[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 Karen Hanlon Shimkus. The STM Article she refers to as #11 has been updated and renumbered to #10.]
To the Editor:
Comrades, hang on to your voter rights and wallets:
The Select Board is at it again with forming yet ANOTHER committee you didn’t ask for or want WITH SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES: With little discussion or input, here comes ARTICLE 11.
They can’t manage spending and skyrocketing taxes so they are seeking to “reform” government under the guise of this seemingly innocuous article, as always, conveniently lodged at the end of the 10-27-25 TOWN MEETING WARRANT as Article 11. DON’T BE FOOLED. STAY TO THE END AND VOTE “NO.” Only in Southborough would there be ANOTHER committee to see if we have too many committees. Unbelievable. But another serious undercurrent is the appalling and inappropriate power struggle between the Select Board and YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS on Planning Board. The underlying question of the day is this: Is this SB seeking to take away your VOTER VOICE AND LEGAL AUTHORITY via the persons YOU EQUALLY ELECT to Planning Board by making that a board of THEIR APPOINTEES. If so, that needs to be remedied with a BIG NO VOTE on 10-27-25.
The SB worded article seeks to:
- “Adjust” (what??) elected positions (only if we can vote to recall Select Board)
- Transition to a town “manager” form of government (what??)
- Move from OPEN town meeting to a representative town meeting (Beware Comrades, VOTE NO!! You will be left holding the bill literally with no voice.)
The Select Board is attempting to fully overhaul the governance of the town to take YOUR VOTE, VOTER VOICE AND WALLET completely away from you. READ THE ARTICLE CAREFULLY. Here is the link to the DRAFT WARRANT:
https://www.southboroughma.gov/884/Town-Meeting-Information
NOTE: With little to no public discussion or input (Open Meeting Law violation?), the wording of this article CHANGED from the “Town Moderator” as the appointing authority to this NEW proposed committee to the “SELECT BOARD” members themselves. Talk about greedy audaciousness. Also, the real upshot could well be that Select Board proposes to APPOINT the Planning Board members THAT YOU ELECT TO PROTECT YOUR INTERESTS.
Consider this: two of the five persons on this select board are sitting in their seat by UNDER 10 VOTES, AND one person by TWO VOTES in the last election, with roughly 1,000 voters leaving the choice blank. Just a handful of BARELY ELECTED members ARE PROPOSING THIS SWEEPING GOVERNMENT CHANGE. It takes chutzpah.
There has been a steady erosion of freedom of speech and diminished voter input over the years. See the recent Supreme Judicial Court decision against Southborough, foolishly appealed with an insurance company attorney at the helm and higher premiums to taxpayers possibly to follow. Aside from the proposed “clickers” use (which has been riddled with problems and is dubious to begin with—show me the hand count please), this attempt is the most blatant, dangerous, and outrageous. PAY ATTENTION TAXPAYERS: YOUR LEGAL AUTHORITY IS ABOUT TO BE ATTEMPTED TO BE STRIPPED FROM YOU. So why is this happening?
Over recent years, the town budget has ballooned from $50m to $65m, with tax bills skyrocketing. The town has a spending problem. So this group of SB members are looking to simply takeover and run it whatever which way, with YOU THE TAXPAYER stripped of voter rights and legal say-so, BUT LEFT PAYING THE BILLS. Where is the money going? Many roads are in poor condition, so not roads.
One place it isn’t going is the $120m for NEW PROPOSED NEARY SCHOOL located next to a degrading former town dump. The voters said “NO” loud and clear, but the Select Board persisted, with five people telling 10,000 to go fly a kite. BTW, a quick read of the environmental reports (those that are posted) speak to serious deficiencies in testing, with missing monitors and “no post-closure permits on file” for the “athletic field” / dump. The state has photos of broken testing monitors with grass growing out of them. A public records request to the state revealed “no responsive permit on file.” The monitors are part of the required annual testing. Why is this testing important? Per NEWMOA, best practices call for old landfills to be properly tested AT LEAST TWO TIMES A YEAR and managed due to possible contamination of water resources, explosive methane gas production (which can travel 1,000 feet or more from a landfill), and liability risk over uncontrolled leaching (particularly with unlined bottoms and/or uncapped tops). See the following links:
NEWMOA – Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association
Please see the very important YOUTUBE video by NEWMOA:
Closed Landfills Hazards & Best Practices What You Need to Know
So the real takeaway is this: Would you take major investment advice or real estate advice from this SB? Thankfully, the answer was a resounding “NO” at the last town meeting.
