential ban. The Supreme Court considered it and determined it was not violative of the constitution. As long as it's narrowly tailored. I would just highlight some of the language in the memorandum. It is not facially invalid and is appropriate under the federal constitution if it's content neutral on its face, which this proposed bylaw is. We have its only focus picketing taking place solely in front of a particular residence. Number three, leaves open ample alternate channels of communication for the dissemination of messages. Number four, prohibits the type of focus picketing, which is fundamentally different from more generally directed means of communications that may not be completely banned in residential areas. And last is narrowly tailored to serve the significant government interest of protection of residential privacy, especially where the picking is narrowly directed at the household, not the public. And where even if some picketers have a broader communicative purpose, their activities nonetheless inherently and offensively intrudes upon residential privacy. So that was the significant governmental interest that the Supreme Court considered when it evaluated this particular ordinance from Wisconsin is that the individual in his or their home is unable to avoid this type of communication and therefore it is not protected. I will note that the draft language that is before the board, if it is inclined to move this forward, is pretty much strictly taken from the Frisbee case and is the language that was approved by the Supreme Court. I think it was important to the extent of this board or to how many is inclined to adopt this or move favorable action that we stick closely to that language because we know it's constitutionally valid. I think a deviation from that language runs the risk of running a file of the first amendment rights that are so well protected. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much, Attorney Cunningham. So I'll first, as our custom here, turn to the board for additional comments and questions before we have public comment. And I'll think I'll start with Mr. DeCorsi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. Feeney and Attorney Cunningham and Attorney Munson for the work done as well on the research. And for me, I am a neighbor of the governor and I am aware of the protests that took place. I was there for one of them and I certainly saw firsthand the invasion of privacy that takes place when you have targeted picketing. I spoke to a number of neighbors who were concerned, just as Mr. Feeney said, there was concern about the roadways and we received a number of inquiries about that and we got through that. But I look at this as something, and we may hear from Chief Flaherty later, that there are state laws on the books that are unlawful to assembly. There's nothing at the local level and this is something that we can do at the local level if we move favorable action to recognize that there is a significant government interest in protection of privacy in the residential home and that's what this does. And as I looked into this and learned more from Attorney Cunningham's research and my own research is that this, the Supreme Court, as Attorney Cunningham said, in 1988 and its decision said that this is constitutional in Massachusetts. Brookline has a focused residential picketing by-law. The city of Boston has one and just one comment in terms of one of the questions about whether this is narrowly tailored or not is there a possibility of putting time restrictions on this? And I, Brookline does not, Boston did. I will note that the two protests that made the news, one was at six o'clock, one was after nine o'clock and they were equally invasive. And so to me, in order to make this narrowly tailored it would have to be an outright than having seen the different times because the earlier protest, in my view, shouldn't receive any additional or be excluded from this. And I also just wanna say just as a matter of observing what makes this constitutional, again, is the invasion and this is concept of the unwilling listener when you go home, you should be free from intrusions and there's also a captive audience doctrine that comes out of this same concern. And for one of those protests, I could have left my house, okay, and left. Across the, nearby, they could not have readily left with the protest and that's where the constitutional protections really should come in and I also will note that there is an impact on the neighborhood. People close by and the constitutional analysis that attorney Cunningham undertook were focused on the individual residents but there is an impact on the neighborhood and that was the reason why we got so many inquiries as well. It's just very unsettling for others nearby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Dacorsi. Any other members of the board, questions or comments for our team right now? Time. Mr. Dacorsi. Yeah, so. And unmute yourself, please. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm gonna say some things in hopes that there will be responses in hearings. Well, as we hear from folks, I understand the concern. I definitely understand the concern. I'm gonna give like a hypothetical scenario that may seem a little extreme and maybe I can get a response from either my colleagues or Mr. Cunningham or Ms. Musson. But so let's say the governor and the neighborhood is extremely homophobic.   That would not be allowed into this, right? Attorney Cunningham. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's always dangerous to engage in hypotheticals. I'm sorry, Mr. Cunningham, if you would just unmute, please. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's always dangerous to address, I have the chemicals in the legal analysis. However, I would suggest that it would focus on the fact that this is not, this is about every residence in town, this ordinance and because it has to be content neutral, it would apply to many things that involve unwanted speech when a person is inside their residence. And I'd have to stress that is it really, it's a town-wide ordinance that applies to every single residence in town if adopted. And that it would be any type of speech that constitutes picketing under the definition of picketing, whether it's one side of an issue or another. It just, it can't be something that targets specific types of speech or actions that picketing, it has to be across the board. That's what makes it neutral. And that's what makes it fair, that's what makes it constitutional. That's it. So another thing I'll say is that, I guess, It's unmuted. I thought I unmuted myself, sorry about that. Hey, thank you, I appreciate that. So, the only way someone's going to get to me as a member of the select board, other than email or phone call is to pick it in front of my place. I don't work here. I mean, we have a select board office here, but we don't work here and so I just have a hard time making it impossible for someone to get to me. And I can appreciate the discomfort, but that's kind of part of the purpose of protests. I would like to think that the state has put some bounds so that they can't do it after a certain time, so it can't keep me up all night. And I would imagine there are other restrictions. I don't know what they are. And