Personally a unanimous vote does not surprise me one bit. Whether or not an individual selectman wants this is a non issue. Every selectman should want the voters to have a say.I think any major issue should ultimately go to town meeting whether the selectman think so or not.

I do respect and appreciate all of the hard work and research the SACC has put into this but at the end of the day the voters will show up and the majority will be heard. It is ironic that a major issue like this,abolishing an open town meeting, will bring out people to town meeting and show that it does work.All forms of town government work,with pros and cons involved in every one.But the people will decide.

This "issue" didn't exist until the Charter committee made it one and took on a life of its own. There's an old business saying: "Find a need and fill it." Well the Charter committee went way beyond it to this other saying: "Create a need and fill it.".

Scott Wilson quote: ""I think that’s a good thing for the residents," said Wilson. "A lot of residents that I've talked to have said they want to have their say.""

Well then where were they? 2 showed up supporting this Charter at the two public meetings. Many many many more showed up against it. I thought the people did have their say.

I find it the ultimate irony that suddenly, they want to hear everyone's voice, before they silence them.

As far as your points, Bob,…
This "issue" didn't exist until the Charter committee made it one and took on a life of its own. There's an old business saying: "Find a need and fill it." Well the Charter committee went way beyond it to this other saying: "Create a need and fill it."…. HOW DID THE CHARTER COMMITTEE CREATE A NEED WHEN OUR OWN MA GENERAL LAWS SUGGEST THAT A REVIEW SHOULD BE DONE EVERY TEN YEARS? LET’S NOT FORGET IT’S BEEN 26 YEARS.
Scott Wilson quote: ""I think that’s a good thing for the residents," said Wilson. "A lot of residents that I've talked to have said they want to have their say.""
Well then where were they? 2 showed up supporting this Charter at the two public meetings. Many many many more showed up against it. I thought the people did have their say. – WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF? IT’S GOING TO PUBLIC VOTE SHOULDN’T YOU BE SINGING TO THE ROOFTOPS?
I find it the ultimate irony that suddenly, they want to hear everyone's voice, before they silence them. – AGAIN, WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF? YOU SEEM ADAMENT THAT IF THE PUBLIC HAS IT’S SAY IT WILL BE QUELLED AT THAT LEVEL, SO IF THEY DO HEAR EVERYONE’S VOICES, THAT YOU IMPLY WILL KILL THIS, HOW WOULD THEY SILENCE ANYONE’S VOICE?

Bob, being a hypocritical windbag doesn't help this "issue", and certainly does not sway anyone towards Open Town Meeting. One would think your only responce to this headline would be "Oh Good". The Charter Committee was assigned the task to review the 3 forms of Town Government available to them and suggest what would be a logical suggestion to keep this Town moving forward. They put in a lot more hours than any of us did, I believe they truly feel that a Council would be best for this Town due to their investigation. I don't have to agree with their suggestion, neither does anyone else. I have studied the hand outs, reviewed the changes of becoming a Council opposed to Open Town Meeting, spoken to selectmen on both sides of this debate, asked many questions, got answers, and come to MY OWN OPINION of whether or not I would like the change.

I did not attend either of the Town Meetings regarding the proposed changes due to personal conflicts. I watched them on television; I’ve read all the articles and read all the replies. I do not wish to give up my voice to 9 council members who may or may not take my opinion into consideration when deciding on votes. That said… get off of you high horse (or another member of the equine family) and realize that the SACC has done what was requested of them and presented it to us. (continued...)

If they (the SACC) only did the review and did not make any suggestion, or suggested a change, or suggested we remain OTM without anything to back that up, you, and others, would still tie them to the whipping post and suggest they are hiding something. If it was not reviewed at all, as it should have been many moons ago, it would be said that they are hiding something else.

Now, the Selectmen, as a whole, have given us the ability to voice our individual opinions on this matter. Hopefully everyone has done their homework, if not; there is still plenty of time to do so. All of the information is available on line and at the Town Hall. I have found that most of our selectmen in Town are quite approachable and have always given me the time and consideration to answer my questions (some of which are due to my own ignorance) without “bashing” someone in opposition to their position on the matter. One last point… everyone was patting each other on the back at these Town Meetings to discuss the potential changes… give me a break! Some of the animosity shown to the SACC for their many many hours of dedication to this appeared to me to be a slap in the face. Some of those who were acting that way supposedly have some “clout” in Town (or believe themselves to, anyway), what a shame. JMO

Ms. Nagle, without getting in the middle of your discussion with Mr. Ferrari, I just want to let you know that there is no requirement, or suggestion, in MA General Laws that a town review its charter every 10 years. I have questioned this for months and Mr. Wilson confirmed that there is no such requirement at the public hearing last week. There is a state law that requires the town to reprint its charter every 10 years so that residents may get a copy of it if they want it, but there is no requirement for a review. Those who stated for many months during this process that there was such a requirement were mistaken.