How about the committees of ONE that the Select Board sends out and about acting as your “liaisons” to various towns and private entities. These singletons are out negotiating who knows what, all out of the public eye. This town and taxpayers deserve better. The taxpayers don’t have to look far to see the serious rebukes by the Attorney General’s Office for “egregious” Open meeting law violations, too many to address here, resulting in mandatory training by the AGO. (See Worcester Telegram & Gazette: Southboro selectmen found in violation of Open Meeting Law) The town lost the legal case referenced at great cost to taxpayers.
While paring down may be appropriate somewhere, this article doesn’t cut it. TOWN MEETING IS YOUR VOTER VOICE AND LEGAL AUTHORITY TO SAY NO TO RIDICULOUS SPENDING, TAXES, AND MISMANAGEMENT OF GOVERNMENT. Consider this: In some communities, tax bills actually go down. This article needs to be voted down in its entirety and the discussion of merits, if any at all, held out loud and in public in the SPIRIT OF OPEN MEETING LAW. Not a brief discussion at the end of a Town Warrant.
VOTE NO ON ARTICLE 11 (AS CURRENTLY NUMBERED) and
STAY TUNED FOR A STANDARD RECALL PETITION that many towns have as standard operating procedure in running local government, and this town should have had long ago. INCREASE voter rights and voice, not lessen them.
Sincerely,
Karen Hanlon Shimkus
8 Lynbrook Road
Updated (10/10/25 11:44 am): When Ms. Shimkus wrote this letter, the draft of the Warrant listed the Article as #11. Another Article dropped off the Warrant before it was finalized, so it is now #10. The wording has also been revised. You can read the official Warrant here. (And the Article begins on the bottom of page 12.)
I’m not going to opine on Shimkus’ stance or the Article. But I need to post a couple of Fact Checks.
1. The margin for select board members in elections: Only one currently sitting Select Board member was most recently elected with the narrow margin referred to. The most recent election was a tight one between the three candidates for two seats (Tim Fling beat Sam Stivers by 50 votes, but Kathy Cook only beat him by 2 votes). But the other members won their elections in 2023 & 2024 by about 140 votes and by over 300 votes.
2. The appointing authority: The draft Article discussed at the Select Board’s Sept 16th meeting specified the Select Board would be the appointing authority for the proposed committee. In the meetings prior to that, the draft Warrant only had a placeholder to insert an article on the topic (no details included).
Beth,
Sorry but the main stunning takeaway point is this: the lack of voter awareness.
Even this blog didn’t have any coverage of STM ARTICLE 11. Changing town government structure is a shocker of a big broad topic that appeared TO THE PUBLIC in writing for the first time on the WARRANT BY 9-16-25 with little public input or discussion.
Unless a resident offers a Letter to the Editor, then the topic can be a surprise to many taxpayers right up to Town Meeting itself, which is what well could have happened here.
It is a shocking and broad topic that wasn’t presented in writing until 9-16-25. Many residents don’t realize this discussion is even going on. Many residents don’t read the warrant (or the blog) until right before town meeting.
Importantly, FYI, you are wrong about the “appointing” authority bit. Can you please post your source(s) as to why this part even needs “fact checking?” How did that even become an idea of a question?
On video, please see Mr. Dennington referring to HIS draft copy of the WARRANT on 9-2-25, a document that doesn’t appear to have been circulated to the public in the SB packet as required.
In his words on video (see closed captioning as well) at around the 1.09 mark . . . .he “looked at examples pointed to by Jay Talerman . . .Holliston was a Select Board appointed committee. . ..and on this current draft went by (calls for) the “MODERATOR” . . .pros and cons to each. . . “ Beth, I hope you find this information helpful.
· Please see the VIDEO TAPE of the 9-2-25 meeting on YouTube
Link: Select Board Meeting 9/2/25
Starting roughly around the 1.08 – 1.09 minute mark:
Also, as a more minor side note, there was an election of a sitting member that you do not reference, that is in fact under 10 votes. In my opinion, there should be some mechanism for recounts in the instance of very close votes (say, under 20 ?). This is a procedural issue that would best comprise best practice checks and balances automatically.