so for it to just kind of cut it off completely, I just have such a hard time with it. And I just feel that I sign up for it. I know my neighbors didn't, but it is part of our system, I think, I mean, democratic system. I hear the other argument that as well, they're not signing up for an invasion of the privacy. And I have a little issue with the notion of privacy, but I'm not gonna argue with it too strongly because it seems like a settled law, but for me, privacy is like, I mean, you can't like physically come into my space, but the way I'm understanding it now is like, you can't do anything that I can perceive, I mean, that I don't like, because that's an invasion of my privacy. And even though I understand that that's settled law, I just have a hard time getting the yes on this. So I've put my arguments out there. So I welcome the counter arguments, please bring me to your site. That's it, thank you. Thank you. And if you would mute, sir, I think we'll go to Mr. Diggins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And one of the things Mr. Diggins is, are there other alternatives to protest? And I forgot, our colleague, Mr. Helmuth is, so there are protests that take place daily at the state house outside the governor's suite and in front of the building. And so there could be protests here in front of Tom Hall. The Supreme Court has said that the home is separate in terms of this right to privacy, particularly where the picketing is targeted and rises to a certain level. And I think some of the questions you have were addressed at what we call an dicter in the Supreme Court decision in Frisbee of the Schultz in terms of what would rise to that level. But I think there is a clear distinction. The governor's office is not in our home or any individual official. Mr. Hurd could talk to an incident that he had at his home as well. And that's a separate situation. We don't have a governor's mansion. We don't have something that's separate where there's office and home together. And I think that's a, and I might be stepping over my bounds in terms of our two attorneys here, but I just see a difference here and maybe some additional discussion in terms of how that is flushed out and how it would be looked at. And maybe as we go through this, maybe some information from Chief Flaherty from the calls that came in too in terms of, or the nature of the protests that gave rise to this. But I think there's a clear distinction. I turn to Attorney Cunningham between a home versus the official business address of whether it's a business person, a doctor, an elected official, a college president. It just, there's a difference. And unmute and go for it. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And in response to Mr. DeCourste's comment, absolutely the courts have clearly distinguished between places of business and places where people reside in the different levels of constitutional protections that afforded people when they exist in those two places. And I would just note that perhaps, and maybe this is helpful Mr. Diggins in response to the earlier question about particular hypothetical scenarios, but the definition of picketing as considered by the court in Frisbee was that, and it isn't very helpful, but defined as a posting at a particular place and they cited Webster's dictionary for that. But they considered that particular definition to be in line with the ordinance that was seeking to limit activity focused on a single residence. So with use of that language, hypothetically any activity that's focused on a single residence in a picketing manner, posted in manners, would be violative of that particular ordinance. And similarly, if enacted by the town of Arlington would be violative of this particular proposed bylaw. Thank you, Attorney Cunningham. Mr. Hurd, did you have something? I mean, I have a number of comments and some responses, but I think we're getting into our post public comment portion. So I would suggest we take public comment and then maybe we first have the gate after. Remind me of that. I did have a question for Mr. DeCorsi. He mentioned that our police chief was here. And I think if Mr. Corsi might suggest that he did want to elicit any particular information, just as a matter of information to the board before we go to our public comment, perhaps this will be a time, appropriate time to make that inquiry and you could lead that off. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, if I could, Chief Flaherty is here. If I could ask the chief, when the various protests took place, maybe the calls that came in to the police department and the Arlington Police Department's response. And thank you, before you do, Attorney Munson, can you turn on the video in the Zoom there so that people can see the police chief? Perfect, thank you. Chief Flaherty. Thank you, sir. So in the past several months, the Arlington Police Department has responded to three separate protests at the governor's house. The first protest was early in the fall. One moment, I think that computer is muted, sorry. Still showing it as muted. Do you see it differently on that? So the first protest was early in the fall. It was... Still showing it as muted. Yeah, I'm sorry, I need to get that computer unmuted. There we go, good to go. If you start over, please, thank you for your patience. Sure, so first protest early in the fall, it was a planned protest. I believe the organizers had come before the board or had asked the select board for permission and we were able to communicate with the organizers. It was very peaceful. The second protest was on October 14th in 2023. That occurred at about 9 p.m. In this instant, there were 25 to 30 protesters who parked about a mile away from the governor's house, marched in formation, wearing military clothing, face coverings, hats to the governor's house where they formed up in front of the house. They had flares, they were chanting, they had horns and they were using obscenities to the police officers to the residents who had come out and after about 20 minutes, they dispersed. The third protest was on February 10th. That occurred at around 6.30 p.m. and that was very similar to the second protest where these 25 to 30 protesters marched from a separate, a different location to the governor's house where they lined up. Same type of behavior. They had flares, they had horns and that protest lasted for about nine minutes. On both of those two separate protests, the Ellington Police Department received multiple 911 calls. We received multiple calls to our business line where people were in fare. We had people who were trying to leave their residents to pick up small children or teenage children. They couldn't get out of their driveways because the protesters were blocking. We had residents call the station because they were expecting people to come to the house and the protesters were blocking the roadways and we heard from multiple residents after who really were in fare and they had children who were traumatized and it was a disruption to the neighborhood. So having this bylaw would certainly be a tool in our police officers' tool belt that they could use to ensure the safety of all of the residents of Ellington. Thank you Chief Flaherty. Did you have anything else, Mr. Corsi? No question, but I did want to thank Chief