Commentary by Frank Schroth

We are fans of the concept of the post mortem. That is a convening of vested parties of an initiative, project, offering to review the relative success or failure of it with an eye toward how it could have been better. If recent conversations with town meeting members are any indication, there is a bit about last week’s town meeting that could have been done better.

A random sampling of comments from conversations with town meeting members included:

• “I don’t think I am going to run again for town meeting. I’ve had enough.”
• “I feel like I am wasting my time. That first night of town meeting was very discouraging.”
• “I rushed back to Milton, leaving work early, for that?”

There were ~65 town meeting members absent the first day and ~89 from the second. (The number may have grown as a result of members going into a coma over the missing comma.) 51 members did not attend either session.

This reaction may stem from a warrant, some articles of which, were confusing, poorly written, and lacking recommendations.

TMM Ellen DeNooyer commenting on an article relating to signs in a business district said, “It’s not clear to me – the grammar of this sentence.” This was the tip of the iceberg so to speak. Regarding the article, Alex Whiteside acknowledged that given the use of the word ” . . .’may’ . . the sentence doesn’t have a great deal of substance.” He would later add, “This sentence could be better and we may fix it in the future. . . the intention is not entirely clear.” As it happened the future came sooner than later. Whiteside huddled with the Selectmen and warrant committee Chair and revised the article. It passed but took over half an hour for what some thought should have been a straightforward exercise in passing an article that tightened up restrictions on lit signs in a business district.

The second sign article (signs in a residential neighborhood) also received push back. TMM Chinman said it was a “constitutional shambles.” Other TMMs also questioned it and it was referred back to the Planning Board.

Another example of ill preparation was the article on easements which came with several revisions of a final recommendation. Again there was lengthy discussion around an article that on the surface seemed very straightforward – namely, giving the BoS authority to accept a voluntary easement and save the time of waiting for it to be granted at Town Meeting.

Democracy can be a messy business and town meeting is democracy at a fundamental level so of course it will get a little goofy. That is not bad, it is necessary. Last week’s meeting is an example of why it is important. At the end of the day (which felt like it took forever) better results were achieved. But in this particular case did it have to be so painful and could the time and energy of town meeting members been better used. We think so.

It might be a good idea for the BoS, Moderator, and Town Clerk to have a hold a post mortem to discuss how they can improve the management of town meeting. In the meantime, here are three suggestions:

• Honor deadlines. Both the Selectmen and the Planning Board play a bit too fast and loose with the deadlines for article submission. The warrant is opened and closed more than once. Placeholders are put forward and the Warrant Committee has the task of trying to develop responsible recommendations without the proper amount of time
• Write clearly and read the draft of the articles. All board members need to buy into reading the articles mindful of issues that may arise.
• Perform an editorial review. Consider a group of ~3 to vet warrant – this of curse assumes that deadlines are honored. It is understood that certain circumstance are out of the control of the members; but there must be room for some improvement.
• Present articles clearly. Lastly, prepare and deliver clear, concise presentations on key articles that explain the history, context and rationale. Little mention was made of the Sleepy’s  (Kennedy Carpet) signage in East Milton that was the spur to the lit sign article. Did the revised language passed solve the problems residents had with that signage such that it won’t happen again? The easement article was also confusing. What was prompting that? A clear presentation could head off those questions. The value of a good presentation was evident from Mr. Corcoran’s on the condominium complex (not the outcome we wanted but that’s OK) and Mr. Morash’s update on status of Fire Space Needs committee

Town Meeting came to a good result; but to continue to thrive and attract members that will be committed and engaged we should look to keep the experience efficient and on point. It is 17th century model that needs to adapt to 21st century lifestyles. The process and procedure is driven by the warrant but I suspect taking advantage of the opportunity of town meeting to give an update of Hendires and the town farm would have been welcomed. I doubt the average resident watching the discussion on the sign article would feel compelled to jump up and say, “I got to be part of that!”