In spite of the above, none of this should obfuscate the point that this is a sweeping proposal. The “ask” of a “mere” formation of a committee is very concerning, contrary to some SB members gaslighting unconcerned comments on 9-2-25. In my opinion, and I agree thoroughly with the hesitations expressed at that meeting, this topic requires much more discussion first. It is deeply concerning that this proposed committee would be appointed by the Select Board. Like the Neary committee, the mere formation of the committee suggests a push for a possible pre-determined outcome with appointees that might well could be an echo chamber of the SB. The town taxpayers only have experience to go on – look how close we came to the SB’s push for the $120m new school project next to the dump. No and no.
Thank you.
Your letter states:
I interpreted that to mean that prior versions the public would have been familiar with showed the Moderator, but the Select Board changed that without highlighting the change. (Perhaps it isn’t what you meant, but I think could be fairly interpreted by readers that way.) So I clarified that the only prior posted drafts had the Select Board as an appointing authority.
You have pointed out that the board discussed an unpublished draft in their September 2nd meeting. In watching the video you linked to, Andrew Dennington notes that his current version says it would be appointed by the Moderator. But he discusses that it could be the Select Board instead.
In their subsequent discussion, the posted draft stated Select Board. Al Hamilton suggested it could be Moderator, but he appeared to be in the minority, and they voted to go with the version using the Select Board.
As for the notice question, the board isn’t required to post their materials to be used in the meetings in advance (and most Town boards and committees don’t). And the Warrant is the public notice for the Town Meeting.
The Select Board has a tradition and policy of trying to post their materials in advance, but they don’t limit themselves to discussing only the materials that make it into the packet.
Addressing your point that the blog hasn’t covered this yet, you are correct. I planned to cover the Article well in advance of the Town Meeting, but hadn’t gotten to it yet.
I didn’t consider this Article high priority, since the committee would have no power to do anything except make a recommendation that can be rejected by voters. And it is charged with holding public forums in advance of making final recommendations.
However, I do agree that voters should be made aware of the details prior to the Special Town Meeting. My initial plan was to write about it this week – but the way my schedule is shaking out, it might not be until next week.
Beth
On Tuesday night the Select Board reviewed the various articles in the warrant and voted to modify the Governmental Structure Committee article to be appointed by the Moderator not the Select Board.
Ms. Shimkus always seems to back up her facts–I would not dispute her numbers
Ms. Shimkus
You tar and feather the Select Board with a broad brush. I feel compelled to defend myself. You suggest that all 5 members of the Select Board were in favor of the so called “New Neary”. That is not true. I consistently, voted against that program, the other 4 members at the time were in favor of it. I have also consistently opposed the expansion of municipal head count which is a component of our rising residential tax bills. I intend to continue this policy and I agree we have a spending problem that is rooted in our lack of automation and inefficient organization.
In your complaint about rising residential taxes, which is a valid concern, you conveniently avoid addressing 2 other drivers of our increase. Schools consume about 2/3 of our tax levy. Their biggest expense, like the municipal side is labor which is becoming increasingly scarce. Even with declining enrollments, we can expect our school budgets to increase each year in the foreseeable future.
The second factor is the shift in the tax burden from commercial and industrial properties to residential as our commercial and industrial valuations and development falls behind the residential side. The Select Board has relatively little authority to address this trend. The Planning Board has far more tools to address this issue but seems to have escaped your ire.
I am in favor of forming this committee. Indeed, I drafted the original version of the by-law. I believe that a regular review of how we are organized is called for every 10 to 15 years. The last review culminated in Town Meeting adopting a Town Administrator by law and the expansion of the Select Board from 3 to 5 in 2013. By the time, if authorized by Town Meeting, this committee brings any proposed change before Town Meeting 14 or 15 years will have elapsed from the last review.
I am not clear on why we should be afraid of debating and discussing what we want our local government to look like in the future. This is a necessary and healthy thing. Any proposed change that might be proposed will have to pass muster before Town Meeting. In the past, Town Meeting has had no problem rejecting such changes if they are not convinced of the merits.
As to the appointing authority for such a committee you are free to bring an amendment on the floor to change that back to the Town Moderator if you so desire. I would second such a motion
Al, you state the town has a lack of automation and an inefficient organization, this falls on the Town Management team. You also admit that we have a falling student enrollment. Why would the select people want to promote the town management team and increase their salaries for running an inefficient organization?? Why would the select people continue to push to build more school space when perhaps we need to figure how to plan for too much school space considering we have a diminishing enrollment ahead in our future. A few years ago you suggested a complete financial audit of the town government. The same people who want to build and run an inefficient government don’t want an audit that might help them run a more efficient and transparent government, something that our elected officials find abhorrent–Go figure???