All the best,

Keith Rauseo
Town Moderator

Jennifer...well said. Regardless of which side of the issue one is on, why would anyone be "afraid" of a vote by the people? It has been strange to hear Bob Ferrari and his TI Pals say how fearful they are of government and that they don't trust Board of Selectmen to vote the right way...or better yet, the "Good Ol' Boys" back at in again. When they say this what are they basing those assertions on? Our current for of government, OTM! So, when a commissioned committee comes on to suggest a different way, they say "no, way, we don't trust government. Huh? The proposal provides for each voting district to have representation and are subject to election every 3 years. I am going to reveal a secret to Mr. Ferrari and his coverts. If you don't like your representative, don't vote for him the next time. WOW...earth shattering revelation. Here is another tid bit Bob. If you like how your representative is working for you...you vote for him again! WOW! That is pretty cool. Hard to imagine right? So, if the Open Town Meeting is the best way to govern, why is it only done in the New England states? Why don't we run Washington as an open town meeting. We could fill the Tsongas Arena, Foxboro Stadium, and TMHS Gymnasium...link it all together electronically and have a big gathering with everyone voicing their say as the purest form of democracy? Probably would not work. The world has evolved and so should we. JMO

I heard Mr. Wilson say that it was not a requirement but as with a privately owned buisness it is a good idea to review every 10 years.Deciding which is the best way to govern is not an exact science as opinions of everybody are involved. But the majority of the people will decide.

test

I think the disappointing thing to many of us residents (and contrary to popular belief that it's "just me and Bob F.") was that after all the hype made on BOTH sides of the issue especially most recently......that we were expecting a clear, open vote by the BOS last night on whether or not to send it to Town Mtg. FIRST, given the outcome at the public hearings and questions of last minute changes to the document in terms of it being ready. Instead, the way it went down seemed to be a foregone conclusion going into the meeting and THAT aspect (whether or not to send it to TM) was never voted on nor discussed publicly. To have just jumped into a discussion of when to schedule the Town Mtg. (as opposed to if) after Mr. Wilson was allowed to speak first and subsequently made the motion appeared to circumvent the issue people were expecting to be expounded upon last night and then to have turned around into a unanimous vote from what it had been just a couple of weeks ago was surprising.

Jennifer Bagle, please reread your post: "AGAIN, WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF? YOU SEEM ADAMENT THAT IF THE PUBLIC HAS IT’S SAY IT WILL BE QUELLED AT THAT LEVEL, SO IF THEY DO HEAR EVERYONE’S VOICES, THAT YOU IMPLY WILL KILL THIS, HOW WOULD THEY SILENCE ANYONE’S VOICE?"

If this Charter passes, the townspeople will be voting to silence their own voices. They will be replaced by nine representatives in their steed, each of which will "represent" 1/9 of the voters in town. Not sure why that is so hard to understand. Of course you may be one of those few that will benefit from nine people controlling the town....

Apparently Jennifer Bagle wasn't at the two SACC public hearings. Two people out of the 40 spoke FOR the Charter change. Yet Mr. Wilson states that all kinds of people want their say. Well where they. The people HAVE ALREADY spoken.

I do not fear words, I fear bad decisions based on misinformation (remember the Mega Mall vote). You can call me all the names you want Jennifer Bagle, if you are so angry, then TewksburyIssues.org must be doing something right. Stay involved.

Keith Rauseo, Thanks for point out that Jennifer Bagle was wrong about the 10 years requirement. She is too busy spewing verbal diarrhea. But we wont let the facts get in the way, lol.

Mr. Ferrari, I don't think that calling people names is the way to go when you are writing a blog. Just because TI is full of venum please do not try to make Patch that way. Why can't you be civil in your blogs?

Excuse me Kathleen? Who wrote this then?: ""Bob, being a hypocritical windbag doesn't help this "issue", and certainly does not sway anyone towards Open Town Meeting.""

Someone is angry at me for having an opinion apparently, not that I care though. Anger means that someone is paying attention and getting involved. That is all I care about and has been the prime mission of TI since April 2000, to get people involved.

You are angry at me because someone else called me names. I await your inevitable correction/edit of your message....

Well, then. Let me introduce to you Ms. Jennifer Nagle.

