Selectboard Meeting- (1-19-09 video now available)

I just saw the agenda for the meeting.

7. NEW BUSINESS
A. Approval of Town Warrant dated January 9, 2009
B. Appointment of Warden and Deputy Warden for Election of January 15, 2009
C. Approval of Resolution for CDBG 2009 Housing Grant
D. Snow Removal Process and Priorities
E. Apartment Building Inspections
F. Request for Permitting Software from Code Enforcement Officer
G. Emergency Medical Services for Rumford Citizens (RFD and Med-Care)
H. Approval of Application for Liquor License from King Wok
I. Approval of No Parking Sign on Knox Street
J. Appointment of Maine Service Centers Coalition Representative and Alternate

Geez, I hope they figure out how to get a camera there...funny how it's never there when anything potentially controversial is on the agenda. If you want to know first hand, I recommend getting down there yourself on this one.

Timeout, It would be a great service if you would volunteer to videotape the meetings.

I have been able to attend one meeting in the past three months. I really cannot commit to it. HOWEVER, if a group of people were to coordinate to make sure the meetings were covered, I might be able to help out once in a while.

Timeout wrote:Geez, I hope they figure out how to get a camera there...funny how it's never there when anything potentially controversial is on the agenda.

If "they" means WVAC 7, whether or not a meeting is taped depends solely on the availability of a volunteer. I don't know if the second half of the statement is an accusation or merely a comment on coincidences, but either way I don't think it's true. I've seen plenty of controversial meetings on channel 7. I'm sure things have been missed, too, but like I said, it all depends on the availabiity of volunteers.

Can't any of you guys go with a handy cam or something?? I think the more people that show up in support the better....

I did attend the meeting tonight. After waiting nearly 2-1/2 hours to express my support for the First Responder Program, the item was tabled as I was half-way up to the microphone. What a disappointment.

From meetings I have been involved in around Alaska its normally in the bylaws that you can only table an item in the start of the meeting not right before its set time to be discussed. That way you don't waste peoples time who may only be in attendance for that specific item. Does this make sense to anyone else?

That makes alot of sense. Uh,ok

Timeout you should get there earlier.

The Form of this motion is, "I move to lay
the question on the table," or, "That the question be laid on the
table," or, "That the question lie on the table." It cannot be
qualified in any way; if it is qualified, thus, "To lay the question on the
table until 2 P.M.," the chair should state it properly as a motion to
postpone until 2 P.M., which is a debatable question, and not the motion to lay
on the table.
The Object¹ of
this motion is to enable the assembly, in order to attend to more urgent
business, to lay aside the pending question in such a way that its consideration
may be resumed at the will of the assembly as easily as if it were a new
question, and in preference to new questions competing with it for
consideration. It is to the interest of the assembly that this object should be
attained instantly by a majority vote, and therefore this motion must either
apply to, or take precedence of, every debatable motion whatever its rank. It is
undebatable, and requires only a majority vote, notwithstanding the fact that if
not taken from the table the question is suppressed. These are dangerous
privileges which are given to no other motion whose adoption would result in
final action on a main motion. There is a great temptation to make an improper
use of them, and lay questions on the table for the purpose of instantly
suppressing them by a majority vote, instead of using the previous question, the
legitimate motion to bring the assembly to an immediate vote. The fundamental
principles of parliamentary law require a two-thirds vote for every motion that
suppresses a main question for the session without free debate. The motion to
lay on the table being undebatable, and requiring only a majority vote, and
having the highest rank of all subsidiary motions, is in direct conflict with
these principles, if used to suppress a question. If habitually used in this
way, it should, like the other motions to suppress without debate, require a
two-thirds vote.
The minority has no remedy for the unfair use of this
motion, but the evil can be slightly diminished as follows: The person who
introduces a resolution is sometimes cut off from speaking by the motion to lay
the question on the table being made as soon as the chair states the question,
or even before. In such cases the introducer of the resolution should always
claim the floor, to which he is entitled, and make his speech. Persons are
commonly in such a hurry to make this motion that they neglect to address the
chair and thus obtain the floor. In such case one of the minority should address
the chair quickly, and if not given the floor, make the point of order that he
is the first one to address the chair, and that the other member, not having the
floor, was not entitled to make a motion [3].
As motions laid on the table are merely temporarily laid
aside, the majority should remember that the minority may all stay to the moment
of final adjournment and then be in the majority, and take up and pass the
resolutions laid on the table. They may also take the question from the table at
the next meeting in societies having regular meetings as frequently as
quarterly. The safer and fairer method is to object to the consideration of the
question if it is so objectionable that it is not desired to allow even its
introducer to speak on it; or, if there has been debate so it cannot be objected
to, then to move the previous question, which, if adopted, immediately brings
the assembly to a vote. These are legitimate motions for getting at the sense of
the members at once as to whether they wish the subject discussed, and, as they
require a two-thirds vote, no one has a right to object to their being adopted.

C: Roberts also states that a motion to lay on the table is NOT debatable and must be voted upon immediately. This motion is a tough one for those in opposition to deal with unless they have a majority of the votes present.

It is a fairly common misconception that, after debate has continued
for some time, if any member shouts out "Question!" or "I call the
question!", debate must immediately cease and the chair must put the
pending question to a vote. This is simply not the case. Any member who
wishes to force an end to debate must first obtain the floor by being
duly recognized to speak by the chair

Which selectman made the motion to table this agenda item? Which one seconded the motion?

Instead of trying to deal with the selectmen can't this issue just be put on a ballot for the voters to decide? I think that is the way it should be.

maybe thats they way it should happen, have both towns merge and have to vote for a new select board?

I believe that, before you marry, you should live together and share as many experiences as possible. Back in some long-lost thread someone mentioned that small steps could be taken initially. I don't think going whole hog would work, but how about just a few easy no brainers to start out with. (oh, i also realize that this should probably be under " regionalization").

Be sure to watch the meeting when it views on WVAC local access channel 7 at 8pm this evening.

Can someone Youtube it for me???

I'm working on getting the video transferred to a format I can upload. For those of you who did see it, do you think that Chairman Boivin should be allowed to speak to citizens who get up to speak in that manner? I think it was rude, intimidating and totally uncalled for.