[Ed note: My Southborough accepts signed letters to the editor submitted by Southborough residents. Letters may be emailed to mysouthborough@gmail.com.
The following letter is from Al Hamilton.]
To the Editor:
There has been a lot of conjecture about the meaning of the recent special town meeting and annual election. Let us be clear, in both cases the only thing the town’s legislature and the voters were asked was if they wanted to authorize borrowing and repayment of a loan related to the “New Neary”. In both cases the clear, overwhelming answer was NO!
Now the spin starts. “No, the voters said they want options.” “The turnout was too low.” “We need to preserve the option of bringing it back.” “The meeting lasted too long and I had to leave.” All of these arguments boil down to one thing. “We don’t like the results of this democratic process.”
What do you say to the over 1100+ citizens who did their civic duty and sat through 4 hours of debate and then voted? “Sorry, your vote doesn’t count.” “Sorry, you did not vote the right way so we will mix in a bunch of other options to dilute the majority and make this plan look like a winner.”
What about the 2,020 people that again did their civic duty, went to the polls and voted. Do their votes not count either? The Select Board needs to take concrete action to take the “New Neary” off the table. Failure to do so will only lead to furthering suspicion, mistrust, and anger by the clear majority who voted twice against this program. The voters and Town Meeting should not be disenfranchised, the Select Board should respect their votes, and withdraw the New Neary application from the MSBA so that we can move forward.
Al Hamilton
35 Pine Hill Road
Excellent points, Al. Democracy in action should still mean something.
Thank you, Al, for your leadership on this issue. As you know, I attended the last two Select Board meetings and spoke on this issue. The SB members say they heard the vote, they’re very humbled and they want to look to the future yet a majority of them refuse to shut the door on the failed proposal. A majority of the SB would not support your request for a pledge not to seek an extension from the State to bring back the failed proposal. A majority of the SB says “you never give up money [State reimbursement] until you absolutely have to” as if this is some sort of business deal, rather than an informed, deliberate and democratic process whereby the voters spoke loudly and clearly. You are exactly right that this failure by the SB majority to act in accordance with the will of the voters will only lead to further mistrust and anger, which will make the process of reaching an acceptable plan for the K-8 schools all the more difficult. I am disappointed but sadly, not surprised.
“Sorry, you did not vote the right way so we will mix in a bunch of other options to dilute the majority and make this plan look like a winner.”
This is exactly what I have been feeling as well.
And what if the new vote is a ranked-choice ballot? This method doesn’t dilute at all, and in fact, proponents of this method argue that it will give the most acceptable outcome to the largest number of voters.
PBS has a great explainer video.
Excellent letter, Al. One of our Yes neighbors shared on a town Facebook site about a couple of construction projects in her hometown of Auburn. A Fire Department HQ project was approved in May of this year, with a price tag of $31 million. She wondered why residents there had no qualms about approving the construction during these uncertain economic times. I checked on the project, and it turns out that the Town decided to use $8 million from cash reserves to reduce borrowing to $23 million, lessening the impact on taxpayers and saving them $3 million in interest. The building that was being replaced was actually a former elementary school that had been built in 1951. The Fire Dept. had moved there in 1985 on what was supposed to be a temporary basis, and the only renovations done were to add 3 garage doors before the relocation. There was an urgency to approve the rebuild because of mold, asbestos and biohazard issues. It took a 40-year process to get to construction. The first plan had to be scrapped because of financial considerations, and the scope of the project had to be narrowed to get voters to approve it. And that’s in a town where the residents value public safety and its dedication to the Fire Department is immense. She also pointed out that a brand new middle school was built in 2015 for $32.6 million with no push back, whereas in 2006 the town was bitterly divided about building a new high school. Checking the economic conditions for both of those timelines, it turns out that the housing market was beginning to melt down in 2006 – inflation was increasing and mortgage rates were climbing. Employment rates were declining and consumer confidence was shaky. In 2015, on the other hand, the US economy was experiencing its greatest growth in a decade. (Auburn has almost a 40% commercial tax base, in comparison to Southborough’s circa 19%, which I would imagine also helped). What I learned from these examples shared by a Yes voter that it is really important to address this issue holistically, taking a look at what we really need and what we can afford, just as Auburn did. I feel incredibly fortunate to live in a town where residents have always gone above and beyond to support as many funding requests as possible. Finally, I am even more convinced that you are steering us in the right direction after reading the account of Auburn’s journey to complete these two projects.
