Here are the comments and suggestions that I've received about Town Meeting and increasing citizen participation. People contacted me by E-Mail, phone call, and in person. (Some suggestions are based on ideas in books listed on the "Books and articles" page or on ideas in the articles linked to on the "Links to other civic engagement efforts" page. And, of course, some are my own suggestions.) I've edited some of the comments to remove information identifying the commenter. In some cases, I also edited for clarity.
Some of the comments may contain a bit of venting. I didn't edit that out even though it may be a little uncomfortable for town officials to read. We have to read comments like that, understand citizens' frustrations, and determine what changes we can make to alleviate those frustrations.
You'll notice that a number of issues raised here can't be addressed by the Town Moderator alone. They would have to be addressed in collaboration with the Board of Selectmen, the Advisory Committee, the Town Administrator, and various other Boards and Committees. That is not an excuse for not acting. It is a clear call for needed collaboration.
You'll also notice that while some of the issues can be addressed within the Town Meeting itself, other issues can't be. Again, that is not an excuse for not acting. It is a call to be somewhat inventive and create other venues in which those issues can be addressed.
I look forward to working with the Board of Selectmen, the Advisory Committee, the Town Administrator, and anyone else who is willing to work to enhance citizen participation through these or other means.
Norfolk residents have shown that they are willing to offer their opinions and assistance if we ask for their opinions, invite their help, and let them know that we are not merely giving them an opportunity to speak; we are welcoming them as participants in the process of managing Norfolk. Norfolk residents have knowledge, experience, and wisdom that they are willing to contribute. It would be a terrible shame to freeze them out of the process of town government.
/David Rosenberg
Town Meeting has historically been for those who either have an agenda, an axe to grind or have nothing to do the following morning besides sleep in.
I have asked a number of past folks running for Selectmen why the Town Meeting agenda is always formatted as it is and have received horrible, if any, responses.
Everyone knows that the important votes are somehow moved to the end of the meeting when most folks have given up and gone home. Most people don't care about transferring small funds from one account to another or what the funds in the Cemetery account are being used for. Those items should be left for the end of the meeting.
No items should be 'tabled' for any time other than a later meeting when everyone has a chance to attend. And don't tell me that some discussions aren't intentionally dragged out in hopes that people will get tired and leave before a vote.
The articles should be drawn like a lottery, that way the special interest groups wouldn't know when their article would be up for a vote. They wouldn't be able to stack the meeting to get what they want passed. I've heard from a few people that that is why they don't go, they don't feel like their vote matters when they're up against those odds.
Time is the drag. The concern about special interest groups stacking the meeting to get what they want passed is the clincher. I have attended meetings where there were more developer's supporters in attendance than townspeople. [If the developer's supporters aren't townspeople, they can't vote. /David]
I always read the warrant and see if there is a reason I need to go. My time is scarce commuting from the city. Most times it is to object to some developer/interest group or otherwise. And yes, they stack the meeting with their supporters. In fact, my general feeling is that the motion will pass in their favor anyway. It would be great if the articles were debated online with each resident getting to vote without having to attend. I understand that this is not lawful currently.
If the meetings need to be over 2 nights, then so be it. You can't expect folks to hang around until midnight.
I volunteered for [a committee]. What I found was a 'Good Old Boys Club'; the same people that always volunteer and intimidate everyone else. I stayed for 1 meeting.
I am president of [another group]. ... I hate being chastised by the membership rather than being helped along. Too many folks let politics get in the way of common sense decision-making and it's killing us as a society.
I've been in Norfolk for 3+ years and have not yet attended a Town Meeting. My only suggestion would be to market / communicate the Town Meetings as heavily as possible. Town web page, Facebook, Twitter, local newspapers, and mailers. Probably not the first time you heard it but just a thought.
On the town web site (VirtualNorfolk.org) it took me a few clicks to find information about the Town Meeting. [I think that the implicit suggestion is that the landing page should have a prominent link to a "Town Meeting page" where all Town Meeting information is collected. /David]
Comment (in mid-March) that "It would be helpful to see a detailed agenda as well." [I'll translate that to "It would be good to share as much information as possible as early as possible and to continually revise it as changes are made and new information becomes available." /David]
People don't understand what is going on at Town Meeting.
