[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 Roger Challen (a member of the Southborough School Committee).]
To the Editor:
I found myself reading through the letter exchange among Al Hamilton (Letter: The debt we never talk about), Karen Shimkus and Erin McMurray, and I would like to comment.
I found Ms. McMurray’s information to be quite compelling.
But Ms. Shimkus made a statement regarding Town budget challenges that concerned me. She said , “…that said, our superintendent makes more than the Governor of Massachusetts”. Of course, I cannot say that this was intentionally misleading, but in my view it was, in fact, at best, misleading.
Southborough taxpayers’ allocation for the Superintendent’s annual salary is $96,000.
The annual base salary for the Governor of Massachusetts is approximately $243,000 per year (as of 2025–2026 after recent increases). Her total compensation can exceed $300,000 annually when including benefits such as housing and other allowances.
For any taxpayer that believes the $96K allocated expense for Southborough is excessive for a Superintendent of Schools, I advise them to compare this amount to the salaries of other Superintendents who work in similar communities. You will find the Southborough cost to be one of the bargains.
Roger Challen
29 Oak Hill Road
I asked Roger Challen for clarification on the Superintendent’s total salary. He explained that the total salary is $238K, slightly less than the Governor’s base salary. (But again, he stressed that the Governors comes with perks that can be valued as exceeding $300K.)
Challen was worried that in the context of comments about Southborough’s budget burdens, most readers would misinterpret the original comment about the salary as being what Southborough taxpayers are responsible for.
Southborough is responsible for 40% of the NSBORO Superintendent’s, salary — based on his role as head of both Southborough K-8 schools and Algonquin.
To the Bill payer / Taxpayers: Regarding appropriate audit / and checks and balances on any line item where you pick up the bill, let’s start with the punchline. Here is the link to the email communications that show there were meetings, see the RE: line, about a pocket park at St. Mark’s in December 2020, almost a full year (?) before the “project” was introduced to the Select Board. There was little to no transparency, while the taxpayers apparently picked up the expensive bill for services and materials, and one is left still wondering who approved payment of these contracts and invoices? Who decided to spend the entire road budget for the year on this “project?” See important discussion below.
Link to Dec.2020 emails here:
https://www.mysouthborough.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/pocket-park-email-Dec-8-2020.pdf
Mr. Challen, are the taxpayers not supposed to take the State’s advice on coming in compliance with State Law (see below)? Isn’t it prudent and best practice for taxpayers to re-examine ALL line items, including salaries, benefits, and other stand-out items? Mr. Challen, your point of multiple taxpayer pockets paying for a single line item is irrelevant and a red-herring argument. Look over there, taxpayers, and you might not realize that any given line item has run up to a level at or above market. It’s always baffling when these dialogues devolve into a personal attack. It’s not personal. It’s business: a $65m to $70m business.
Here’s what happens when expenses run unchecked and there is no audit committee, see the Wall Street Journal article especially, where local news is national news, voters eventually say NO when the budget goes out of control, because it damages the tax base. Taxes can go down through budget cuts:
· Massachusetts Town South Hadley Rejects 50% Property Tax Hike – WSJ
· Panic in East Coast town as families fear LOSING their homes over massive 50% tax hike… as experts issue ‘canary in the coal mine’ warning for all of America: ‘It is going to get ugly’ | Daily Mail Online
· South Hadley rejects tax hikes as other communities face upcoming votes
The taxpayers are still paying the whole total regardless of which pocket it comes from. All standout line items of all types should bear a look-see review by an audit committee to whether or not that line item is above, at, or below market. It’s that simple.
BTW, part of the problem is the use of “liasons” to avoid Open Meeting Law.
Many taxpayers recognize and are uncomfortable with “singletons,” a “liaison” that no one voted for, out and about negotiating on behalf of the town with not a lot of transparency on the details. There is a tremendous lack of transparency and accountability to taxpayers. Who is the “liaison” on the Hopkinton water deal and what is the status of that? Taxpayers need documentation (minutes or notes) on what is being discussed and status. Regardless, look for a forthcoming Citizen Petition to change this practice, with the reasoning partially below.
Like it or not, Mr. Challen, here’s the important salient takeaway and the point of ARTICLE 33:
The recent DLS state report states that the town is not in compliance with State Law, when it comes to custody of contracts and checking whether or not the work done aligns with the actual contract and work completed or materials purchase. What about that?
A town audit committee would examine the information gap between the important work of Advisory and actual spending, like what happened with the St. Mark’s Park fiasco, and examine line items of all types at all levels, including salaries (regardless of how it adds up, which taxpayer pocket it is being taken from, which is irrelevant). That’s huge.
Taxpayers, while you may not have been compelled fully by the presentation of ARTICLE 33 (Mr. Barron’s call for a town audit committee) for various reasons (including Town Counsel’s own opinion, more on this later), the overriding big picture context is this:
The state and town auditors have both called for better controls and policies.
