[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: ARTICLE 11 – GOVERNMENT RESTRUCTURE “COMMITTEE” – INDEFINITELY POSTPONED? THINK AGAIN. If you didn’t watch this past Tuesday’s Select Board Meeting, this voter alert is for you. Please let as many friends and neighbors know that they need to watch the video of the SB meeting on Tuesday, 11-4-25. Punchline: SB is looking to pursue a “committee.” (See 1.50 mark roughly) Also, taxes are likely going up, again. See the following meeting link:
Southborough Select Board November 4, 2025 – YouTube
The key takeaways are the following:
- At the 3.0 minute mark, after being warned by a resident that the newly revised SB Agenda contains a new item without the legally required 48-hours notice to the public, Mr. Dennington replied that he thinks “we can go with it” – even after the warning. The resident states that she thinks, in fairness to the public, it is a possible Open Meeting Law violation.
- The untimely last-minute addition is a 10-20-25 letter from the school Superintendent with a revised school budget upward (of course) and states that if a special town meeting isn’t called, the increase is assumed approved.
- NOTE: The letter was dated 10-20-25, a full seven days BEFORE last week’s town meeting – and is just now being distributed to the Select Board (by Messrs. Dennington and Purple – promotion time?) on this past Tuesday, 11-4-25. The letter is presented at the end of the SB Agenda Packet, again, without the legally required 48 hours’ notice to the public. See link: Agenda – 11/04/2025
- That said, while the matter is later said to be “held,” mission accomplished. The letter was in fact mentioned, used, distributed to the SB, so they got to see it – and this matter underscores that it doesn’t matter if YOU, the citizen bill payers, get your legally required 48 hour Open Meeting Law notice – by a board chair who is an attorney and a town administrator, both of whom have had all the required training and know better.
- NOTE: There are TWO other pending OML violations from two weeks ago in process, while Attorney Dennington is stating that he thinks they’ll “go with it.” Ignore the law? Shouldn’t this be legal cause for removal? Open Meeting Law exists to protect the public. What about fairness to the public?
- The SB is picking up right where they left off from town meeting floor, a little over a week ago. And some SB members, not all, speak as though the Vote to Postpone (for the public to try to understand the purpose of this vague proposal and the actual purpose and composition of a “committee”) never took place. The vote was just a minor setback to them – roll tape around the 1.50 mark.
- The new tax rate is going up – way up. The other pieces of the puzzle that determine future tax bill amounts are still in the works. Of greater relevance, see the tax rate history chart on the town website. It doesn’t seem to matter if the rate goes up or down, the tax bills have historically always gone up. See the following link.
- Avg Tax History.xls
- The Select Board continues to wish for a 3% budget increase, when the overall budget and spending need serious management and overhaul. While it’s somewhat commendable that the SB seeks to examine possible efficiencies, that wish avoids key points: Overspending and mismanagement. There’s another full half of the equation: Look at the unsustainable year-over-year spending increases as one critical starting point. The SB needs to reign in overspending and induce a major overhaul of all budget items to the extent possible. This includes capital spending forecasts, DPW contracts, and the disproportionate behemoth school budget as some examples.
- Take a look at the recent Department of Revenue report calling out Southborough as ranked 5th lowest in reserves for municipalities in the state. See the following link:
- download
- It doesn’t matter a bit that the voters voiced serious concerns about the sketchy mission of the “committee,” the dubious concept overall, the possible usurping of voter voice and rights, and the echo chamber method of appointment, Moderator or SB.
- Mr. Dennington mentioned again that he is deep into town restructure discussions with town counsel. He mentions TC involvement in Holliston. Mr. Dennington mentions a government restructure bylaw.
- We don’t necessarily need a “committee” or a possibly dangerous restructure bylaw. We do need better qualified, experienced leadership who can manage a $65m business, understands math, and does not overspend.
- Lastly, consider this: Just in recent years, the singleton, Moderator, didn’t fill his own Advisory seat appointment obligation, thereby forcing a bylaw revision of the number of seats downward. Either way, SB or Moderator, the risk of bias is undesirable. The SB keeps up regularly with its various singletons for advice and assistance. You did not elect these people. The entire matter needs much more vetting, as we may not need any committee, just better management.
Voter bill payers stay alert and keep watching the bouncing ball with this Select Board, as well as any potential new “bylaw” drafting by yet another committee with a vague mission that you didn’t ask for. Stay alert to protect your rights and Town Meeting voice
Thank you.
Karen Hanlon Shimkus
8 Lynbrook Road