As I add myself to this wonderful string of conversations andI do so with respect to all that worked so hard to bring this Charter document to the place where it should be (as of right now). There has been some question’s as to how it got to where it is, but the bottom line now is that, it is where it is, and the people now have no choice but to figure out the next step. I noticed the first line in this article read: “Stronach goes public with opposition to SACC proposal for a town council but says the decision must be made by the voters, not the selectmen”. Well, let me just say I was taken back when I heard her speak to that last night and make and outright effort to respond to a question that was asked during a listen only meeting the prior week. This was not something she had to do and she may even take some heat for it, but for me it showed respect to her constituents by remembering the question, and flat out courage on her part for responding. Now it’s time for the “Towns People” to get informed, show up, and come to a decision one way or another. For those people who do not wish to get involved? Then I respectfully ask that you keep your mouth shut and do not get involved after the fact as well.

PS; What was the reason given that recomends this change? No one show's up at TM?

This post is for Bill Gilman: Would it be possible for you to try to moderate some of the tone of the discussion. The webmaster of TI can do whatever he likes on his own website, but many of us come to the Patch for civil and intelligent discussion on articles that are factually based with professional and editorial oversight.

Simon, go back up to the top of this thread and see where the "name calling" starts. Then tell us all why you think I am not being civil.

Thank you Simon, couldn't agree more......Maybe he comes to Patch because there is nothing doing on TI!

Bob,
I was addressing Bill. You think you are civil. I think you are not. The tone and rhetoric of your website is the basis of my opinion. I like the Patch and would rather it not become another TI. That is all.

Well I think if you have an ax to grind then you need to say so up front. It's OK that you do but failing so is disingenuous at best.

Jennifer Nagle, of Krochmeal Farm fame and friend and supporter of Scott Wilson. No problem with that but just so you know.

Jennifer Nagle despises Tewksbury Issues, an early supporter of Tewksbury Odor, and so her attacks on its Web-Master are hardly shocking.

Simon Cowell is likely a Town Employee, or relative there-of, see Jennifer Nagle.

Don’t believe that some here aren’t perusing personal agendas. Some on Tewksbury Issues are not, were not, who they claimed to be, the infamous Hackleberry for one.

I’m sure the same applies to the Patch as well.

I thought this smelled funny. Thank you Who Me for clearing this up, and sorry to the other legitimate readers on here that this thread got so derailed by all of this.

Bill Gilman: The tone of this and direction of the story has started to get off subject and nasty mybe a word from you can get it back on track

Apologies Bill and others... sometimes I just get going. I'll stop the back and forth out of respect to all who use this website. I was wrong to let myself go this far with off topic rhetoric.

Jennifer....no worries.....there were some really good discussions and posts about this issue and it was very informative. We certainly appreciate the posters from TI on the Patch but it does change the dynamic. It's probably one of the reasons that people don't post on TI anymore and they would rather get their information from the Patch.

That and the fact that your posts don't mysteriously disappear here.

Not that it really matters now.....but since it was brought up AGAIN I will state this again: A "suggestion"/recommendation does not equal a new charter hot off the presses and ready to be implemented. The SACC's MISSION STATEMENT was the former not the latter. As to the investigation into at least the viability of Representative Town Mtg. which would have been the LOGICAL next step up from OTM and more palatable in many peoples' minds.....I have a couple of informed and involved friends who are actually Town Mtg. Representatives in Billerica (which was supposedly one of the Towns talked with/investigated by the SACC and I did some informational sleuthing of my own) who found it hard to believe that their Town Clerk (a TM advocate) would have discouraged RTM as less preferable and in general found it odd that our Town would even consider jumping from OTM to a Town Council without that interim step. Just because it (RTM) would have involved "more work" to implement isn't an excuse to discard it in my book. Has to make you wonder.

Jim has made more than a few disparaging remarks about TI on here. Again, we must be doing something right. And BillVill was involved in our little fiasco a few weeks back about a message being deleted and multiple users same person making such accusations. It is refreshing that TI gets so much acknowledgement.

The Patch is a real newspaper, TI is a discussion board. Glad we are both part of the community.

Bob, I appreciate the Patch for their news and discussions and used to like TI for their political discussion. As more people became disenchanted with TI, the political
conversations changed. I still use it a resource for other things going on in Tewksbury so I didn't mean my comments to come across as disparaging. That was not my intent.

Jennifer in response to my opinion you wrote; I have never asked that specific question as I am under the impression that the BOS set up the SACC to review the 3 forms of government and make a suggestion to them. They made the suggestion of Council based on their reviews, input from other towns / cities, input from local Town Officials, (and yes, I am sure the fact that very few show up for Town Meetings is another reasoning).

I guess I have no option but to ask, if the SACC was to review the 3 forms of government and make a suggestion to them, then we should of had 3 three suggestions to choose from. Did they flat out reject the other two forms and suggest one?
Believe me when I say I came into the process a little late and I'm not going to nor do I wish to stink up the place now, but it would seem to me that a simple question like,

What was the reason given that recomends this change?

