Community Voices: Why I’m Skeptical About Launching a Charter Study

I’ve served on the nonpartisan school board, first as a member in 2023, and then as board president in 2024. That progression changed how effective I could be — and why I’m wary of diverting a year into a charter study.

What the charter study would do (briefly)

A commission would examine Millburn’s current form of government, compare alternatives (including partisan vs. nonpartisan elections), and issue recommendations that could later go to voters. It’s a legitimate tool — but not always the right one, right now.

What I learned in 2023: structure didn’t overcome misalignment

In 2023 I was just a board member, and I wasn’t effective. Not because I lacked ideas or effort, but because there wasn’t alignment. Even when colleagues agreed on the goal, we diverged on how to get there. In a nonpartisan setting, every important vote demanded bespoke coalition-building: one-on-one calls, committee pre-work, memos to explain options, and a lot of cajoling. That’s hours every week for volunteers with day jobs, spent manufacturing consensus instead of delivering outcomes.

I learned the hard way: form doesn’t substitute for alignment.

What changed in 2024: alignment first, outcomes followed

After the November 2023 election, three new members who shared a clear vision joined the board. In January 2024, with their support, I became board president. The difference was immediate. We could prioritize, assign, and execute because the alignment existed before we sat at the dais. I don’t overstate my role — I was a spark at the right time — but the lesson is unmistakable: progress followed preexisting alignment, not a change in structure.

The nonpartisan vs. partisan trade-off as I lived it

• Nonpartisan removes party labels and can lower the temperature. But it also removes a major coordination device. Without a platforming mechanism, each decision starts from scratch, and the transaction costs pile up.
• Partisan systems supply coordination and infrastructure — shared platforms, policy help, volunteers, and colleagues who arrive broadly aligned. That can free time for oversight and delivery. The risk is importing national polarization into local work.

People often say nonpartisan elections boost participation. My experience and the numbers I’ve reviewed suggest that turnout tracks timing and salience more than labels. Off-cycle or low-visibility contests draw fewer voters, which weakens accountability over time. If participation is the real concern, you can tackle it directly (e.g., election-date alignment, better voter information) without reopening the charter.

The real costs of launching a study

• Opportunity cost. A commission means campaigns for commissioners, months of meetings, and advocacy ecosystems that form around preferred models. Meanwhile, immediate fixes — dashboards, service targets, clearer agenda materials — can slip.
• Path dependence and polarization. Once a study begins, neighbors sort into teams around structural outcomes. Even if the recommendation is “no change,” the process can harden divisions without improving daily governance.
• Capacity strain. Staff time, legal hours, and public attention are finite. A study consumes all three.

Faster levers for the outcomes people actually want

If what residents want is accountability, throughput, and participation, there are direct steps that don’t require a charter overhaul:

1. Visibility: publish simple “what we decided and why” memos after major votes; maintain a live tracker pairing goals, owners, and milestones.
2. Throughput: time-box committee work; require written option memos with pros/cons; set default calendars so decisions don’t drift.
3. Participation: align election timing with higher-turnout dates; standardize side-by-side candidate statements and Q&A windows before key votes.
4. Accountability: quarterly scorecards on services and projects, linked to roll-call votes.

Bottom line: I’m not opposed to studying structure in principle. I’m opposed to doing it now, when the problems people feel can be addressed faster with tools already on the table. In 2023, without alignment, I wasn’t effective; in 2024, with alignment, we got things done. That’s why I believe our focus should be on building alignment and executing transparently — rather than spending a year debating blueprints.