Flaherty for all the work that she and the department have done and the coordination as if people, I mean the state police are also, let's say the coordination between the Ellington Police Department and the Massachusetts State Police too and the extra work that Chief Flaherty has done in terms of just looking at other instances outside of Arlington and providing top notch, service to the community, so thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you Chief and if you can stick around in case there are additional questions from the board, I forget them, thank you very much. Any further comments from the board before we move to public comment? Okay, at this time let's start the public comment portion of our meeting. We can go ahead and leave that screen on as Attorney Munson and I know that Mr. Fisher has been patiently waiting in the room to comment on this article. If you are in Zoom and wish to comment on that article, please raise your hand in Zoom at this time and we will get to you after our participant in the room. There's a three minute limit for public comment and for those of us who don't know you, just introduce yourself, sir. Go ahead. Thank you and thank you to the town manager for submitting this more article. What I'm gonna say I hope will make for a much stronger majority yes vote in the meeting I attended for Len's meeting with town meeting candidates. The three other town meeting members, existing members, all were very opposed with a lot of reasons. I ask you to support the change to the bylaw. In addition, I ask you to support creating a resolution to justify the change based on the following kinds of ideas. Today's free speech policies are largely guided by the logic of the slippery slope, but violating the privacy and feelings of security of a private home is more of behavior, not speech. Free speech, in my opinion, must convey such things as ideas, information, argument, persuasion, and so on. Where it does not qualify as speech. When speech crosses over into violating those feelings of privacy and security in a home, it becomes more of behavior, a domain that we may regulate. We've already had a town manager move out of town for reasons he openly discussed on ACMI. Must we continue to support free speech regulations that can make it necessary for a public official to move? Or for anyone to move? We hear that we cannot vote a limitation on demonstrations in front of a private residence because the ACLU will sue the town. I predict the ACLU will not sue the town without being able to answer this request. Give us actual examples of diminished free speech caused by the slippery slope theory, such as after we prohibited television advertising for cigarettes, did anyone argue for other forms of censorship because we cannot draw the line? We prohibit child porn, that these prohibition prohibitions been used to justify other forms of censorship. Germany outright prohibits various forms of Nazi speech. Has it diminished in any way other free speech rights in Germany? Conversely, people in states like Florida are removing books from libraries despite our severe free speech protections. Which begs the question in what way does protecting the right of Nazis to demonstrate in front of a private home actually protect us from censorship? Perhaps existing policy in these times needs an update. We have three or four weeks to support the bylaw that's changed that's been made and write a resolution justifying the amendment. A good place to start is with Louis Brandeis's logic where he recognizes their right to privacy is embedded in the overall purpose of the Constitution. Sorry for the pronouns. The makers of the Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognize the significance of man's spiritual nature, his feelings, and his intellect. You could wrap it up, Mr. Fisher, sorry. Okay. They conferred against the government the right to be left alone to conclude let's not allow the threat of a lawsuit to prevent us from having to town where people feel secure in their own homes even in the midst of civic debate, one more sentence. Please support for the work to create a better balance between free speech rights and the right to be left alone in one's home in a way that maintains our free speech rights. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, let's now turn to Zoom and I think we have Mr. Loretty on the phone that we can allow to talk. Good evening, sir. Can you hear me? Yes. Yes. Chris Loretty again. I guess I would like to say I find this article offensive in a number of ways. First, just procedurally, I know the town manager talks about people contacting him and that's what prompted him to put this article forward. I'm not sure I completely believe that. And I think if individuals have these types of concerns and I don't care if their surname is heard or to Corsi or anything else, they ought to be putting the article forward themselves and that ought to be reflected in the warrant or they should be going before your board in a public meeting and getting your board to put it forward. I don't think the town manager should be letting himself be used this way to put these types of articles forward. But more importantly, I find this article subsequently offensive as well. And I know the town council writes a lot about how it is constitutional under the US Constitution, but he doesn't say anything about the state constitution and the state rights, Declaration of Rights in that constitution. And I really question whether it would pass muster in that regard. As you know from the recent decision regarding speech to select boards, the state constitution goes well beyond what the federal constitution allows. So I have a lot of problems with that as well. And I also find it really offensive that for example, that parents or teachers could not silently pick it in front of the governor's house, a cut in school aid to the town, where they couldn't do the same in front of a member of the school committee's house that they were cutting programs they believed were important. Those are not disruptive of neighbors. You're completely banning that type of activity and that's completely unacceptable. I have to wonder if you were on the Washington DC City Council, if you'd be banning protests in front of the White House. Mr. DeCorsi mentioned that the city of Boston has a ordinance on targeted protests in front of residences. And I suggest you take a look at it because it does not ban them at all. All it does is limit the hours at which they can occur. And I was hoping that the leaf blower article would come up tonight because I really think it would say a lot about your board and its priorities. If you privilege the noise of leaf blowers which certainly disturb neighbors above that of free speech, this article goes way too far. It does not strike the appropriate balance between free speech rights and the rights of neighbors to enjoy their properties. And I think you really need to rethink this and not go forward with the suggested vote that's been presented to you. Thank you. Thank you, sir. We need it there. Good. Any other members of the public wish to speak on this article? Raise your hand in Zoom, please. Okay, let's go ahead and wrap up the public portion of this hearing and we'll now turn to Mr. Hurt as promised. I forgot what I