There is absolutely no requirement that we decline this opportunity now, and no benefit to doing so. Once that door is closed, it is closed for good – and we will have given up a substantial source of funding that could ease the burden on local taxpayers. We should not take that risk lightly, especially without fully exploring how the MSBA option compares to any alternatives.
You attempt to claim that the town overwhelmingly voted against the current proposal. That claim misrepresents the reality of the vote. Voters were presented with a single, binary yes/no decision – not a range of options, not a nuanced set of tradeoffs. Rejecting one option in that context is simply not the same as rejecting it within the context of multiple options.
The responsible course of action is clear: keep the MSBA option on the table. Evaluate it alongside other proposals. And only when we are required to make a final choice, armed with complete information, should we consider closing that door. To do otherwise would be to limit our own options unnecessarily.
Ms. Dente
You are correct there is no requirement to withdraw the application.
Unlike others, I make no claims on divining the intent of Town Meeting nor the Voters. I merely note that both bodies were asked if they wanted to authorize the borrowing and repayment of a loan to fund this project; the result was a clear and resounding NO. You cannot deny that the vote was anything but overwhelming in both cases.
Let’s review the bidding:
The NBC had 3 years and nearly $1,000,000 of your tax dollars to develop and promote a Neary proposal. They had a website promoting the plan. They held dozens of forums. They had email campaigns. They had a support group that bought more signs and did more mailings than the opposition. They requested and got a single subject special Town Meeting that cost about $50,000 to make it easier to galvanize support.
In contrast the opposition only jelled in the Winter and operated on a shoestring budget being outspent at every turn and had no access to public resources.
This should have been a slam dunk for the NBC. Instead, it was a complete rejection of the matter put before Town Meeting and the voters.
The NBC and the Select Board completely misread the temperature of the electorate. This was despite they’re having been advised that they did not have the votes. Regrettably, they continue to misread the room.
It is clear that the plan is to arrange for the minority that voted yes to hold fast to the New Neary while dividing the clear majority that voted no by dissipating their votes among other options. Is this cynical? Perhaps, but it is hardball and it requires a hardball response.
As long as the Select Board is perceived as defying the will of Town Meeting and the Voters the atmosphere of anger, mistrust, and suspicion will continue. It is likely to manifest itself at the next Town Meeting. To restore trust, the Select Board must take tangible steps to take the New Neary off the table.
I would be happy to sit down with you and discuss further.
How could votes be dissipated among other options? Would alternative proposals still be voted on as separate articles at Town Meeting and at a town election?
James
No one has yet offered a plan for how Town Meeting or the voters would be offered choices or how we would narrow down the set of choices before us.
The scenario you outlined would seem to have some number of fully researched options each with it’s own article at Town Meeting and the polls. What would happen if 2 articles passed? Would voters be allowed to vote for more than 1?
A second option that some have discussed is some form or ranked choice voting where voters would rank their preferences on different options. Ranked choice voting is used in the US (eg Cambridge & New York) and is an interesting idea. How and when you would hold such an election is a substantial question. This process could yield a most popular option or 2 most popular options for further study. I am not sure if the results of a ranked choice vote would pass muster for the purpose of establishing the a 2/3 majority for the purpose of floating a bond.
Something similar could be done at the next town meeting where there were a series of “straw votes” to establish the top 2 options which would then be fully investigate and offered for a debt vote at the ATM and Debt Exclusion vote at the annual election.
I suspect there are other options.
And given all these options to better understand the desire of our citizens – shouldn’t we choose to keep all of our options on the table?
If the New Neary project is to remain under consideration, it must first be thoroughly re-evaluated. The true cost and impact on taxpayers should be reassessed in light of current economic realities—including inflation, tariffs, interest rates, and market volatility. These are not abstract concerns—they are real, pressing risks that demand transparent solutions, not optimistic projections or strategies unlikely to withstand real-world challenges. Any potential solution should be accompanied by a realistic breakdown of costs.
At Town Meeting, we were told, “the wetlands are our friend” in the event of a toxic spill from the landfill during construction of the $108 million New Neary School. That statement is deeply troubling. In such a scenario, we need a clear understanding of potential remediation costs and whether grant funding would be available—or if taxpayers would shoulder the full financial burden.
Most importantly, the vote to reject this project must be respected. It was a record-breaking turnout, and dismissing the result as anything less than legitimate is disingenuous. That’s not how democracy works. Credibility suffers when we continue to debate an outcome that voters have already decided. The integrity of our Town Meeting and election process is at stake. What inspires me about our town government is that your vote counts. But right now, it feels like that vote is being disregarded—and with it, the will of the people. When elected officials override a clear public decision, it sends a painful message: that our voices don’t matter. And if we stop believing our votes count, how can we continue to believe in the system that defines our local democracy?
