[Town Meeting] May 5 Version Substitute Motion under Article 36, Canine Control

[Susan Doctrow]

Dear Colleagues:

For your convenience, I attach a file with the May 5 version of my  
Substitute Motion under Article 36 (Canine Control).  This was  
already passed out at TM last Wed, May 5 (light blue paper copies on  
the chairs).  It is to be put before TM when we resume discussion of  
Article 36, now scheduled for May 12.

The previous version (April 28) was introduced at TM last Mon, May 3,  
and is the Motion now under discussion.  (An interim version dated  
May 3 was never put before TM and the Moderator advises me that it  
can be discarded.)

Please note that this May 5 version is the same as the others in  
substance*, but differs in format.  As I mentioned when I introduced  
the April 28 Motion, the reason for these corrections is a difference  
of opinion with regard to the most appropriate format.

For those who were not present to hear that explanation:   I had  
distributed the April 28 version at TM (on April 28), following its  
review by the Moderator and Town Counsel, who sent me an email  
indicating it was acceptable.
That following weekend (May 1), Mr. Worden contacted me to advise me  
that he believed the format ought to be different. With his advice,  
we reworded it in order to pass it out on the first possible day,  
Monday May 3.  However, because there were many postponements of  
prior Articles, debate on Article 36 unexpectedly came up that  
evening.  Since the May 3 Motion had not been provided to TM by the  
required 48 hr in advance, it could not be introduced.  So, instead,  
I introduced the April 28 version.
After some debate by other TM members, Mr. Fuller, agreeing with Mr.  
Worden that the May 3 version was preferable, successfully proposed  
postponement of further consideration of Article 36 until May 12.

In the meantime, Town Counsel suggested that we more precisely denote  
where in each bylaw the wording should be introduced.  Again with Mr.  
Worden's advice, this May 5 version was produced.

I apologize for any confusion and hope you understand that some of  
this was beyond my control.   And, I appreciate the feedback of my  
colleagues for making it clearer, and also recognize and respect that  
there can be a difference of opinion with regard to these various  
wordings.

Since the May 5 Motion does not change the intent of our proposed  
Vote, I believe that the points raised during the TM debate on May 3,  
as well as in a written report my colleagues and I submitted to TM on  
April 28, still apply.

sincerely,

Susan Doctrow
Precinct 21

*Please, however, note a word change from April 28 of "directly  
abutting" to "contiguous".  We believe this states the intent more  
clearly.


p.s. Please note, too, that the essential wording of the April 28  
Substitute Motion was also presented as a "proposed vote" to the  
Selectmen at their March 22 Article 36 hearing (in writing as well as  
verbally), and was supported by the Parks and Recreation Commission  
at their April 13 meeting.  Our intent has not changed throughout the  
process.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Art36SM0505.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 485083 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : <http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/townmeeting/attachments/20100510/db600e8d/attachment.pdf>