Table of Contents
The Select Board met Monday to review proposed bylaw revisions and vote positions on warrant articles for the spring Town Meeting scheduled to open April 28 with a record 56 articles.
Town Counsel Jay Talerman provided a detailed legal analysis of the Government Regulations Committee’s proposed general bylaw changes, working through chapters methodically while raising concerns about practical implementation.
“I’m not begrudging them the effort, but I have been worried from the beginning about tinkering, because we know that tinkering is kind of the death knell to bylaws on Town Meeting floor,” Talerman said. “When that kind of discussion happens, it usually leads to indefinite postponement or commit or refer or laying on the table.”
The comprehensive review, which began with Chapter 1 definitions and Chapter 2 Town Meeting procedures, revealed both minor language modernization and more substantive changes that sparked extensive board discussion.
Board member Bill McGonigle expressed particular concern about the expanded definition of “town officer” under Chapter 1, suggesting it exceeded traditional understanding.
“An officer is a very important person. Officers, when you have that title, when you have that designation, you can bind the body that you represent,” McGonigle said.
McGonigle expressed broader concerns about consistency throughout the bylaws, noting that inconsistencies create opportunities for “bad actors” to find problematic gaps.
“Consistency throughout your bylaws and statutes is incredibly important, and when you find inconsistencies, that’s the litigators playground,” McGonigle said. “We don’t get a lot of opportunities to really go through this, and we have to make sure we’re doing it right, especially if we’re not going to do it again for 10 years.”
Talerman acknowledged the concern, but noted his approach was ensuring definitions weren’t in direct conflict with existing laws.
Chapter 2 issues
The most significant concerns emerged regarding Chapter 2 changes, particularly the proposal to extend document preparation timelines from 10 to 13 days before Town Meeting.
“We are working our tails off within a week to get stuff done,” Talerman said. “To try and get this done within 13 days is a lot.”
Chair Michelle Prior warned this requirement could significantly disrupt the town’s budget process, as the Finance Committee typically distributes the budget on the first night of Town Meeting under the current seven-day process for financial articles.
Another contentious change was the new requirement for financial impact statements for all warrant articles.
“Not every single article has a financial impact,” Talerman noted, suggesting the requirement adds “complexity and lack of certainty to the process” and would be especially burdensome for citizen petitioners lacking resources to develop accurate financial projections.
The proposal to switch from Robert’s Rules of Order to “Town Meeting Time” as parliamentary procedure generated substantial debate. Talerman, who disclosed being one of six authors of Town Meeting Time, advocated for the change.
“It’s easy for me, because I do this all the time, to say it’s a much superior document, and everyone will benefit from it, but it’s new,” he said. “There are specific chapters and sections in Town Meeting Time that apply specifically to representative town meetings. You just can’t find that in Robert’s.”
Town Manager Beth Rudolph inquired about transition processes in other towns, with Talerman noting most municipalities had switched based on recommendations without extensive study, often due to frustration with applying Robert’s Rules to Town Meeting situations.
After approximately 40 minutes of discussion, the board decided to postpone further review of the bylaw revisions, with Prior suggesting she and McGonigle would meet with Talerman before their next meeting to identify non-controversial changes suitable for a consent agenda.
Warrant approvals
The board then shifted focus to voting on several capital warrant articles, approving multiple transfers and borrowing authorizations including:
- Article 4, adopting updated floodplain district boundaries required for National Flood Insurance Program compliance
- Article 10, approving transfers totaling over $450,000 from free cash to supplement fiscal year 2025 budgets for unemployment, health insurance, Medicare taxes, and snow removal operations
- Articles 16-18 approving various capital projects, including authorizing $1.5 million for the Woodside Road pumping station and $800,000 for Cambridge Street infrastructure work
Select Board member Michael Bettencourt announced a significant amendment to his Article 28 citizen’s petition, increasing funding from $100,000 to $455,000 for a literacy pilot initiative.
“The request is to pull it out of the school budget and put it into this literacy pilot initiative,” Bettencourt explained, noting this approach would distinguish one-time expenses from recurring operational costs.
Comptroller Stacie Ward provided clarification regarding funding mechanisms, explaining, “Strategic maintenance is packaged as an FY26 ask so we’d have the money July 1, if that would be enough time.”
The board also discussed urgent maintenance issues at Muraco Elementary School following a letter from parents.
Sandy George, chair of the Muraco Elementary School Parents Association, addressed the board regarding rodents, foundation cracks and carpeting issues.
“We realize that the school is on track to rebuild at some point. So spending $20,000 to $30,000 per room we completely understand is not really realistic,” George said. “But if we can find a solution that, for instance, could be a large enough area rug that could cover all the location in a classroom where the chairs are going in and out, we are fine with that.”
The board discussed potential funding sources, including leftover bond proceeds from previous school repairs, with member Paras Bhayani noting, “This asset does have to survive another five to six years.”
What’s next
Winchester’s Spring Town Meeting opens April 28 with a a 56 articles on the warrant, including the extensive bylaw revisions, capital requests and budget matters. The budget won’t be considered until at least the second night of Town Meeting.
McGonigle urged the Government Regulations Committee to consider withdrawing controversial bylaw revisions to save valuable Town Meeting time.
“I would plead with the Government Regulations Committee that if they have revisions that look to be incredibly controversial, they take the initiative to withdraw them ahead of Town Meeting,” he said.
Bettencourt countered the extensive work deserved consideration, saying, “There has been a lot of work done here, and I don’t want to kind of throw the baby out with the bath water.”
Prior suggested focusing on identifying which bylaw changes could be grouped as non-controversial, adding, “Let’s just go through and maybe for our next meeting have a summary of some changes that we think are non-controversial.”
The board scheduled additional meetings before Town Meeting to finalize recommendations on remaining articles and develop presentation strategies for the complex warrant.