was going to say. No, just that. Yeah, I just think, I think Mr. Diggins had posed a few of his comments to us for reaction and I think to some extent we know and I mean you could say this about the governor that she knew when she was running for office that there'd be some attention. I think we know that we get some attention and someone might stop us at stop and shop or certainly come into our meetings. I think to the extent that you mentioned that some people have no other way to contact you. I mean, I think there's plenty of ways to contact us these days by email. Our phone numbers are out there in these meetings. Outside of warrant article hearing this season we have open forum at any meeting that we want that someone wants to pose any concerns to us. And I certainly understand First Amendment concerns. I think Mr. Diggins had alluded to a much more minor situation at my house than what has occurred at the governor's house but a couple of years back there was a protester and I won't even go into what he was saying but it was one guy and we weren't home and our neighbors called and said some guy walking back and forth in front of your house shouting something. So one of my neighbors went out and kind of shoot him along and say, I agree with you but there's not the forum for it and he was gone. But it did shake up my wife and my two young boys even though it was just one person it was one person who knew where we lived and was at our house, not so much with ill intentions but it was enough to kind of scare them and had to go buy a ring camera and whatnot and the boys would look out the window and say, is anyone out there? And I think that for me it was a little bit of a scary situation and I think it's not necessarily what we signed up for, we serve up. I just put it in the context of this one board. It's like someone has to serve on this board and I don't think that to serve on this board means you should have to deal with protesters on a daily basis. But again, and I think there's other ways for people to get in contact with us. I know a lot of this article is focused particularly on the governor's house but I think in any instances and I think the hypothetical that you brought up Mr. Diggins I think it's telling on how this article is broadly painted. Right, I think you had talked about a hypothetical governor that I don't think anyone on this board would have voted for or supported and I certainly would encourage and support the efforts at worst that you had put forth but that would also be targeted protest that would be prohibited under this law as Attorney Cunningham mentioned. So it isn't really meant to target one type of group and one political viewpoint. It's I think, it's evenly handed, it's written so it is unbiased to any political, position and for me, I just, I think the safety concerns and the privacy concerns away the First Amendment concerns and not to minimize the First Amendment but within the bounds of the decisions of the US Supreme Court, we're taking action that we're appropriately allowed to do so and it's certainly something that for our municipality makes sense. If we were on the city council in Washington DC I think we would probably have different situations but this board is not taking a look at this warrant article and applying it in every situation. We're taking a look at this warrant article and see if it's appropriate for the town of Arlington and I think it is and I think I would be happy to support this. Thank you, Mr. Heard. Mrs. Mahad in unmute. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Given this on a lot of thought, when I came in tonight, I had a conversation with the chief and I had been listening as we all do every warrant article but especially guided on this one and I guess for me, what weighs a lot with me is my police chief coming to me speaking about her being able to do her job as well as the patrol officers and ranking officers on down also being able to do their job. I understand the free speech element of it but I'm thinking more of the safety and responding to residents which I believe didn't include the governor. I think it was the rest of the Arlington residents around the governor who were legitimately fearful to different levels and magnitude and I put myself in the place of when our police department has to respond to that and they're really limited in what they can do and the job is hot enough as it is and when the chief said, you know, this would give us another two to employ to respond to those calls to fellow Arlington residents plus I certainly would like to see where town meeting weighs in on this. So my free speech doctrine that I came in thinking, gee, I don't think I'm gonna vote for this one. It weighs a lot with me when my police chief comes before me outlines situations not from the person who was quote unquote targeted or the prime audience but the residents in that neighborhood. So I'll just leave it at that and see what motions are made and go from there. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mrs. Mahan. I think I'll share a few thoughts of my own. I've also given this one a lot of thought and I think that I find many of the comments really helpful really hearing the police chief's description of the actual situation and also Mr. Dacorsi's witness really drove home to me that this is not just a matter of noise it's a matter of disruptions, a matter of infringing on some of the neighbor's ability to get out of their homes made them feel unsafe and I think Mr. Hurd's comments that this is really specific to Arlington. Arlington's neighborhoods, these houses in all of Arlington are very close to one another. It's a very different situation than Washington, D.C. or other places and I think that weighs heavily on me as well. I think a good case has been made that homes are just different, that it I don't think we should say lightly that our family members and our friends didn't sign up for this, we did. And when I go out in public and we all go out in public as members of this like board people come here, people could come here and say mean things about me if they want and that is their constitutional right. They can see me out in public, they can see me at the grocery store, public places they can see me at and my Zoom just went down so Mr. Hurd could I borrow your computer? All right, I know Mr. Hurd's computer, thank you very much. They can see me out in public, they can stand in front of Town Hall and I think when it comes to the governor, as Mr. Corsi mentioned, protests and demonstrations happen regularly at the state house. On the steps outside the governor's suite, sometimes loudly. The governor keeps a public schedule, goes to public meetings all over the state and people can and do show up with protest signs there. There is no lack of access to the governor or any other public official to express your political and exercise your constitutional rights. The only issue is, does that right need to be unlimited and does it need to infringe on our family members and our children and our neighbors who as we've heard testimony tonight have not felt safe? For me, the answer is no. This is not even a particularly difficult one. The only reason I think it warrants a lot of care and a lot of thought is because we are balancing important constitutional rights, important democratic rights. And I think my calling Mr. Diggins intimated, this is a matter of subtle law. This is not a question of this being constitutional, but I think there is a moral question that we should weigh and I have weighed and that is, should we do it anyway? I think for me, I hope the town meeting agrees that we should because specific to Arlington, specific to the facts that we've heard tonight, specific to the fact that as elected officials, people get in touch with me all the time. I answer a lot of email. I get phone calls. I welcome conversations I have on my walks in my neighborhood and my community. I'm not hard to find. I think there are lots of ways to do that. I don't feel that we need to give people an unlimited right to bother or scare my neighbors or my spouse because of what I signed up to do. So that's where I'm at tonight and anyone would make a favorable motion. I'd be happy to support that. And I think my Zoom is back, so I'll go back to my computer. Thank you, Mr. Heard. Mr. Diggins, and on me, please. