The ethical choice?

Mercury Blogtown reports Sam Adams has decided to send four Charter Reform proposals to the ballot this May. The hearing where citizens are supposed to have input regarding the ballot measures is scheduled for February 7th.

I don’t support any of the Charter Review Commission’s recommendations, as written. And it seems to me that by announcing the votes are in before the public hearing to solicit input, the rules for how the game is supposed to be played have been suspended. So now I’m faced with an interesting question:

Should I tell the Council all the problems I see in the details of the recommendations, in case the ballot measures pass? Given that the voters might approve something worse than the current Charter language, should I try to effect changes that will make it worse to a lesser extent?

OR

Should I wait to publish my assessment of the problems I see, until after they are in the proposal on the ballot, in the hope that highlighting the flaws then will make it less likely the measures will pass?

Which option better serves the long term public good? Is it my responsibility as a citizen to try to make a bad proposal slightly less toxic, or to leave it so the choice is as clear as possible for voters?