Jack
I am only one of 5 on the Select Board and, on matters like this, I am afraid that the votes are, more often than not 4:1. The issues I raised, inefficient organization and lack of automation are matters that the Select Board needs to address and make a priority. Once that is done, we can then task the relevant administrators with implementation. This will require difficult discussions and decisions. There will be some, particularly among the vested interest that will resist loudly and the silent taxpayer will pay the price.
Frankly, there is a lot of inertia in our system and very little pressure to modernize. It is far easier to continue to operate the old creaky 1950’s machine than put in the work to bring us into the 21st century. That may change. It is likely that we will face a Prop 2.5 operational override in 2026 or 2027. The voters should insist that we modernize our organization and automate our municipal services before we approve another tax increase. Here are a few items that should be given serious consideration.
1. Automation – There are many processes that could benefit from automation and process improvements. From payroll services, meeting scheduling, minute taking, to dump sticker issuing there are a nearly endless set of processes that are embarrassingly manual and should be streamlined and automated.
2. Departmental Consolidation – We are a large number of small departments each with their own clerical staffs. These departments are treated as “untouchable” in budget reviews. Grouping them into larger departments would allow for better cross training and more focus on efficiency. This should be done but it will be uncomfortable.
3. Leadership – My observation is that in many cases our municipal department heads know about the inefficiencies of the system but choose to not take action because it is easier to go along than to rock the boat. This is not their fault; it is human nature. Our management in this area is under challenged. This falls squarely on the shoulders of the Select Board. Today, if I want to make progress on some area of automation I have to get personally involved and push and prod to make any progress. This is no way to run a railroad. The Select Board needs to make this a priority for the staff and set goals and timelines for our management. Failure to meet those goals should have consequences.
We have many fine people who work for us. I believe that if properly led and challenged they can rise to the task. We don’t need to engage in wholesale layoffs but every time we have staff turnover, we should ask the question of whether there is a different way to provide this function or a way to consolidate operations.
The responsibility for the above lies with the Select Board. Taxpayers should not support any further increases in municipal headcount or a Prop 2.5 operating override until meaningful progress on the above goals are achieved. If they are, an override may be avoided or postponed.
This letter is about its author’s rage; it’s certainly not about the facts of Article 11.
The core nonsense it puts forward is this
On the other hand, the Article says:
Shorter: The proposed committee has the power only to make recommendations to Town Meeting, not to change town governance on its own.
Only Town Meeting is legally able to make governance changes locally (although home rule petitions to the Legislature may be required to implement those changes).
The letter’s author, as an attorney, should be able to understand all this better than most.
Further, given that the author reviles the Select Board and supports the Planning Board, she should favor a reform committee to redraw or firm up the boundaries of authority between the two elected boards!
(Disclosure: I don’t get to vote on this Article. After 39 years living in Southborough, I’ve moved to Westborough. There are people here who express just as much rage as the letter-writer!)
If you still lived in Southborough and kept up with the actual meetings, you would know that several Select Board members expressed hesitations on the formation of this superfluous committee, which was a similarly failed effort and huge waste of time some years ago. One stated that employees and residents would find it “unsettling” and said that it needed much more public consideration. Another board member found that the current town structure was fine as- is.
Given the fact that I have never met you, have no idea who you are, and you are a resident of a different town, your misinformed, mischaracterizations seem alarmingly overly personal. Your twisted logic seems like an oddball bulldog bite response to a dog whistle. Good luck chasing cars and other unsuspecting voters in your own town. How does Southborough’s out-of-control spending and unsustainable budget increases affect you as a Westborough taxpayer?
It seems Ms.Shimkus’ has two messages for us: Town government is severely broken, and we shouldn’t vote to have a group of citizens think about how to fix it.
Not it at all.
Please don’t express, restate, or revise my opinions.
Not enough voters are even AWARE of this controversial article and the formation of a committee to consider “adjusting” elected positions(??), absolutely crazy
— and the possible upcoming serious diminution of taxpayer rights. This seemingly innocuous warrant article has had little air time, up until my Letter to the Editor (not even an article on this blog). Article 11 is conveniently stuck at the end of the warrant itself. The taxpayers need time.
