Town Meeting is a very powerful form of government. Town Meeting gives the decision making power to the people who attend Town Meeting.

Some people mistakenly believe the BOS can circumvent Town Meeting votes. That is not true. The votes taken at Town Meeting are the marching orders for the BOS to carry out over the course of the next fiscal year.

The BOS gathers and submits warrant articles for Town Meeting approval from all town departments. These warrant articles need approval from Town Meeting in order to be carried out…the marching orders. If an article is defeated at Town Meeting the BOS can NOT override that vote by Town Meeting. If an operating budget is defeated at Town Meeting, the BOS can NOT sign off on any vendor warrants for that department, because Town Meeting said so.

When the Water Commissioners assert the vote at Town Meeting for the water budget is non-binding, the commissioners are correct…up to a point. The vote is non-binding on THEM - as Commissioners. The vote at Town Meeting IS binding on the BOS. The BOS must abide by the votes taken at Town Meeting. Town Meeting defeated Article 12 :

Article 12 To see if the Town will vote the sum of One Million Four Hundred Seven Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Eight Dollars ($1,407,378.00) to operate the Water Department, which sum is to be raised from water receipts, or to take any other action relative thereto.

Submitted by the Board of Selectmen

by a vote of 141 NO to 118 YES.

The BOS have sent this LETTER to the Water Commissioners in order to try to resolve this problem. The purpose of this letter is to meet and try to come to some agreement on a water budget. That new article can beg re-submitted for the Special Town Meeting in June.

It appears the BOS is willing to come to an agreement that is in the best interest of the TOWNSPEOPLE. Can the same be said of the Water Commissioners?

My opinions…supported by FACTS ! !

Julie Farrell

This post makes for an interesting dilemma; do selectmen listen to town meeting vote? 2007 annual town report, page 219-220, article 39;"to see if Town will raise, vote........$140,000.00 for a six wheel dump truck for highway dept......." On a motion duly made and seconded the town voted to raise and appropriate sum of $140,000.00 to purchase and equip a six wheel dump truck for highway; provided, the appropriation authorized hereunder shall be expressly contingent upon  the approval by the voters of a capital expenditure exclusion ballot question pursuant to prop 2 1/2, so called. Passed May 16 @ 9:24

annual town report 2008, page 113, question 4 on ballot; shall the town of Templeton be allowed to assess an additional $140,000.00 in real estate and personal property taxes for the purpose of purchasing and equipping a 6 wheel dump truck for the highway dept. for fiscal year beginning July 1, 2007. The question failed; 145 yes and 455 no. So, when an article passes at Town meeting with the contingency attachment that this yes vote must be accompanied by a yes vote at the ballot, then the ballot vote turns out to be a no vote and the selectmen then vote to use chapter 90 monies to buy the piece of equipment that the voters said no to, have or are the selectmen actually following Town meeting vote? I contend that if a Town meeting vote has a contingency attached, that is Town meeting vote and so when the ballot does not meet the contingency of Town meeting vote and the selectmen vote to buy the equipment out of chapter 90 monies any way, is the above post correct? I ponder my own dilemma, since the Town meeting vote involved raising real estate taxes and chapter 90 money does not come from local real estate taxes, are selectmen actually going against Town meeting vote if they vote to use chapter 90 money to buy equipment that the voters said no to at the voting booth? Perhaps the best thing to do is for the state legislature to change the chapter 90 program back to its original intent and take the loop hole out.

This is an opinion piece by Jeff Bennett