I agree pride, severa of my neighbors voted no because they can't stand the current "leaders", when I explained it to them they were horrified but fear not, all those people that just got duped have another bite at the apple at Town Meeting (and I suspect the place will be packed with real angry voters who don't like having their intelligence insulted!)

danoconnell wrote:

Yes...interesting how the question was non-binding.

I'm guessing only the legislative branch (Town Meeting) has authority under the charter to reform or amend the charter.

Yes.  And remember too that, unlike non-binding questions, warrant articles are required under law to NOT be worded in a confusing manner and are subject to outside review and challenge if necessary.

That said, regardless of the outcome of today's non-binding question, there is plenty of time between now and fall Town Meeting to make sure voters are informed about the advantages/disadvantages of a switch to a mayoral/city council form of government.

It's already on the spring warrant in binding form?  Wow, didn't know that.  Unbelievable that the current power brokers would contemplate ramming through a change of this magnitude without sufficient time for debate.

P-SPAN wrote:

the CRC needs to show the "town" is supportive of it (beyond TM) if/when it went to the state legislature.

If it gets that far, then the obvious thing to do would be to get Susan Gifford-Williams to oppose it, on the theory that legislators tend not to go against their fellows on strictly internal district matters.

But let's work to kill it before it gets that far.  In years past I have viewed the both weak yet unaccountable BOS/Town Admin executive system and the ponderous Town Meeting legislative process as cumbersome and slow to respond to issues as they appear, but at this time there is no way we can chance one of the incumbents being handed four years at the top of the pyramid.