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I do have maybe a question or two for the police chief. Sure. Chief Flaherty and Attorney Munson, if you can unmute that machine. Thank you, Chief. So you say that we're blocking the street. So isn't that illegal? Yes. Just a moment. So we've sort of done it, Mr. Diggins, because of the audio visual, could you try to group your questions and then maybe give the chief a chance to kind of address them all if possible? I'll try, Mr. Heard. Yeah, you bet you can. But yeah, I mean, sometimes it's just, yeah. I'll try and get better at this. Yeah, no, do you? Of course, yeah. Well, give my thought back. So was there a remedy, I mean, without this bylaw to the blocking of streets? Yes, there would be a search. Mute yourselves. Yes, you got it. In certain circumstances, absolutely. These two specific protests, we were working closely with the state police and we were basically waiting for more resources to take any type of action. And arrest would be our very last resort. Our offices are trained in de-escalation skills and that's what they did at both these protests. They did outstanding jobs at de-escalation. I was invited to the state police barracks recently to view the body one footage, the camera footage of the state troopers who were wearing body one cameras. And it just highlighted how well the Allington police department handled these situations. So yes, there are remedies, but an arrest is the very last resort. We don't want to have to do that. What would the bylaw, if we change, if, what would this do? What would this allow you to do differently in a case where they're blocking the streets?  Is there some other way other than this bylaw to get the ability to protect and to keep people from blocking the streets, you know? Can you clarify? I'm sorry, that question wasn't clear. So I guess one, is there some other remedy than a bylaw like this be to prevent people from blocking streets, be it or creating a sense of fear? I'm still not clear on what you're questioning. That's fine, maybe I'm just not in position to answer, phrase the question any better. So it's not your fault. I'm just, I guess what I'm trying to figure out is if there is some other way, other than just completely shutting down the protests, to allow people to feel safe in their neighborhoods and still allow people to do some level of protesting. And so, for instance, earlier on we were talking about having time limits on the protests, but my sense is that that wouldn't be good enough. I'm just really having problems with shutting down the protests all the time. And also, there are, I think, times when we need to kind of allow us as people to kind of push each other to do things differently. And so, I gave a hypothetical. And it's more about trying, it's not even a matter of safety at that point, it'd be a matter of a neighborhood finding something that people don't like. They feel that it's morally bad. And you have another group of people that think, no, these are our rights, these are us. And we really want to get you to change. And they would do be a protest. And it might even be targeted, at the leaders. And yes, it would make the leaders uncomfortable, it'd make the neighborhood uncomfortable. But for me, that is part of the democratic process. And I just have a hard time saying, and as you all have admitted to me, that would be prohibited in this. And it's that kind of pushing me of leaders and even neighbors who may support me, those kinds of policies. It's a way that we push ourselves. And I just, the thought of just shutting it down completely, I came to this day, I'm gonna regret the vote that I take, either way. It's just a matter of which one, well, I regret less than which one do I think me and I can feel better with in the short term and the long term. So I just can't get myself to yes, just yet. So that's where I am. Thank you. Thank you, Chief. Thank you, and you can remute yourself. I did turn to Mr. Herb, before I forget, I just want to kind of personally respond. And I think the hypothetical you raised is a thought-provoking one. I've thought about this since you raised it. If we had a public official like a governor who believed that I should not be married to my husband and had other abhorrent views, I would take to the streets, I would lie down, I would take a bullhorn, I would do whatever I would, but I wouldn't do it at that governor's house because I don't want that kind of civil society. I would go to the state house, I would go to public events, I would go to the public library, I would do a die-in like we did for AIDS action back in the day, but I wouldn't do it at their house because I don't want that kind of society. That's why I feel the way I do. And I think that that's what makes me, I respect anyone who has, I think we're going to have a spirited debate about this at town meeting. I think that's healthy because I like where people are coming from who worried about this. But for me, it comes down to what kind of town we want to have and what kind of political discourse we have. I have no problem making public officials uncomfortable. That's the job of democracy. For me, the question is where I draw the line. I think we're going to draw the line different places, but that's how I approach the hypothetical. Thank you, Mr. Herd. Thank you. Just sort of allowing those lines and responding to Mr. Diggins, I mean, I don't think any of us, nor the chief thinks that if we pass this bylaw, it's going to stop all the protests, right? So to say we're banning them, then they can't happen. I think there'll still be protests. I think it just, you know, in your question, allows them to, you know, gather up the protesters and make a situation safe quicker. And again, it's not a criminal. We can't, we don't pass criminal laws. So they can't go, I don't think the police department is going to go inside arresting people, right? Because they can't, at least not based on this. And so it just helps them kind of de-escalate a situation. I mean, I've seen the amazing de-escalation training that Arlington Police goes through and we've seen it time and time again, not just in these protests, where that's exhibited in practice, but I think that this, again, it's not going to stop all protests. It