This is a tug-of-war over control. I don’t agree at all with the surprise Warrant Article and its sweeping ramifications. You can’t amend this garbage. The taxpayers need time to read and absorb, not three minutes at a Special Town Meeting.
The voters will not be hi-jacked by ANOTHER STUPID UNNECESSARY COMMITTEE. The VOTERS will ask for one and will decide if they need one. Like the Neary Committee and the St. Mark’s Committee debacle, no one asked for or wants this one.
If the voters listened to the latest recommendations, there would be a $120m ludicrous expenditure on a project next to a degrading dump with insufficient required testing. You can’t make this incompetence up.
And while SB might be uncomfortable for being called out on a real tug-of-war — their seemingly appallingly inappropriate tug-of-war with Planning Board — it leaves the taxpayers scratching their heads as to why the Select Board can’t seem to manage to stay in their own lane. BOTH boards are EQUALLY ELECTED boards installed by the POWER and VOICE of the taxpayers. That should never be up for grabs by anyone.
The voters have a right to absorb and discuss this measure and reject it and to come up with some better outcome that doesn’t take away their voice or Town Meeting, which is their voice.
I happen to agree with several Select Board members, including Mr. Hamilton on many of his remarks.
I fully agree with one SB member who emphasized that the town needs some time and much more public discussion to absorb what is being sprung upon us. AT THIS TIME, we definitely don’t need another committee, appointed by SB or the Moderator. The Moderator could not fill his own committee obligations in accordance with town bylaw and that effort stalled out. Instead, the bylaw reduced the number of members after he did not fill the seats.
Importantly, as observed by an SB member, representative government doesn’t really apply, isn’t a good or usual fit for a town of this size. I also object heartily to “committees of ONE,” Mr. Butler. This is a tactic that is publicly promoted by some as a practical way to avoid violations of Open Meeting Law. It’s appalling and should change. TAXPAYERS, VOTE NO. It’s time for a wider discussion to get to a good result that doesn’t take away your control and power. Thank you.
Given what you wrote about amending the Article, I’m not sure you understood Al Hamilton’s most recent comment. On Tuesday night, the Select Board amended the Article before approving the final Warrant for the Special Town Meeting. So the language in the Warrant (now posted) has language making the Moderator the appointing authority. And, the Article is now renumbered as #10. (Article #3 was postponed, causing all subsequent Articles to be removed.)
I’ll add an update to your letter to reflect that it has been reworded and renumbered, with a link to the Warrant.
Thanks Beth. No, I do understand Mr. Hamilton’s most recent comment.
VOTERS VOTE NO ON NOW NUMBERED ARTICLE 10,
as this too fast shocker is an attempt to sweep control in the WRONG direction, away from you.
This will end up being another self-fulfilling initiative whose very mandate is flawed from the start.
VOTE NO ON ARTICLE 10, AS IT CANNOT BE AMENDED TO PROTECT YOUR VOICE ADEQUATELY. This needs to start over. Not every SB member was on board.
Let’s have FULLER PUBLIC town forums FIRST, THEN possibly form a Committee if necessary. As it stands, this SB has the authority to rein in the budget and spending, it simply hasn’t.
Thank you.
No. Select Board has no such “authority.” Only we, the voters at Town Meeting, have the “authority” to reduce spending, as you would seem to prefer, or to increase it. About two-thirds of the budget request must go directly from School Committee to Town Meeting. There is not the slightest evidence that the voters at Town Meeting want to reduce budgets. None. Recent budgets have been passing without hint of controversy. There have been more successful floor attempts to increase rather than decrease budgets. I gather you would prefer it were otherwise, but there is no evidence that you are in an active majority. That could change, of course, but as of now it is the same as always: A few folks complain about tax levels, but Town Meeting rejects cuts and overwhelmingly approves increases. Those are facts. The blame, if there is any, is on us.
Regarding the overall assessment of the situation, Mr. Hamilton and I are in substantial agreement. I have always thought that the lack of substantive debate within the public at large about spending levels was unhealthy, would engender waste, and I think it has, (even though, personally, I would probably have voted for most of the budgets, and probably will continue to do so). We would be better off, as a Town, if there was more substantive budgetary debate at Town Meeting, if for example Advisory Committee dug in to generate floor discussion. I have also thought that some of the problem causing lack of substantive debate was the procedural and information difficulty at Town Meeting for proposals for reduction to come from the floor. On several occasions I have tried to overcome that procedural difficulty by trying to make it easier for floor budget reductions to be proposed, even ones that I would vote against. I did that, long ago, while serving on Advisory Committee and as recently as last February with, now Select Board member, Fling, who had made a broad based budget reduction proposal from the floor at ATM 2024. There has been no uptake, no interest, in those efforts to stimulate substantive budget debate among voters. If Advisory Committee isn’t fostering debate, it yet seems aligned with the will of Town Meeting.