It’s also worth acknowledging that the broader public was not meaningfully involved in selecting the proposal submitted to the MSBA. While public meetings were held, a decision of this scale should have been brought directly to the taxpayers. Instead, many residents were left out of the process—and that’s not their fault.
To continue promoting this project after voters clearly rejected it is both unfair, misleading and incredibly polarizing. The warning about “losing millions” was part of the campaign to pass it—and the public made its decision with that information in hand. The state’s contribution is a percentage, not a fixed dollar amount. It only looks large because the project cost is so high.
This circular debate is exhausting—and it’s keeping us from moving forward. We need to ask ourselves a direct question: Do we want a responsible solution for Neary, or do we want a brand-new school at any cost?
thank you for bringing up the wetlands comment. i literally said out loud “wtf did he just say?” because i was so deeply disturbed that we were supposed to be happy that the wetlands are being polluted but the kids are fine (which is how i took it). it’s a total side tangent to the Neary issue which is why i havent brought it up but yeah. that was a “what on earth” moment for me.
Perfect question: “Do we want a responsible solution for Neary, or do we want a brand-new school at any cost?”
And I agree that this is exhausting. Unfortunately, we live in a community that currently struggles to engage in civil discourse and one that wants to ignore our voting process. I applaud everyone with the stamina to fight this very worthy battle that exists here in Southborough. Thank you for your post.
Strangely, the situation reminds me of when we first moved to Southborough and our kids were 1 and 3 1/2. Our immediate neighbors all had older children (middle school and above). I imagined that folks would move, and the neighborhood would turn over, so to speak. Eventually, a couple of families did relocate, and young children moved in, but it took many years. Our kids missed the wonderful opportunity to have playmates next door and/or on our cul-de-sac. Is it possible that families currently with young kids may be worried that they will miss the unique opportunity to have their children attend a brand new school, with all the bells and whistles, if the project were to be taken off the agenda?
By the way, we have several friends who reside in Sudbury, and all of them have had their children graduate within the past couple of years. Guess what, all of them relocated when their last child graduated! These families are not retirees, they are empty-nesters who moved on to a different community. What I am trying to say here is that the time may not be right for a new 2-5 school, given the demographics of our Community.
The votes were counted; no one is disputing that. The majority of the Select Board is looking to reassess all options in order to provide a clear, fact driven, apples-to-apples comparison.
The Select Board made an explicit request to invite members of what you have referred to as the so-called “opposition” to the table so progress can be made. Framing these efforts to understand, adapt, and move forward as an attempt to “dilute the majority” only deepens divides in our town. Rather than sowing more seeds of distrust, when can we start assuming best intentions by all parties?
Many people who voted “no” did so for a variety of reasons: some wanted more information, better communication, or alternative plans. That’s not a threat to democracy. It’s democracy in action. Portraying the conduct of members of the Select Board and/or Neary Building Committee as a breach of trust misrepresents the situation and lacks credibility. Ironically, this is what actually undermines civic trust.
I’d like to see members of our leadership team work to unite, not further engage in rhetoric that pits neighbor against neighbor.
I have to ask Al – if we are so certain that a single vote is representative & that no one changes their mind – why won’t you respect the vote of the Select Board? As you are aware, the board voted your proposal down 3-2. Do those votes not count?
It sounds as if perhaps you are the one who doesn’t like the results of the democratic process.
Ms. Dente
Yes, the Select Board voted 3-2 against my motion to not request an extension of the 120 day MSBA deadline. I probably will not make that specific motion again. But there is a big difference between a vote of the Select Board and a vote at the polls.
As an elected official, I do not work for the Select Board. I do not work for the Town. I work for the voters who elected me. My boss, the voters, said very clearly, they did not want to pay for the New Neary. As an elected official there is a time for leadership, and there is a time to follow.
In our form of government, the voters are supreme. They make binary decisions. The time for leadership is in developing and advocating for a public matter that is put before the voters. The time for following is when the voters speak whether you agree or not. I have lost 2 elections, both were close and the turnout was less than our most recent poll, but the voters spoke. I did not ask for a recount or somehow claim the vote was unfair because of low turnout or that the voters did not really want someone else or that the vote was rigged. The voters spoke and that was that.
Others on the Select Board, all honorable people, may see their duty differently but that is how I see it.