[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.]
To the Editor:
And Southborough Voters: Please save the date and vote “NO” on Article 10 at the Special Town Meeting on Monday, October 27, 2025. This article is an attempt at consolidation of power by the Select Board and battle for CONTROL over the future of the town and spending say-so. Do not put your fate in the hands of a committee just yet, if at all.
Please be aware that (now numbered) Article 10 seeks to form a “committee” to make “recommendations” that may possibly strip voters of their rights and eliminate town meeting form of government. It is not the formation of another committee per se that is objectionable. It is the method of appointment (a singleton, the moderator) to that committee and, importantly, the possible “considerations” that are alarming and possibly not legal. NOTE: At the 11th hour 10-21-25 Select Board meeting, the SB at the last minute changed the wording of the article to vaguely read “MODERNIZE” town government. Don’t be fooled. This could well be code for the original wording sample SB mandate below.
This article cannot be satisfactorily amended to protect your rights and voice. Town Meeting IS voter voice and authority. Please vote “NO” and have the matter set aside for a much fuller, necessary public discussion, not in minutes tagged onto the end of a Town Meeting.
The Article misses the point: It’s not about forming a committee, addressing “government structure.” That’s a mere part of the equation. The real mission statement if any, that should be set by VOTERS, NOT the SELECT BOARD, should include overspending and the apparent inability or willingness to rein in the budget, including:
- Overspending and waste (e.g. no bid contracts, money spent on private property)
- Bidding out existing contracts and bringing those expenses to market;
- An apparent lack of ability to balance the budget (as evident by huge, unsustainable increases year-over-year);
- Work needing to be done, such as roads (Remember the depletion of the road budget to pay for St.Mark’s “park and the SB’s vote (4-1) for NO AUDIT?”);
- Lack of public discussion of huge upcoming expenses.
- Closing the information gap between what the Advisory Committee presents at Town Meeting and the actual spending (including off-budget surprises).
- A hard look at splitting the tax rate as suggested by another resident.
Now under the last-minute change to code word “modernize,” Article 10 as conceived looks to have the proposed “Committee” make “recommendations” on:
- The expansion or reduction of elected positions (including persons you elected to protect your interests on Planning Board);
- Transition to a town “manager” form of government (what?)
- Move from OPEN town meeting to a representative town meeting (Vote no. You will be left holding the bill with literally no voice.)
- Allow remote participation and voting at Town Meeting (dubious and possibly not legal).
While the world seeks to go remote (see new MA proposed bill H.2274), there is NO SUBSTITUTE for TOWN MEETING AND VOTER VOICES in dialogue and debate on town meeting floor to get to the best possible outcome for all. It is a deeply profound freedom and right to listen to neighbors’ voices of concern on matters of importance individually and as a whole. The voters make all the positive difference through their voice at Town Meeting. This is a tug of war for control and a consolidation of power by the Select Board. Voters, VOTE NO FOR NOW, and keep your control and rights intact.
Sincerely,
Karen Hanlon Shimkus
8 Lynbrook Road
Why we should say Yes to Article 10
I have to disagree with Ms. Shimkus
1. Growth in Taxes – Ms Shimkus appears to lay the blame for our increasing taxes solely on the Select Board. I am sympathetic to the complaint about the growth in the cost of local govermnent but to lay the blame exclusively at the feet of the Select Board conveniently avoids other responsible parties.
The Select Board is partly responsible and should take a more aggressive stance regarding the departments under their control. However, 2/3 of our budget funds schools which are not under the Select Board. Further, every dollar in the budget is vetted by the Advisory Committee, appointed by the Moderator. And lastly every dollar of tax revenue is approved by Town Meeting. If you want to find someone to blame, first find a mirror.
Perhaps a good mission for the Town Governance Committee (TGC) would be to develop a by-law that would permit Town Meeting more flexibility in cutting or increasing the budget as a whole. This might be something to study.
2. Remote Town Meeting Participation. This issue regularly comes up, particularly with young families trying to juggle work and child care and those with disabilities. There is a bill before the legislature (H 2274) to consider this. Wayland and Concord are giving this serious consideration and I believe other communities are as well. Would it not be a good idea for a TGC to study this matter?
There are a number of other things that a TGC can study including the ones listed earlier. I should note that in addition to moving the appointing authority to the Moderator the version that will be presented to Town Meeting has removed the list of possible things to study leaving the TGC to set it’s own agenda. (I know Ms. Shimkus will find it shocking but the Select Board did actually listen to feed back, including hers, and made adjustments accordingly. Shocking!)
Let us also be clear, absolutely nothing will change unless Town Meeting, in its current form, votes to make that change. A TSC can suggest and advocate for a change but only Town Meeting can make it.
What in the world are we afraid of? The last time we did this was between about 2005 and 2012. It 3 tries to get a Town Administrator by law through Town Meeting. It will probably take that long again. On matters like this Town Meeting is pretty cautious and I for one trust the institution to get it right.
Don’t be swayed by scare tactics, Vote Yes on 10
Not it at all. Please don’t express, restate, or revise my opinions. You have it virtually all wrong. And I agree with some points. The reason to VOTE NO ON ARTICLE 10 is that it fails on its own merits. Also, not enough voters are even AWARE of this controversial article, your 11th hour rewording, and the hypocrisy of forming a “committee” (appointed by a singleton, the Moderator) to push a dubious vague mission statement. What’s wrong with this picture? Everything. Also, I don’t agree with the power grab at all.
For the voters, consider this:
· This is a $65m business. It isn’t personal. The “shadow” SB and singletons who have been out exploring alternative forms of government need to go. We didn’t elect them. And no thank you to town manager for now.