Mr. Hamilton and I share the view, I think, that something needs to change. I don’t think that your vituperation here is unhelpful, but, screaming alone won’t do it, so I do disagree with your conclusion that we shouldn’t have a group of citizens try to see if there are some substantive changes that will help. We will see what Town Meeting has to say about that.
Mr. Butler, No, you are misinterpreting my point:
While you are correct that the taxpayers have the final say, it is the Select Board and Advisory Committees that have their own roles and authorities in setting the budget that goes to the floor. TOWN MEETING IS THE VOTER VOICE. ARTICLE 10 is the start of taking that away. You and Mr. Hamilton are happy to have THE TAXPAYERS LEGAL AUTHORITY go away via ARTICLE 10. I say NO — and ask the voters to fully reject this article for a full discussion FIRST.
The budget can go down, BTW. It’s a choice to make cuts before the budget hits the floor for a vote.
We are talking about a $65M BUSINESS. This isn’t personal.
This ARTICLE 10 is a disaster. Why would voters hand over THEIR LEGAL AUTHORITY to persons who apparently can’t balance a budget and are committed to spending more than what is taken in as revenues year over year. This is mismanagement and is unsustainable.
You mischaracterize these exchanges with your own patronizing and bitter language This is a forum for an exchange of debate and ideas — you should not mischaracterize my opinions with your misleading language. The voters, including myself, actually have observations of value and experience that you do not have to offer to these dialogs. The problem is that this SB, you, and the same old guard don’t want to hear objections or opposing opinion. Those who express such are almost always treated appallingly, like the enemy, and almost never welcomed and listened to, never mind actually incorporating or correcting course. It’s astonishing and baffling. Look at the last SB meeting. You had one SB member talking down to another who was NOT IN FAVOR of this article in an appallingly sickening and inappropriate manner. That person doesn’t belong on a board. It would be better to listen to one another.
(BTW, the format I choose to employ in print (some caps, some bold, some lowercase is not “screaming” (your insulting vitriolic, caustic word). These formats are employed for ease in skimming to the reader and for EMPHASIS ON important salient points.)
The problem in part is the actual Town Meeting format. I have tried to “hold” certain line items on town meeting floor for very important reasons, only to be talked over and ignored. It’s almost impossible to explain in three minutes or less and the meeting moves on.
It would be much better to have maybe ONE OR TWO TOWN HALL FORUMS, for larger discussions on topics such as the now numbered “ARTICLE 10.”
I agree with those on the SB who have hesitations and I ask Mr. Hamilton to LISTEN TO HIS COLLEAGUES ON THE BOARD and this voter, and to please reconsider and drop ARTICLE 10 for now.
It’s time for consideration of other ideas from other valuable persons in the audience. It would be helpful to have a Town Hall Discussion Forum. It would be helpful to take a hard look at splitting the rate as Mr. Guyer has suggested. Along with an OVERHAUL of the budget and rainy-day savings, if possible, it would be great to take a breather of a few years to have the PAYERS of the BILLS catch our collective breath and bearings. This is a $65m business. Let’s take a harder look at bidding out contracts (NOT NO-BID CONTRACTS) and a forensic look at exactly where the money has gone. There’s a long list of upcoming HUGE expenses that ARE NOT DISCUSSED and keep surfacing as side notes, usually off budget — all not ok. All of this merits more and fuller discussion with the BILL PAYERS. No one wants to pay MORE TAXES. And no more Committees of ONE. That would be appreciated.
Thank you.
Karen,
I would like to thank you for taking an enormous amount of time and energy to bring your point of view to the attention of those citizens of Southborough who are open-minded enough to listen. Whether I agree with you or not is not the point; you provide a much-needed perspective.
It’s been a while since I last visited this blog, and when I did so this morning, I was pleasantly surprised to see your posts. Overall, they show your courage, passion, and knowledge, and, perhaps most importantly, how much you care about Southborough by trying to help its citizens become informed voters.
Thank you.
–Diane