Rather then try and constantly educate all voters with hopes they show up - the smaller number of “meeting members” will ensure they are (for a variety of reasons).

If we believe all these forecasts including the one from the school construction committee of 2000 and those since the community we live in will be bursting at the seams in 10 years with upward to 16 thousand residents. So why delay it any further? Better to migrate now and work on the wrinkles.

At one time, lke you, I thought if we could inform the voters which is how the Fianance Committee Voter Information Bulletin vehicle was created during my watch - we would get these turnouts. While I’d like to believe that at least, if they read it, they have some idea of the article, the turnouts are still low, sparadic and inconsistent. Even the VIB lately seems to be less informative than those in the past.

A “Town Meeting” form of government, such as we have, whether we like to believe it or not has run it’s course. When they were racing horses on main street - it was viable according to the historians. Today, we have to bring better coordination, accountability and oversight as we are just too fragmented in too many areas and a “town meeting” form of government does little to achieve this goal.

The two-question limit is isn’t in the law - it’s the moderator’s method to keep the meeting from getting out of hand. One can make a motion to change the rules for a particular article (possibly the whole meeting), or petition a bylaw to set different rules in writing.

The limit isn’t really to two questions, it’s to two instances of asking questions. Each instance can include multiple questions, followed by the article promoter’s (hopefully!) answers to those questions. I’m not saying it’s the best method but it works reasonably well.

One idea I’ve had is to hold an informal meeting prior to Town Meeting, either 1-2 hours prior or some night beforehand. If beforehand it could be shown on cable. This would be a less formal forum for discussion on the articles at hand or a specific issue. I do want to see a greater number of informed voters at town meeting - maybe this would help.

We did this (don’t remember if it was videotaped) at several public info sessions prior to the successful school construction vote in late 2000. The turnout wasn’t incredible but helped deal with extended Q&A prior to Town Meeting.

As a former Chairman of the Finance Committee, I realize too often just how much the general voters do not know, nor can the conventional town meeting provide that insight for a number of reasons. Bias toward the article as well as complexity are two underlying rationales.

Most people making the motion are too biased in ensuring it’s passage (regardless of whether it is a well researched article or not) rather than simply provide substantive & full disclosure of information so those in the audience can make an informed decision.

For example; did the fuel tank really need to be dug up because it was leaking? The work was certainly done so the bill needed to be paid! Did anyone even think to ask about the potential $35k grant to offset the fuel tank article and how that would adjust the cost of what was just voted on? Did the BOS have legal authority to enter into a 7 year lease agreement (3 year is the statute) even though only 1 year was approved for a capital item at a previous ATM? The list goes on and on.

Essentially, most attendees are at a severe disadvantage - that is not what Town Meeting (as described as a “sucessfull town meeting”) is suppose to be about!

I have had the pleasure of presenting to town meeting’s that have been in excess of over 700 (even that is low) and have seen many more meetings that are more common and under 100. Since approval of many warrant articles are based on having indepth knowledge of it’s details - the general town meeting is no longer a vehicle that is capable of providing that insight. Frankly, while everyone talks about how favorable town meeting is, we don’t have a facility that could hold 10% of the voters if they showed up (which has never happened in the last 25 years) and frankly officials breath a sigh of relief that it does not happen.

The BOS need to rise to reason and not politics on this matter and form a charter commission (not a government study committee) as the time has come to change the mechanics as there are many more problems then ineffective Town Meetings within the existing form of government. The most interesting note on this, should the BOS have the courage of their convictions, is that the main opposition will be from those already entrenched in town borads, committees and existing officials.

I’d ask another question, but I have already used up my 2 chances.