Have you ever wanted to spend hours emailing Town Meeting members, scheduling meetings and waiting hours on Zoom just to have your idea brutally rejected 20 times by a committee? Try passing a Warrant Article.

Here’s a little-known fact: nuclear weapon companies make more than just nuclear weapons. They also make everyday items like thermostats, shredders, light bulbs… the list goes on. Another fact: Massachusetts law requires that all public project contracts be awarded to the lowest bidder. This means that if Honeywell (a defense contractor that produces key components for nuclear weapons) has the cheapest air purifier option, it will be awarded that contract. By awarding these companies contracts, Massachusetts municipalities would be financially supporting nuclear weapons companies – although the Northampton Procurement Officer told me there are currently no contracts with nuclear weapons manufacturers with Massachusetts municipalities.

Over the last two years, I’ve been involved with nuclear disarmament advocacy. Simply put, I believe that the longer we go without ridding the world of nuclear weapons, the greater chance there is of global nuclear annihilation. To ensure that Brookline wouldn’t have a part in supporting the nuclear weapons industry, I began working on a Warrant Article – the town’s version of a bill – last summer to disqualify nuclear weapons companies from bidding on Brookline contracts. The article is in the form of a home rule petition: a formal request from the town to the state legislature, asking for special permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal to do – that is, take bids that are not the lowest, if they’re made by nuclear weapons manufacturers. Similar initiatives had been successfully passed in Northampton, Mass. and other municipalities across America, such as Oakland, Calif., Marin County, Calif., and Takoma Park, Md. This gave me faith in the success of the petition.

In July, I cold-emailed as many Town Meeting members as I could, seeking their support and guidance. Alec Lebovitz, a Town Meeting and Advisory Committee member, responded to my email, and we began a journey to prepare for the Town Meeting in November. In August, we gathered the signatures we needed to submit the Warrant Article to Town Hall and submitted it.

Then came the meetings. When I had discussed the initiative with state representative Tommy Vitolo, he had stressed that this would be a difficult journey — not because of the effort it would take to do things like write a Warrant Article description —but because of the resistance I would face from the Town Meeting members I would be presenting to. He was correct.

While the town staff was incredibly helpful — I’ve been lucky enough to receive help from teams like the Procurement Office and the Financial Office — the Advisory Committee meeting was grueling. At the end of the meeting, members voted on my article. I was feeling a little defeated after the first few ‘no’s,’ but hopeful. That hope quickly dissipated. No, after no, almost every single member voted against my article.

While healthy opposition and constructive criticism can be greatly beneficial, outright refusal to consider an initiative can certainly break someone’s spirit. Additionally, while the ‘no’s’ I heard weren’t personal attacks on me, I was one of the lucky ones. Last year, Paul Bernard accused two high school students of wasting the town’s time, being manipulated by activists, and having messiah complexes when they attempted to pass Warrant Articles relating to animal welfare.

My experience with my Warrant Article and what I know about the passage of other initiatives, like the animal rights welfare article, have shown me that Town Meeting members may be hesitant to support initiatives that seem like they don’t have a ‘direct’ impact on Brookline, or are seemingly outside of Brooline’s purview. This ideology can be very harmful.

First, it impedes students from engaging with their town government. This lack of early engagement and attacks like those experienced by the individuals trying to pass the animal rights welfare article may promote civic disengagement in the future.

Second, it detracts from the belief that local action is meaningful in addressing a problem. One town cannot single-handedly disarm the entire United States. Preventing one pet shop from selling puppies won’t end puppy mills nationwide. But movements build on each other. The passage of a home rule petition in one town can influence the passage of similar legislation in other towns. My initiative has a much greater chance at passing because Northampton, Mass. successfully passed a similar home rule petition. Enough municipalities passing a home rule petition can lead to statewide change, which influences the nation — and, in turn, the globe.

I understand that voting against an article is usually impersonal. However, for the reasons above, I would encourage Town Meeting Members to understand the weight of their “no.” And if you are a student trying to pass a bold initiative, do it. The worst they can do is say no.