just kind of allows the police department to be able to contain the situation. I mean, it's similar to, let me just tell you how I said it, we've seen over the past few years, we've seen a number of protests and some may have been targeted towards decisions that we've made. And the best place to protest us is on the steps of Town Hall. I think, and we've seen those, we've seen protests in the Town Hall Guards, we've seen protests in Whittemore Park. I think that there's a lot of more visible and more effective places to lend your voice to a specific cause in this town and in other parts of the Commonwealth to do that. And I think it, again, the house is, like we don't have, as was mentioned, we don't have a government mansion. Whether it's us, the governor, you gotta sleep somewhere. So in very few places have no neighbors. So to create a situation where you just allow unlimited protests, it just, I certainly am sympathetic to your concerns, Mr. Diggins, and the concerns of individuals that have spoken against this. It's not something to tread lightly on when it's talking about the First Amendment, but I just think that the way it's written, it is something that is appropriate at this time for this town, and who knows? In eight years, a new town meeting might say that, hey listen, we had that law, but it's no longer appropriate for Arlington, and they can take a crack at changing the law back to the way it is or repealing the prohibition. But for right now, I think this is now narrowly tailored, and I think it's appropriate to keep the peace, and we're up here to come up with what is the general betterment for the residents of Arlington, and I think that is the situation here. And eventually, we've had these discussions where we've, I think, massaged and gone back and forth with some of the language in these warrant articles, but eventually, we gotta vote on it, and we may be on the same side, but I might not be on the same side. I mean, at this point, I think I'll move favorable action on the warrant article. I think we did need to do that. Do I have a second on that? Second. If you could, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, this is- Thank you, and thank you for your words. And this is, first amendment analysis is challenging, but I mean, I think for me, and as Mr. Helm said, the significant government interest here is the right to residential privacy, and that's what the court case, the Frisbee case discussed. But the other thing that was very important in that case is the inquiry, are there alternatives for the message? And that's a key thing. And in that case, it was found that there were alternatives, and I think that probably in the comments that we have, depending on how our vote is, those will be mentioned, and so that's part of the balancing that takes place in the first amendment cases, and we've seen the actual memo from attorneys Cunningham and Munson. Those five questions that need to be asked is the by-law content neutral on its face? Is there a significant government interest? Are there alternatives? And so it's, and is it specific enough where it's focused on the specific home? That's what brings in the constitutional protection. I do want to say one thing. I had mentioned earlier, before the public comment, I was aware of the Boston by-law, and the Boston by-law was between 9 p.m. and 9 a.m., and I was aware of what happened in Brookline. In Brookline, because it went through town meeting, it was subject to review by the Attorney General's office, and the Attorney General's office signed off on it, so questions as to whether that would pass constitutional muster. Massachusetts have been answered in the case of Brookline, which their by-law is almost identical, they're very close to what's being proposed here, and I said earlier, the 9 p.m. to 9 a.m., and as Chief Flaherty said, the second protest, or the third protest, was at 6.30, and once that happened, for me, anyway, a 9 p.m. to 9 a.m. restriction wasn't going to work. And so narrowly tailoring the by-law meant removing, having the prohibition at all hours because of that interest, so that's, just wanted to get that on the record in terms of what had been reviewed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Attorney Cunningham, and there was somebody in Zoom who wants to make further comment on this, I will accept that comment, so Heather, you can get ready if you're in Zoom to do that, and we'll turn to Attorney Cunningham. You can go ahead and bring her into the meeting, Ashley. Did you want to go first, first or second? Heather is going to go first. Okay. Do we have? Do we have her? Do we have her in the meeting? Do we have her in the meeting, Ashley? I'm trying to promote her. We're trying to bring her in. Yeah, you can kill that for a second. Is that they're declined to? Okay. Yeah, so there we go. So, Heather, you should be able to unmute yourself at this time. We got you, go right ahead. Hey, everyone, first of all, I just want to thank the Chief of Police and the State Police. I'm the neighbor directly across from the governor, and I was not intending to make remarks tonight. I will be going to town meeting to talk about how this has impacted the community, particularly my family. I was the individual when they talked about the person who had to be escorted out to get her child. I am the person who the protesters are on my property. So for me, this is really about safety. This isn't about the issue of Nazis or this or that. This is about safety for our community. And again, I just want to thank the Chief of Police. Her officers have been terrific in helping us navigate. And I also just want to, I've been here for all three protests. Some have happened in the morning. Some have happened at six and at nine. It doesn't matter what time they happen. They still put a threat to our safety. The last one that happened at six o'clock, I had a neighbor get onto my lawn and start shouting at the protesters. And I was terrified. The protesters had flares in their open incendiary devices and their hands. I was concerned that they were gonna throw them at my house, at the person who was yelling at them. And I had to yell at him to get off of my yard. So this is less for me about the issues. This is really about public safety. So I just wanted to make sure that that was heard. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. So we've, I think, de facto reopened public comment on this. So I wanted to make sure that any other members of the public who want to speak on this article so we can be completely fair, really raise your hand. Ms. Marr. Seeing no hands raised. Thank you. All right. So I think we're at this age. Do we have any final discussion from our colleagues? And we do have a motion and a second. Any final comments? Oh, Attorney Cunningham. