Interesting reporting. Not exactly what I would call "balanced." Why does this article not mention that town counsel later corrected Mr. Guzzo and he was the one that was "wrong" Mr. Muldoon was basically correct (the final say on the budget is actually in the hands of town meeting voters, but they vote on what is presented by the BoS, NOT the FinCom). However, in this article he is made to look like a fool. Also, why is his past commentary/opinion that FinCom should be an elected board even cited here, or relevant? That was not an option on the floor. It was status qou vs. citizen's petition and he commented on the merits of the petition as he saw them. Also, no where is it mentioned that at spring town meeting Mr. Luca commented from the stage about not wanting school committee appointing FinCom members, then this fall he supported a petition that would allow exactly that? Why is Mr. Muldoon's past statement relevant and Mr. Luca's not? Why doesn't the article mention that this petition only came about after Ms. Conley was turned down, and that the process has worked before and after her nomination without incident? 4 new members have since been appointed without incident. This is especially relevant because it was the "this has never happened before" reaction when Ms. Conley was turned down that spurred all kinds of indignation. Doesn't all of this history point to the candidate that was turned down as the issue and that the process works fine seeing there was never an issue before and hasn't been one since? Of course, The Public Spirit likes to cut Mr. Luca and Ms. Conley plenty of slack because they secretly feed them information, while they go after others, such as Mr. Sullvan. Apparently now Mr. Muldoon is their sites???