Again, I would ask that why under the "significant changes to the legislative branch" on the "quick reference guide page" that no doubt many readers will focus on, it only lists the Finance committee role. The "significant change" that is MOST IMPORTANT is left out: CITIZENS LOSE THEIR INDIVIDUAL VOTE. To me that should be in bold letters in that section.

Upon further reading I would ask:

1) Where are the cost analysis and efficiency analysis between the two forms as promised in the so-called mission statement?

2) Where is the layman's terms list of simple "Pros and Cons" that was supposed to be provided?

Before people are led to believe this proposed change is the greatest thing since sliced bread....one should always remember its controversial roots and never forget the "devil is always in the details." We can't "take it back" once it's changed and bottom line..... the VOTE you LOSE by its adoption is YOUR OWN.

I've never gotten a good sense of what was even meant by a "cost analysis." Working off of your premise, Karyn, a Town Council might engage in more spending than a town meeting. But how much more? How can anyone accurately project what projects would emerge and what the cost in dollars or tax rate might be. Would a town council spur more business growth? How much is that worth? You can say that there is a cost savings by eliminating two town meetings per year ... but that might be offset by the cost of a recall election. The stipends for the council positions would be roughly the same as selectmen but you'd have more of them. But, as Doug Sears pointed out one night, you'd have significantly more work for councillors without a town meeting. On the other hand, would a town manager be able to save money on day to day business because of not having to wait for town meeting to spend $10,000 in needed repairs on a town building. So this is something I'm quite curious about ... how would one begin to conduct an objective cost analysis with something that has so many variables. Thoughts, anyone?

Hi Bill,
Most of the doc is readable on full screen except when you hit the "Summary Doc", "Quick Reference Council Proposal" & it is cutoff at the bottom in the "Where do we go from here" section....
My eyes are pretty good & I can probably get through the small print....just wondering why it was set up this way....
Just an observation....I guess I will have to pick up a hard copy or try to print it....

Dan you bring up an excellent point .... If anyone is having this problem, there is a tool in the lower left corner by which you can magnify the slides. As Dan says, the one that has the smallest print is the "summary" page.

I think that the original cost analysis was supposed to be directed to the different forms of governing bodies....what is our current form of government costing us right now? What would the other forms of government cost if adopted? There are NO costs spelled out in this document, NO analysis, NO definitive proof that this change would be beneficial to the residents/voters of Tewksbury.
If I presented this to my boss (when I worked in the finance arena), I would have been laughed out of the meeting at the very least if not reprimanded or let go.
I am sorry but if the original mission was to provide that analysis I have to pass on this idea of change. I think that we need/deserve an objective, detailed report on the three forms of government. One/two questions: What is in it for the residents/voters of Tewksbury to make this change? How does this help us going forward as a town?

DOcument view doesn't seem to be working in Google Chrome...

Document view doesn't seem to be working in Google Chrome...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouQIBgKN_9U

Could this happen here ?

Jon, what a great video! I can foresee this happening in Tewksbury. Everyone should watch it before they vote on this Special Council.

On another note these public hearing shy away from presenting a non-bias view of presenting all the options except what has already been outlined. Its the town vision of Pleasantville. Its a sales pitch touted as a public forum designed to be pitched to an audience who knows nothing about it except what has been present. Residents who peel back the onion are demonized at the podium and their concerns are dismissed as a debbie downer or cast as an antagonist .

Hello:

I think a major difference that needs more discussion is the role of the Finance Committee.

Under an Open Town Meeting system, the Finance Committee chairman makes the initial motion on every spending article.
The Finance Committee figure is almost always lower than the Town Manager/Board of Selectman figure.
The Town Meeting voters almost always approve that lower figure.
Every time the voters do that, they reduce town spending.

Under a Town Council, the Finance Committee serves as financial advisors to the Council.
Advisors have no vote.
The Town Council will have the power to continue with their own figure or accept the finance committee figure.
Every time the Town Council chooses the higher figure, they will increase town spending.

At an Open Town Meeting, voters empower the Finance Committee as fiscal watchdogs.
At a Town Council Meeting, the Finance Committee would have no vote and no power.

I want to Finance Committee to retain their position as financial watchdogs over the Town Budget.
I want to keep Open Town Meeting.

Bob Rauseo

Good points, Bob. Hope you are attending this Tuesday night. We could use another voice of reason.

Follow more of this story at:

Save Our Say

http://www.tewksburyissues.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=10027&start=30
Bob Ferrari
Webmaster of TewksburyIssues.org

Great video and certainly a glimpse at a possible future. However, the removal of a Tewksbury selectman during the "Mall Vote Open Town Meeting" was orchestrated by that very selectman. He spoke to the Officer in Charge of the detail prior to the meeting and conveyed his plan to act out enough to cause his removal. This way he didn't actually have to vote and continues to this day to portray himself as a "rebel, outsider, and anti-establishment".