[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
