Entering its fifth night on Wednesday, Town Meeting rejected several major  proposals by the Charter Review Committee that would have drastically impacted the format of Town Meeting,  the makeup of the Board of Selectmen, the School Committee, and the committee which appoints non-elected officials.

The results revealed skepticism about the motivations behind the Charter proposals. Several opponents of articles suggested - and suggested more and more explicitly as the night went on - that the proposed articles would severely reduce the power of Town Meeting and limit voter involvement by transferring responsibility to a smaller group of individuals.

The Charter Review Committee (CRC) has repeatedly insisted that they are trying to expand participation in government and voter involvement.  Nevertheless, they have felt the need to repeatedly urge voters to listen to their ideas with an open mind.

But with memories of rejecting the committee's proposal this spring to replace Town Meeting with a mayoral-and-town-council system, Town Meeting was wary about accepting any of the committee's proposals that would substantively alter its power.

The first and most narrowly divided decision involved debate of an article that would allow articles scheduled to be addressed by Town Meeting be placed on a ballot if petitioned by 50 registered voters prior to Town Meeting, and 25 registered voters during Town Meeting.

The CRC proposed that that the measure would be more representative because the most important issues in town would be decided in an election, which sees greater voter turnout than Town Meeting and incorporates a more diverse and representative electorate - including those who work nights, the elderly, and others who cannot attend Town Meeting in the evenings.

"It gives time for more people to research issues, become informed on issues, and makes it more likely that people voting will make an informed decision," said committee member Mick Jones in presenting the article.

The article caused significant debate.  One of the key points of disagreement was whether Town Meeting was too difficult to attend for many citizens.  Proponents argued it was, particularly for the elderly and working families, opponents of the change argued that those who attended were more committed and knowledgeable legislators.  Opponents were loathe to "argue against the ballot," as School Committee Member Geoff Swett remarked, but there were also disagreements as to whether this article was the best way to a more representative electorate.

"Let's preserve the integrity of Town Meeting. We're all intelligent enough to know this has come before us before and now it comes before us in a different form," said Finance Committee Chair Donna Bronk, suggesting that the article was an attempt to accomplish some of the goals of the previous mayor-and-town-council proposal.  "Town Meeting works if you allow it to work."

This underlying suspicion also appeared in debate over a soundly rejected proposal to increase the Board of Selectmen from five to seven members, with six members of the board elected to represent each town precinct and one at-large member.

Charter Review Committee Member Jack Houton said the committee believed that increasing the number of selectmen would be more efficient and having selectmen representative of precincts would be more responsive to the needs of citizens.

"This expands voter participation and voter power," added fellow committee member Ed Pacewicz.

But several opponents pointed out that such a method would limit the voter's ability to express approval or disapproval of Selectmen actions by restricting voting to a precinct and at-large candidate, allowing voters to vote for tonly wo of the seven selectman candidates.

"What this does, it virtually diminishes your vote, because it has people representing you, and yet you don't have the ability to vote for those people who are making those decisions," said School Committee Member Cliff Sylvia.

"Does this mean that five selectmen don't care what I think?" asked resident Kathleen Shields.

After resident Frank DeFelice received no response from Charter Committee representatives as to whether any other towns had "seven officials elected by precinct called selectmen...or are they called councilors?" Town Meeting quickly rejected the article, not even considering an amendment to remove the precinct requirement and simply expand the board to seven selectmen.

Sensing the mood of the voters, Charter Review Chairman Alan Slavin withdrew the next article - a proposal to expand the School Committee from five  to seven members with representatives of each precinct and the Chairman of the Board of Selectmen as the seventh member.

Town Meeting rejected the final article Wednesday, which sought to replace the appointing authority - a group currently consisting of the chair of the Board of Selectmen, the Town Moderator, and the chair of the committee to which the appointment is being made - with the Board of Selectmen.

Proponents argued that the Board of Selectmen are the elected executives of the town and were the most responsible to voters, and they should have sole responsibility to make important appointments to boards such as the Finance Committee, the Planning Board and other key town boards.

"The biggest problem is that there is an individual on [the appointing authority] who is not elected," said committee member Pacewicz, arguing that elected officials are thus more accountable to their constituency.

While others believed that having a non-elected official - especially when that official is the chair of the board to which a person is being appointed - made the appointment process more independent and less political.

Finance Committee member Frank Heath argued that this would take away the power of Town Meeting and put it in the hands of the Board of Selectmen, because they would be in charge of appointments.

This reasoning confused some, however.

"You can't have it both ways," said resident Sheila Monaghan.  "You elect them, you elect them to the best of their ability.  We have to get our act together, do we trust them or not?"