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to back up the comments made by Mr. DeCorsi. And it's been the effort from the legal department to with the draft warrant language. And we understand that there can be divergent views about what the town should do. However, we wanted to put the town in a position where they can be on solid legal footing that they can do this if they so choose. I think that any in the public comment, there was some arguments about Massachusetts constitution. To me, the analysis doesn't change. This bylaw as written is constitutionally permissible. The question of whether the town wants to do is a different one. So I just want to say that's the position that legal department wanted to put this board and potentially town meeting in if they want to consider this. Thank you. And I do want to say that I feel exceptionally well-served by the legal department in this and other matters. And it's complicated. It deserved a lot of work and a lot of thought. And I think we got it. So thank you. Any further discussion? Mr. Dickens, so it's just my final comments. Go ahead and unmute, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I looked through our bylaws and they are remarkably quiet on protests. I don't just protest in the redevelopment bylaws. And it pretty much said that I guess this one little paragraph said that this shouldn't infringe, should not be interpreted in French on protest me that are within certain kind of vague bounds. But they were clear enough, you know?  I would like, I would personally like for us to not go from zero to a hundred, you know, maybe like do something smaller between, but you know, maybe Tom meeting will do that. But as for me, I remember when I first got elected and the whole banner issue was a big deal, you know?   And yeah, I could say I signed up for it. I wasn't expecting that, you know? But you know what? Once I realized that was a possibility, it's like, well, you know what? That goes along with it, you know? And yes, me, we're in a dense part of town and I wouldn't even be, well, we're in a dense part of town, you know? And it's a city, you know?  I mean, the next-door name is barking dogs. I mean, I prefer not to hear that, but that comes from being in a pretty dense area. And if it's talking about, like, invasion of privacy because I have something that I don't like, me invading my personal space, I mean, that is me, but it's not a protest. But personally, I'd have easier time to protest than I would with someone's dog that's barking, you know, all times a day, you know? But yeah, so I guess, I guess, oh, the last thing too, is that it's not enough, I mean, I know we say that people can protest here in town hall, you know?  At least I am, you know?  It probably wouldn't change my mind because that's the way we are made up, but it's a more effective ploy. And I think it's one thing when we are saying that we want to protect ourselves from things that make us afraid. And if people are threatening us in some way, we want to protect ourselves from that. I like to think we have those protections anyways, but really what I'm concerned about is sheltering ourselves or making it hard for people to get us to change our values, when they feel that that's something that should happen. And so for me, protesting in front of my house is not a matter of like saying that's not the kind of society I want. It's like I kind of want people to push me. I mean, at times when they think I should be pushed, I mean, they shouldn't do it in a threatening way. But as I said, I think we have lots that can protect us from that. And once again, you know, the score a little slowly on this, but I've said I'll have a say. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Any other discussion by the board? I appreciate the honest and hard work we've done tonight. We have a motion for favorable action by Mr. Herd and seconded by Mr. DeCorsi. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? No. We have a four to one vote. Thank you very much. Thank you, chief. That leaves us to article 53, appropriation takings for the Stratton School Safe Routes. I think we have Mr. Elessie coming in to present about that over Zoom. And we have slides as well. I got you. And is Mr. Elessie up yet? Go right ahead. My name is John Elessie. I am the senior transportation planner for the Department of Planning and Community Development. I'm here before you this evening to speak about the Stratton Safe Routes School Project and the proposed board article number 53 at town meeting this spring. Next slide. So tonight's requested action from the board is to vote favorable action on board article 53, the following draft motion language for town meeting that was shared by town council Mike Cunningham. I won't reread the entire text language, but the summary of this is just for town meeting to vote to authorize the select board to acquire the land and parcels and our rights and then parcels to obtain and secure a public right away for the Stratton Safe Routes School Project. Next slide. So to give some background on the project, the town received a mass dot Safe Routes School Infrastructure Grant in 2019 with the project's purpose to provide a fully accessible walking route with safe roadway crossings for children and others to walk to the Stratton School. So I'll note that this is a mass dot led project. The agency has provided over 1.6 million in construction and design funding for this. And I'll also note that the only town funding required is the right of way acquisition process. Next slide. To give background on the project scope for those who aren't familiar with it. So the area where this project will be implemented is mainly on Hemlock Street and Dixon Ave with some improvements on Mountain Ave and Wheeler Lane. The key project components include new and repaired sidewalks, newer upgraded curb ramps, new curb extensions and new rectangular rapid flashing beacons which will help fill the project purpose that I mentioned beforehand. And you can see in the images to the right and dark black the highlighted project area and below that an example of the sidewalk that would be implemented for a portion of the project on Dixon Ave. Next slide. So this word articles really revolves around the whole right of way acquisition process. And to give background, mass dots right of way bureau requires a town meeting vote to take or otherwise acquire by eminent domain, purchase donation or any other means, land and around this project. So word article 53 is requesting that town meeting authorized the select board to vote to approve this right of way process for two reasons. One, the right of way acquisition process needs to take place before the plan construction start date and summer 2025 and based on town meetings schedule only, well normally only meeting once a year this could cause delays in the project's construction start. And mass dots right of way bureau permits a town select board to take the vote from town meetings. So those are the two reasons for this word article. Next slide. So the project is currently at 75% design. It's working its way towards 100%. And I say that because as a project advances there are always changes to the actual layout of the project and therefore the actual right of way process and acquisition can change. But at this stage I want to give some background on what the acquisition process is gonna look like. You can see on the table I have right here there are gonna be 41 affected properties along the project area. And when I say effective properties I mean the number of properties where there will be fee takings and or permanent or temporary easements. And I just wanna note that an effective property might have more than one type of impact. So that's why if you try adding up the numbers to the right, they're