Non-Binding Vote To Replace Town Meeting With Town Council Defeated

It was always going to be a tall order.

Despite all the complaints about the drawbacks of the island's open Town Meeting, asking voters to replace the traditional one-person-one-vote system with a new Town Council form of government was, as expected, an uphill battle. And that was just how it played out on Saturday during the 2025 Annual Town Meeting.

The day began with a non-binding "sense of the meeting" question developed by the Town Council Study Committee, which had been convening for the past two years:

"To see if the Town will vote to direct the Town Council Study Committee to propose a Charter Revision in the form of a Home Rule Petition to be voted on at a future Town Meeting which would create a Town Council/Town Manager Form of Government; or to take any other action relative thereto."

Town Meeting voters responded with a resounding "No." The final vote was:

• Yes: 251

• No: 477

"This system works well," said Amy Eldridge. "I like being able to come here and speak my mind in front of everyone. I don’t want to lose the option to be able to have this form of government. Stay the course as usual."

But members of the Town Council Study Committee made their case to voters on Saturday, and one member in particular - Beau Barber - offered a pointed critique of the island's current system of government as he endorsed the shift to a town council. 

We are printing Barber's full remarks below:

"Having worked for the Town of Nantucket as a firefighter, I can assure you that the Town has its own institutional prerogatives. To name a few- benefits, incentives, pensions, and the inherent drive of bureaucracies toward self-preservation and expansion. These internal priorities often conflict with the needs of the public.

While the Executive, or in this town, the Town Manager and Select Board, does have discretion in how laws are implemented, compelling it to act against its own institutional or ideological interests is not a matter of administrative process—it is a matter of negotiation.

And under the principle of separation of powers, the Executive’s role is clear: to enforce the laws created by the Legislature. When it refuses to do so, we are left with one powerful tool: the power of the purse.

We control the budget. And with that authority come two responsibilities:

To ensure the laws passed by this body are respected and implemented.

To ensure that taxpayer dollars are used wisely.

Our job does not end with a vote. We must use our leverage—particularly with the operations budget, Article 8—which we have, year after year, routinely rubber-stamped.

If negotiation is the key to good governance—and if the Executive has access to legal counsel, public relations professionals, and a centralized organizational structure—then we must ask:

Do we, the Legislature, have the tools to engage as equals?

Do we have legal representation?
Oversight committees?
Centralized leadership?
Appointment power?
Organizational capacity?

The answer is no.

Meanwhile, the Executive here on Nantucket is a small but well-resourced group with both administrative and, in the current system, quasi-legislative authority. It drafts articles. It controls appointments. It exercises broad discretion in how our laws are implemented. And it has the legal and financial capacity to shape legislation before it even reaches this room.

Let me give you an example.

Last year, this body passed a bylaw requiring the Town of Nantucket to comply with Massachusetts’ Paid Family and Medical Leave law. The executive branch—our Select Board and Town Manager—refused to implement it, citing various reasons.

Here is another.

Curtis Barnes’ article establishing our group—the Town Council Study Committee—was passed by Town Meeting as written. And yet, one year later, the Select Board attempted to alter the spirit of that legislation. They pressured the committee to broaden its scope and study other forms of government, suggesting that if we did not comply, funding for our consulting fees—over which they presumably have control—could be withheld.

The point is this: if laws passed here in the Legislature are not executed, then either there is a failure in communication between the two branches, or our legislative authority is not merely weakened—it is performative.

In short: the Executive is already strong—perhaps too strong.
And the Legislature, by contrast, meets only once or twice a year to ratify laws that may or may not ever be enforced.

What we are proposing is straightforward:

To strengthen the Legislature so that it can serve as the necessary counterbalance to executive power. It needs to be a source of friction that leads to accountability and better governance.

The Executive has been institutionalized. So must we.

We need a structure that provides oversight, continuity, and accountability—not just at Town Meeting, but year-round. This structure already exists in municipalities across the country. In fact, over 40 percent of towns and cities in the U.S. have adopted it, and for good reason.

We are proposing a transition to the Town Council/Town Manager form of government.

This model provides:

A professional, year-round legislative body.

Standing committees with focus, time, and authority.

True and transparent oversight of a powerful Executive branch.

A structure in which the laws passed in this room are not merely recommendations—they are mandates.

This is not a radical idea.
It is a measured, modern, and practical response to a growing imbalance.
It reflects the realities of governing in the 21st century.

And let me be clear: this is not about politics.
It’s about accountability.

The people of Nantucket deserve a government that works for them—not around them.

That begins with a Legislature that is not symbolic, but central.
Not sidelined, but strong.
Not ceremonial, but serious.

Let’s make that happen."