Even after they watch Advisory Committee meetings, they don't understand the purpose or the consequences of an article.
They don't know what they are allowed to do.
They don't know what the rules are or the reasons for the rules.
The multiple microphones are confusing.
Have runners bring a portable mic to people, rather than make people walk to a mic.
Provide more information about how Town Meetings work and about the articles on the warrant. Perhaps do this at an informal meeting prior to the Town Meeting.
Give people more time to study the warrant prior to the Town Meeting. [Perhaps by increasing the time between when the warrant must be published and the start of the Town Meeting. /David]
Comments (from several different commenters) regarding a web-based forum for discussing warrant articles for several weeks (actually, for as long as possible) prior to the start of the Town Meeting. This would be similar to the structured web-based discussion forum that the Town Meeting Technology Committee operated for about two years. The warrant articles were posted along with the Advisory Committee's recommendations. Townspeople could ask questions about the articles (such as the motivation, other alternatives that had been considered, historical precedent, practices in other jurisdictions, interaction with state or federal law, consequences of passage, consequences of defeat, etc.). Townspeople could propose amendments to articles and could present arguments in favor of or in opposition to any article. The intention was to have the submitting board, committee, or department (and other knowledgeable authorities) reading the discussion, answering questions and addressing the issue as appropriate. The whole discussion had a hierarchical outline (rather than chronological) structure so that all comments about a single article appeared together and within the comments about one article, the comments about a particular aspect of the article were grouped together:
Having opportunities to become more informed via an online source is very helpful. I would use a web-based forum.
The only on-line forum that would gain traction is a Facebook space. [Note from David: I don't think that Facebook supports the desired hierarchical outline structure.]
Use a reverse 9-1-1 robocall to tell people when the Warrant is available, the URL for an online copy, and where they can pick up a paper copy.
Have the "Moderator's Town Meeting Instructions" printed as part of the warrant document.
Have a tear-out amendment form printed as part of the warrant document so that people can work on amendments before they get to the Town Meeting and they don't have to walk up to the front of the room to pick up an amendment form.
Don't strictly enforce time limits - let people express their views without cutting them off.
Five or six months before the Town Meeting, hold an informal meeting at which you describe articles that you think are likely to be on the warrant for the Town Meeting, invite the public to discuss what other articles they might like to see added, describe the petition process, and help anyone who is interested to draft a petition article.
On a web site, show a list of the articles being considered for submission to the warrant. For each one, show the latest draft of the text, discussion about its preparation, and its current status. There are several purposes for this: To keep the voters informed about what is happening, to give voters an opportunity to suggest improvements before the warrant is finalized (since amendments to make improvements after that time may be beyond the scope of the article as printed in the warrant), in cases where voters didn't pursue a petition article because they thought a board, committee, or official would submit an article, if the board, committee, or official doesn't submit the article, give the voters enough time to submit a petition article.
Have an informal meeting to discuss how Town Meeting works and how voters can participate. This could be like a "Town Meeting Seminar". Record it for NCTV and YouTube.
Every once in a while (perhaps once a year or so), have an informal event at which every board, committee, and town department explains what its responsibilities are and how it works to fulfill those responsibilities. Have an opportunity for Q&A after each of these explanations. Record the event for NCTV and YouTube.
Have an informal meeting about how to draft amendments and the legal considerations to be borne in mind when drafting amendments. Record it for NCTV and YouTube.
Perhaps a week or so before Town Meeting, have an informal meeting to "preview" the Town Meeting, allowing more questions about the thinking behind, and motivation for, some of the articles. If anyone is aware that a motion will be made that differs from the printed article, open that for discussion. If anyone is aware of amendments that will be offered, open that for discussion.
Use something like the San Jose, CA Budget Games (described in the top four links on the "Links to other civic engagement efforts" page) to let many Norfolk residents participate in setting budget priorities. We would hope that the Board of Selectmen and the Advisory Committee would be strongly influenced by the input from the citizens that they serve - and where they feel that they are not able to follow the direction set by the citizens, they would have a good explanation of why. In instances where the budget article deviates from the citizens' recommendations, make it easy for citizens to offer amendments to change it to follow the citizens' recommendations. (In particular, make sure that the scope of the article printed in the warrant is broad enough to permit amendments to follow the citizens' recommendations.)