not gonna add up to 41. The project has three fee takings meaning that it would be a complete transfer of ownership rights to another entity that being the town. One permanent easement. This means when ownership remains with the landowner but another entity may use the land permanently. And for this project I believe this is just a utility permanent easement so that crews are able to access overhead wires and there would be 42 temporary easements. Again, ownership remains with the landowner but another entity may use the land temporarily. And when I say this it's meant for construction crews that need to when constructing the project step onto someone's property the town would be paying that landowner for the use of stepping onto the property in order to construct public right of way project. So all in all there are 41 affected properties. The image below is from one of the reference materials provided outlining each of the properties and the associated landowners. Next slide. So the next steps for this project if the select board this evening votes favorable action on this warrant article I would present to town meeting and requests and then I would go to town meeting and request that they give the select board authorization to approve the right of way process when we get to that point. After in the meantime, MassDOT is still finalizing the construction right of way plans since we are at 75% design. It's the project can change from 75 to 100 but it's likely not too based on the just general scope of this project. So it probably will have the same amount of affected properties and types of easements I mentioned beforehand. Town would hire an appraiser to assess the values of the affected properties. And then I would come to the select board at that point to present on the project right of way acquisition plan and request a vote of approval which again is required by the MassDOT right of way bureau and then construction will start in summer of 2025. Next slide. So again, the requested action this evening is to vote favorable action and warrant article 53 with the following language that was drafted by town council by Cunningham and deputy town council. So with that I'd be happy to answer any questions about the project, the process or anything else. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I want to just kick off by a clear frame make sure I understand some particulars here. So this is a general vote to support a process but that when we come down to specific takings those would individually come, if town meeting approves this, those any specific decisions about specific properties easements permanent or otherwise would still come back to us for individual attention and decisions. Maybe attorney Cunningham could address that. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, that's correctly stated. This is simply an off, it's required that town meeting provide this authorizing vote that if you look at the master's department of transportation's right of way bureau requires at the check on the list that you've received that authorization from town meeting. And I just want to thank Mr. Lessie for all his work on this. And also Peter Buckley and the legal office has done a tremendous amount of work and so I appreciate his efforts too. Thank you. Yeah, and I'd like to thank Mr. Lessie for a really comprehensive presentation and also the materials that you've provided us. Thank you. So I'll turn to my colleagues for any questions before we turn to public comment. Discussion? Mr. That was a super question. But I thought... I need to, I need to. I'm sorry, I'm making a worry. I thought every lot in Arlington was subject to a sidewalk easement, whether or not there was a sidewalk there in the first place. Like right now, even if it wasn't a sidewalk, we still would have like a public shade tree if it was within the town envelope. Like it was my, because we have plenty of streets that don't have sidewalks in my neighborhood. It was always my thought that someone could walk on the first portion of a property so as they don't have to walk in the street. Turning to you. That may be true, Mr. Heard. Thank you Mr. Chair. But for purposes of this particular project, the state has set forth specific guidelines that we need to follow. So for purposes of this particular warrant article, the easements required, this compensation to which residents are entitled, we need to follow these procedures fairly closely to make sure we're moving forward with the project in the way that they want us to. And I guess, like I said, Mr. Heard, this is a specific requirement that the Bureau is asking us to take. They need that authorizing vote from town meeting. Okay. But on your larger question, I will endeavor to get you a more complete response. Mr. Corsi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had discussed earlier a roadway discussion I had and I may be able to shed a little bit of light on that. I mean, normal rights-of-ways for streets, a lot of them are 40 feet wide and what you see, the street itself is 24 feet and the two sidewalks are eight feet each but they could conceivably be some streets that were accepted that the roadway is the entire width of the right of way. So it probably depends on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Feeney. And I think to elucidate that point further, Mr. Chair, thank you. In some of those, the actual fee interest that's listed in the table provided by Mass DOT, you'll see instances where it's 16 square feet. So largely the sidewalk is being placed on public land but for the full length of the parcel, for whatever reason, it has to be kicked over, you know, just a couple of inches and that accumulates over the course of the property. So by and large, if there is no sidewalk, presently present, that a lot of times, the public right-of-way does extend into those grassed areas but it really depends on each and every street layout. Thank you, sir. You know, so I'll turn to the public. If any members of the public who wish to comment on this article, please raise your hand in Zoom or in the room. I'll never cease to be amused at those two things, Ryan. One attendee. Okay, Ms. Marr. Seeing no hands raised, thank you. Very good. Let's conclude the public comment portion of this hearing. Any further discussion or motions from the board? Any favorable action? Second. Any further discussion? We have a motion for favorable action by Mr. Hurd and seconded by Mr. Diggins. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Union members vote. Concludes our warrant article hearings for the evening. Thank you, everybody, for your patience and participation. And we move to final votes and comments. We will take these individually. So start with article 15, by law amendment prohibition of fair trade restrictions on fur products and for the public certification, what we're doing here is seen in the Select Board's Agendas page. These are final vote language and board comments that the legal department has prepared following the Select Board hearings on these articles that were done in an earlier date. So we are just giving our final sign off for drafting into the Select Board report. So starting with article 15, any comments, corrections, questions for the board? Mrs. Mahan, move approval. Do we have a second? Second. Oka