Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Meeting Administration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
TMRi Taskforce debates ballot thresholds, public questions and meeting mechanics ahead of April session
Summary
At its March 9 meeting, the TMRi Taskforce discussed clarifying the group’s purpose, whether to use ballot thresholds for public questions, and practical changes—from hybrid-meeting training to moving meeting times—to boost participation ahead of an April planning meeting.
The TMRi Taskforce met March 9 and spent its session debating how to define the group’s role, whether some items should go to a public ballot, and what procedural changes would increase citizen participation.
Susan Clarke, a guest at the meeting, urged the Taskforce to "think of citizens and selectboard as parallel to legislative and executive branch of state and national government" and to "define the intention of the TMRi meetings," saying clarity would help the group and the public understand when an item should be advanced to a ballot. SJ Dube called a recent warning about the process "an inelegant over-correction to deal with potential backlash," reflecting concern that overcorrection could alienate residents.
Members discussed thresholds and measures of support to decide when an item should go before voters. "The threshold before going on the ballot idea was our understanding at the end of last cycle," Sam Graulty said, while Gaye Symington argued that the "strength of support should weigh in," a view Peter Booth said had also been discussed with the selectboard. SJ summarized the split in public sentiment, reporting that about "20% want to go back; 20 to 40% want to just have a ballot."
The meeting also focused on how to increase engagement. Clarke recommended adding small-group discussions during the year and suggested a town report-out before the budget-review meeting to build momentum and public understanding. "The more receptive we are to modifications, the more the townspeople will be," Clarke said. Members noted time constraints for public questions—one participant said a 9 p.m. end time limits opportunities for discussion—and debated starting earlier or removing a posted ending time.
Practical improvements drew consensus for further work: increase the size of remote participants on-screen, produce a hybrid-meeting training video, clarify budget-amendment procedures so the public can understand when an amendment is permitted, and consider moving the kickoff or main meeting day to improve accessibility. Suggestions for on-site facilitation included using paddles or cards to gauge support during kickoff events.
Gaye Symington closed with an operational summary noting that while the kickoff "doesn't work" in its current form, it should still be scheduled in tandem with other steps; she urged the group to "reassess the timing" and to "figure out what the process is for charter change." SJ Dube said the group should record its work for posterity: "we are making town history; we need to record it." Peter Booth said he would provide input to the selectboard in his role as liaison.
The Taskforce set April’s meeting to focus on the process going forward, review survey results, and discuss what should appear in the group’s report. No formal motions or votes were recorded in the transcript. The group did not set a final decision on thresholds or meeting schedule; members assigned follow-up tasks including drafting outreach materials and clarifying charter-change procedures.