Town Meetings are organized for voting and very limited discussion (only one person at a time addressing only the Moderator). They are not organized as deliberative, problem-solving sessions. The operation of Town Meetings is constrained by the Massachusetts General Laws, Norfolk's own bylaws, and decisions by the Town Moderator. Many citizens would like to participate in less constrained discussions about Norfolk's problems and brainstorming and problem-solving sessions about how to address them - including the trade-offs that need to be made in the face of limited resources. Some movement in that direction could be made by revising Norfolk's bylaws and the Town Moderator conducting the meeting in a way more conducive to group deliberation. A better approach might be to make only slight changes to formal Town Meetings and add informal "meetings of the town" to do the deliberative, problem-solving work that needs to be done and in which many Norfolk residents want to participate. People want to be empowered - to know that what they do counts - not just present their opinions and have some board or committee make the decisions. The informal "meetings of the town" and the formal Town Meetings would have to work together. All Norfolk voters and officials would be invited to both the informal "meetings of the town" and the formal Town Meetings. The informal meetings would discuss problems, brainstorm, flesh out ideas, make trade-offs, and write warrant articles. After the warrant was published, Norfolk voters would be invited to vote on them at the formal Town Meeting.
Votes at Town Meeting make the final decisions for Norfolk. Votes can only be taken on articles in the warrant. Motions and amendments must be within the scope of an article appearing in the warrant. So discussions at a Town Meeting can't result in new ideas or proposals to be voted on at that Town meeting. Therefore, the discussions leading to new ideas or proposals must take place prior to the Town meeting - so that the proposals can be included in articles on the warrant for the Town Meeting. There should be a consensus process involving a wide range of residents to discuss and decide on articles submitted for the warrant. (In case there were two competing views and there wasn't a consensus on either of them, they could become two separate articles on the warrant.) The votes at Town Meeting would be the formal ratification of the consensuses reached at the earlier meetings. There are various software tools that could be used to facilitate a structured discussion and reaching a consensus.
This comment addresses participation at Town meetings and participation in other parts of Norfolk town government. Participating in a democratic process, like most worthwhile things in life, requires time and effort. It is perfectly legal (although unfortunate) for someone to say that he doesn't have sufficient time, interest, or desire to be an active participant in Norfolk's decision-making process. However, no one can say both that he wants to help think up and examine alternatives, weigh their advantages and disadvantages, make tradeoffs between proposals competing for resources (i.e., have a voice in managing Norfolk) and at the same time say that he wants it to be fast and simple. Fulfilling your civic responsibilities is work. It requires thought, discussion, research, and collaboration - and that takes time.
The Massachusetts conflict of interest laws and open meeting laws have the good intention of avoiding corruption (or the appearance of corruption) and of allowing the public to see the public's business being transacted. Of course we have to comply with all state laws. There are various provisions written into the laws to make it easier for members of boards or committees who are unpaid, part-time, volunteers (many of whom have "day jobs") to do their volunteer (board or committee) work in a way that minimizes the negative impact on their jobs, marriages, and other obligations. Some of these provisions (easing the burden on volunteers) require a selection, designation, or opt-in by the Board of Selectmen. We are already asking a lot of unpaid elected or appointed board and committee members. To the extent that the state has written provisions that would slightly ease that burden, Norfolk should use them. Two examples are:
Permitting remote participation in meetings (per 940 CMR 29.10 at http://www.mass.gov/ago/government-resources/open-meeting-law/940-cmr-2900.html#Remote
Designating unpaid, part-time positions that are considered "municipal employee" positions under the conflict of interest law as "special municipal employee" positions (per M.G.L. Chapter 268A, Section 1, paragraph (n) https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter268A/Section1). I know that Norfolk has been doing this, because I've seen a 1998 memo listing 54 unpaid and paid part-time positions as "special municipal employee" positions. I don't know about the status of unpaid, part-time positions created since 1998.