· If one didn’t listen to Wednesday’s SB meeting, how would you know that Mr. Dennington is deep into it with Town Counsel on exploring alternative town government and combining expense items for Town Meeting approval. These are all steps that are bad for transparency and accountability. How can a bill payer object and hold items when they are grouped together.
· How about the no-discussion $1.5m (?!!) “consent agenda” item at the last meeting for a no-bid contract for engineering fees for the so-called “Lynbrook” project. That project is mis-named. It is actually a water main project extending from NB Road to Tara Tower. WTH? The flagging and digging started before town meeting approval.
· SB needs to stay in its lane and stop the inappropriate barraging Planning Board who has its own important, independent ELECTED checks and balances role. Most people, including myself, are not pro Planning Board or pro Select Board per se, they are PRO ELECTIONS, for zoning enforcement and protection purposes, and are not for “adjusting” elected official positions. Who would be in favor of having the SB “appoint” Planning Board, a disastrous idea that exists elsewhere.
· “Restructuring” town government and proposing bylaws are stunningly sweeping topics that requires much more public discussion than on a blog or a few minutes at the end of a Town Meeting before anointing yet another “committee” of the usual suspects. Why would the bill payers, voters, hand their CONTROL AND LEGAL SAY-SO over to a Select Board that approves unsustainable budget increases and upping taxes? Or seek to even form any “committee” that has a seemingly dubious and pre-ordained outcome?
· The proposed remote voting bill, H.2274, is going nowhere. The technology isn’t there, many years away. The clickers barely work. Show of hands, then clickers if a close vote. For those who can’t get to Town Meeting, they can go to the polls and vote for the candidate that best represents their views.
· Town Hall Forum, pass-the-microphone discussion first with the bill payers. Not three minutes shut up and sit down tagged at the end of a town meeting.
· The Select Board lost its credibility and the trust of the voters. We only have recent experience to go on: the committees involving the St. Mark’s “park” debacle and the failed $120m proposed Neary project, downhill from an unlined dump, an expensive and stunningly stupid idea.
· As for budget discussions, it isn’t an easy topic. It’s complicated, especially where the school budget is concerned. No one “conveniently” forgot. Yet, 2/3 of the overall budget seems alarmingly disproportionate in light of declining school population, even with some rising costs. This needs a serious look.
· Even though control is somewhat indirect, the school budget is APPROVED BY VOTERS and DERIVES ITS INCOME FROM REAL TAXES to a large degree. Need to use leverage and indirect power in influencing the budget coming from this behemoth as much as possible.
· The whole budget, including the school budget, would benefit from an overhaul. As one metric, the school superintendent position has a base salary that is higher than the Governor of MA, for example. There are a number of high dollar contracts in town government. This is a business. It could be worth a look to bid out to market and possibly mark to market as much as possible.
· THE MAJOR COMPONENTS OF TOWN BUDGET, including schools and DPW, through direct and indirect influence, need a review and overhaul. Asking for departments to stick to a 3% increase is not managing, it’s a wish.
Blaming the voter bill payers by asking them “to go find a mirror” is wrong and inappropriate. The bill payers are not the enemy. It’s a continual disappointment to witness the lack of listening and for Town Meeting played like a board game. We need a town hall forum and wider discussion, as well as the aforementioned overhaul discussions.
Like other recent “committees,” this proposed committee is NOT coming from the voters. No one asked for it. As conceived and originated, it’s a bad idea with too little public exposure and discussion. Please VOTE NO on Article 10.
Please vote “NO” on ARTICLE 10. The above 2nd Letter to the Editor and Comments are an UPDATED ALERT to the VOTER BILLPAYERS on the mission of this article as conceived and then changed at the 11th hour on Wednesday 10-21-25. They just want to launch, no matter what. Vote NO. Also, it’s important to read the comments to understand Mr. Dennington’s discussions with town counsel. Here is a small but critical excerpt:
“For the voters, consider this:
· This is a $65m business. It isn’t personal. The “shadow” SB and singletons who have been out exploring alternative forms of government need to go. We didn’t elect them. And no thank you to town manager for now.
· If one didn’t listen to Wednesday’s SB meeting, how would you know that Mr. Dennington is deep into it with Town Counsel on exploring alternative town government and combining expense items for Town Meeting approval. These are all steps that are bad for transparency and accountability. How can a bill payer object and hold items when they are grouped together.”
“Move from OPEN town meeting to a representative town meeting (Vote no. You will be left holding the bill with literally no voice.)” – You literally mean figuratively.
With respect to the difference between Town Manager v. Town Administrator (what we have now, in Mark Purple), generally:
a town manager, “[has] more authority to negotiate and execute contracts and manage the day-to-day operations of the town government, without needing selectmen approval. The town manager is expected to execute the policies approved by selectmen, develop the budget and capital plans and otherwise direct all the work of the town through various departments.”
a town administrator, “Administrator positions tend to have a bit less authority to act without selectmen approval and all hiring and firing decisions are made by selectmen, depending on the strength of the specific administrator position.”
I say ‘generally’ because according to MMA, there is no legal definition that differentiates the two.
Mark Purple (or whomever is in that role) would very likely have more power and less supervision were the role to be converted to a town manager. I can’t readily find conclusive data that the mean salary for town managers in Worcester County exceed those of town administrators (I looked). However with increased power and less supervision, I can’t see the manager role being paid less than or equal to the administrator role.
[source for compairson: https://www.wickedlocal.com/story/chronicle-transcript/2020/09/28/you-need-to-know-whats-difference-between-hamilton-town-manager-and-wenham-town-administrator/114686408/%5D