· The state has noted in its report (see link to Article 33 above, very important to read) to the Town that:
· the Town Accountant is legally obliged to maintain custody of all contracts and grants AND VERIFY that the terms of the contract are met.
and
This deficiency is the genesis of the proposal to create an audit committee (Article 33). To attempt to address “Best Practices” and compliance with the law. The report also suggests:
· better statutory compliance and improved internal controls by depositing money into a TOWN CONTROLLED account. Questions? Read the report.
These are business issues and are not personal.
So what is the bottom line: when “liaisons” are out and about having meetings and possibly committing your tax dollars, the taxpayer may not necessarily know about it up front. This appears to what have happened with St. Mark’s Park.
The Advisory and Select Board Members realized that the entire ROAD BUDGET, taxpayer dollars, was spent on private property in late 2020, early 2021. Taxpayer dollars from your wallet also went to pay for a private owner’s parking lot engineering, tree razing, drainage basins, $20k in gravel, expensive granite, etc. See the following memo.
Mr. Challen, please explain how the entire road budget for the year was spent on this project? Looking forward to your detailed reply and opinion about taxpayer dollars spent on private land with apparently(?) no written agreement in place.
[highlighted email]
This was March 2021. The project was introduced to the Select Board in November / December 2021. This was regarding private land, and the bill payer / taxpayers were handed the bills. The town’s subsequent “license” agreement appears to have been retrofitted later (in other words “legal permission” by the taxpayer / owners of the land or legal agreement was later. There appears to have been no legal agreement apparently at the time (?) for the town to pay for and work on private land with St. Mark’s on a parking lot and park.
Again, importantly, who approved the contracts (and these were prior to introduction as a “project” to the SB)? Mr. Challen, who decided to spend the entire town road budget on this project?
The following email is dated December 7, 2020 and December 8, 2020. This is an exchange about meeting attendance at St. Mark’s “RE: POCKET PARK” – a full year? before the project was ever introduced as a project to the Select Board.
Link to Dec.2020 emails here:
https://www.mysouthborough.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/pocket-park-email-Dec-8-2020.pdf
That’s the salient takeaway for unaware taxpayers: there was no transparency, and they picked up the bill. Please explain to the taxpayers, Mr. Challen, how this happened and how an Audit Committee ISN’T the solution. The taxpayers are looking for solutions and complete transparency in this time of budget crisis, not “liasons.”
Thank you.
I’m confused by the questions you are posing to Mr.Challen about the Town’s spending on roads and the pocket park, etc, and asking him to “how an Audit Committee ISN’T the solution”.
He isn’t on a committee that has anything to do with those topics and didn’t take any public stance on those issues.His letter was specifically focused on a defense of the Superintendent’s salary.
Sorry for your confusion. The simple point is this: all line items, including line items that involve salaries and benefits, all of them should be reviewed by an Audit Committee. There needs to be financial policies and checks and balances in place on ALL LINE ITEMS, to be reviewed annually. Best practices would review annually and check to see if the total line item (regardless of which taxpayer pocket pays) is ABOVE, AT OR BELOW MARKET.
The broader context is the following:
The state has noted in its report (see link to Article 33 above, very important to read) to the Town that:
· the Town Accountant is legally obliged to maintain custody of all contracts and grants AND VERIFY that the terms of the contract are met.
Not complying with Massachusetts Law would be seen by most people as mismanagement.
This deficiency is the genesis of the proposal to create an audit committee (Article 33). To attempt to address “Best Practices” and compliance with the law. (The report also suggests:
· better statutory compliance and improved internal controls by depositing money into a TOWN CONTROLLED account. Questions? Read the report.
As for Mr. Challen not having an opinion, now that is surprising. Every participant in this dialog should recognize the importance of review, checks and balances, and full transparency.
Thank you.
Thank you Ms Shimkus and Mr Barron for bringing this back to light,Sometimes you need the sun to sanitize and this is one of those moments.
Clearly this has gone on long enough. It’s time to have the safety valve installed as town is bleeding money and no one knows where it’s going. Even though we have a CPA on select board.! Private bank accounts for public money ?
What does Mark Purple even do ? Why was it up to him to authorize/implement this “Pocket Park” ?
This whole episode in Southborough reads like a Scheme to launder money public money for a private entity. Maybe we should get the Local TV investigative reporters tuned into this.
Guess what Southborough we paid for it and this is what we know. What about all monies unaccounted for ?
Example:DPW employee using town van to commute to Rutland for personal use using town fuel. Perks of working for our town.? I didn’t know DPW had so much money to waste. DPW employees told me this. Why would anyone want to work in caustic environment?
I am surprised at the negative numbers at bottom of comments. People should understand this is for their/our benefit of these comments to shine light on something that needs a major explanation.
Please place your negative comments at the bottom of mine so I know it was read and also that it hit Home.