> and two because most Boston librarians are, arguably, smart enough to already have been vaccinated.

Smallpox is the one that's been eradicated, right?

I've emailed the board citing the ruling and asking if the legality of time limits changes the board's feelings on the matter.

I'd like to at least start with the benefit of the doubt that this was a misunderstanding, and some panic.

Thanks for the ruling, and pointing out the time limits portion. That's.... pretty obvious.

> Maybe they shouldn't be chairperson if they are unable to look up laws and ruling and simply reading them.

The thing that really concerns me is he referenced meeting with quite a few other people in the town, some in high level positions, before this meeting.

So... are they all under this impression? He certainly conveyed it as though they were.

However, he also said "all the boards" in town were dropping Citizen's time, and two more of their meetings were just published tonight and... that does not seem to be true.

I am generally concerned with where he got this information, and that he was ready right then and there to revoke an important free speech provision over it.

I rewatched the meeting to be sure what was said, and the chairperson definitely seems under the impression that time limits have become illegal during open forums.

It doesn't seem like that's the case.

I think I'll email and ask him if having time limits changes his feelings about the situation. I certainly feel like that's a perfectly reasonable solution to having a fair, moderated public forum.

It sounds like our system has been individual bylaws; so it's Board of Health bylaws that Citizen's Time go under, not city-wide bylaws. And so, Board of Health can just vote to repeal those for themselves. (They have not done that yet; one member tried to hold a vote, and the compromise agreed upon was that Citizen's Time would be pulled for next month's meeting, and a vote will be held then.)

I'll be bringing this up with my town reps, as I'd feel a lot more comfortable if it took a city-wide debate to remove public forum options. Or even state wide; I might also contact my state reps.

My Board of Health is one of the boards considering the removal of Citizen Time. It sounded from their meeting like they'd reviewed this with legal already; however, now that I go and look at MA regulations for boards of health, I see there are a lot of references to public comments, and it certainly sounds like they're required for several specific things. It seems like it'd get very complicated trying to not provide this at each meeting, and still provide it where required.

I guess I'm not sure though; does "public comment" legally mean "time to speak in public"? Would letters etc count, or is this requiring an opportunity at an open forum?

I think I'll start with outlining my concerns and sending them to my Board of Health members. I'd like to give them the opportunity to respond. (I really do think they are generally pretty reasonable folks who are just panicking right now.) I agree though that at a state level, it would be really great to have this codified into law.... I had assumed it was!

The Board of Health also talked about how other boards would be yanking their Citizen's Time in response, but they didn't say which boards, and the BOH and Ways and Means are the only ones that've had meetings since the ruling (W&M didn't bring it up). My point being; it sounds like this could be a big problem across town, but I don't know for sure if it is yet.

I think the more important thing is that it's in public.

If someone shows up and states their grievance and I think they're kinda cuckoo, eh.... I probably support the board in ignoring them.

If someone shows up and has some great points and the board ignores them.... I want to keep that in mind next election.

It really sucks if free speech gets de facto limited to private channels; we lose all the other benefits of it being in public.

The thing is, I genuinely have been impressed with my local boards. We have a lot of competent, hard working, level headed people on them. I think they usually make a lot of solid decisions, and when I disagree, I still very much see where they're coming from.

Like, my local politics isn't crazytown bananapants, like some can get. (Ok, the school board has been a little, in the past. But definitely not like, board of health, which is one of the ones pulling Citizen's Time.)

I don't think this is a power play, I think they're just panicking at the idea of someone showing up, really crossing some serious lines, and not feeling like they have the right to stop or limit it.

But.... that doesn't make my losing Citizen's Time access in a bunch of places any more palatable. Well-intentioned or not, it's an important access point.

Yeah, I'm pretty unhappy with it.

The thing is, it'd either take a lawsuit, or laws would have to be added in MA to protect public speaking time.

Honestly kind of appalling to me to learn this isn't a codified right. I'd assumed this was legally required, not down to the discretion of the chairperson.

I think that's likely a harder case to sue, especially as other methods of commenting exist (email, snail mail). It'd be a different story if periods for public comment were codified into law.

Although I could still write in and point out that this action might not be the shield they think it is. I definitely don't think it'd be an unreasonable lawsuit.

I'd be fine with that. It sounds like the boards are afraid that'll be the next lawsuit though, because this court case didn't clarify whether time limits etc could be imposed.

According to the NYT article, opportunities for public comment (Citizen's Time) are not actually required by law in MA right now.

That sounds more like what I'd expect for Shirley.

I didn't realize.... I saw a disaster of a house (had a urinal, not all the drywall had been finished, etc) listed in Shirley for $600k a year or so ago. Mind, I don't know if it sold for that, or if the seller was overly optimistic, but I remember it because fucking Shirley? And $600k wouldn't even get you completed drywall everywhere?

Friendly reminder?

This is Boston, is it not acceptable here to give someone the finger because their car is full of snow? That's rhetorical, of course it is. You can also lay on the horn when you get a blast of confetti because of their lazy ass.

You can also buy seat belt clips to have something unattached to the belt that plugs in, or you can clip in the seat belt loosely and just sit in front of it.

I don't understand how these things are less effort than just wearing the seat belt, but they're both things I've seen people do.

>I swear there are more gay bars in the center of nowhere than in Boston.

Yeah, this has been my experience.

I think part of it is that in Boston, you're generally safe walking down the street holding hands with your girlfriend. There's less closeting in general, and I think that builds less of a need to have "that one space" where you can be yourself, because it's nbd to be yourself in front of your neighbors/coworkers/etc.

The downside, obviously, is how the hell do you find that girlfriend to hold hands with if there's no gathering space where all the queer women are meeting? (Online dating. Ugh. I'm sorry.)

I also think Boston's lack of a night scene in general is a big factor. (Although I've lived in smaller areas with things like lesbian coffee shops, lack of nightlife hardly explains lack of a queer coffee shop... maybe that was just special though?)

It's not a non-existant scene. There are queer bars and clubs, and they usually offer ladies' nights, and I've been. It's just.... well like you said, I've lived in way smaller shittier areas with less stuff at all that still managed to have more of a queer scene than Boston, and that just feels ridiculous. But try the ladies' nights out? Maybe one of them will be your jam.

I don't think anyone is expecting zero rats.

I don't live in Brookline, but I've definitely heard about the rat problem and it sounds like a hell of a lot more than "just a few".

Rats being a problem in urban areas has got to be one of THE most common issues though all of human history. They're disease-carrying pests. It does require mitigation.

>(1954)

I was like, why the fuck didn't I hear about this? Until I got to the date.

Although still, never learned about this in history class either. Thanks for posting the article about it. Lot of good background in there.

Oh man the pre-GPS days were a challenge. Good luck finding a street where Elm and Bolton are on the left, followed by Oak on the right. Especially when you were so lost you didn't know what town you were in.

Perfect, I love it.

Who lets paint on the road tell them what to do anyway

Oh sorry, you wanted it to be there and good?

Wow entitled