Should have been everyones first question because it is after all the only one that needs to have a serious discussion on.

Last but not least... one other question that I asked was "Were you interested in "doing away with" OTM or was this something you just wanted to be involved in for the process?" The answer was: "I am most interested in providing the residents an alternative to OTM because many feel it is not a good way to conduct business. However, it is a form of government that works – just as a council would work. They both have different positives and negatives. I think OTM is a “fine” form of government. I think the Council can be a great form of government. When we started the process our goal was to understand the 3 forms and make a recommendation. At the end of the process, it was clear that the committee felt the Council as an improvement."
Hopefully this helps you.... it did for me (although I couldn't begin to cut and paste the entire e-mail that I requested info for along with the answers here... too long.. sorry).

Wow guys, I take a few hours off to tend to my sick dog and things get a little dicey here on the playground. OK, let's take a step back. Jen, your apology is accepted. Bob, we've talked and you know where I'm at in terms of the tone of things.
As a general rule, I dont want to see any people be personally attacked and it's probably not necessary to attack any other sites.
Now trust me, over the next couple of months there will be PLENTY of debate over this warrant article. As I mentioned to a few people last night, the irony is that you will have a huge crowd and a passionate debate on both sides .... all the best things about Town Meeting.
I'm enjoying the debate. Let's not let things get out of hand. At this point, the main issue is not how we got here but where we are going. What type of government do we want our grandchildren to inherit in this town.
Oh and Jen, that direct question to Stronach had been asked by a resident at the second public hearing. He asked each of the selectmen where they stood on the charter proposal.

Though it's a moot point now...does anyone else feel as though the Representative Town Mtg. Form was not explored nor vetted as thoroughly as it should have been as the LOGICAL next step up from OTM and far more palatable in many residents' minds over a Town Council as to retaining SOME control/power rather than nine people being in charge? I have a couple of informed and involved friends who are actually Town Mtg. Representatives in Billerica (which was supposedly one of the Towns talked with/investigated by the SACC and I did some informational sleuthing of my own) who found it hard to believe that their Town Clerk (a TM advocate) would have discouraged RTM as less preferable and in general found it odd that our Town would even consider jumping from OTM to a Town Council without that interim step. Just because it (RTM) would have involved "more work" to implement isn't an excuse to discard it in my book. And again, even in Jennifer's above comment in an answer provided by an actual SACC member in their own words....there's that word "recommendation" ....no where in the mission statement was it commissioned to draft a whole charter favoring a Town Council along with it. Has to make you wonder.

"Karyn".....I had many discussions with Selectman Wilson about RTM (I'm sure more than he wanted) because from a process perspective it was as close to what our Founding Fathers set up when we became a constitutional republic. The issue was in the execution and RTM was the least recommended form of government after the SACC was finished talking with other communities and reviewing the research. Their recommendation has come about from many hours of research, discussions and feedback from residents and neighboring communities. With their town council recommendation, they actually borrowed some of the key components of RTM by having elected representatives for each part of town as well as at-large representatives.

Sorry, but you merely saying it was thoroughly researched because you talked with Mr. Wilson doesn't convince me it was. I don't believe any evidence of such was brought forth at any of the hearings other than the committee's say so and as I said, I did my own research. Merely wondering if it came across that way to anyone else. Also, to me, having a couple of councilor reps from a certain part of town does not equate with several 'regular resident' reps from each precinct. In any case it's a moot point as I said before and IMO nothing can take the place of Open Town Mtg. where each individual's vote is theirs and theirs alone.

Ok....thanks "Karyn". I appreciate your thoughts.

I think it is time this town moved away from OTM and went to council. So few people showed up the meeting to discuss the board's proposal that it can not be taken as a true measurement of the town's feeling. The people I talk with, fellow parents, do not have time to go to town meetings, we cannot get childcare, we work. This town is too large for such an outdated form of government. It is time to update. Let it go to the polls.

I am a poster on TI, and I hope that my presence here doesn't "change the dynamic" of Patch... please let's stop with the generalizations.

I moved out of the city to get away from city councils run amok.

Since I'm new in Town, what is the voting procedure? How does one prove eligibility?

Unfortunately if you are not already registered to vote...it is probably too late for this time. I would pay a visit to Town Hall and while there you could pick up a warrant which has the articles and Town Mtg. procedural information and terms. But in the meantime, I think you could still "attend" Town Mtg. as a "visitor" and you would at least get a feel for proceedings but would not be able to vote. The TM workers would give you a different color ribbon and you would sit in the designated "visitors" section of the TMHS gym. Never too late to take an interest. Good luck.

I'm registered to vote at my current address....is that all?

I'll be there...