Article 29, "Fund - Falmouth High School Completion": Chief Brodeur's presentation was the last on Tuesday; the override request for the high school renovation project - Article 29 - was the first on Wednesday.
Dr. Robert Antonucci began the presentation for the building committee in the same way that Mr. Jack and Chief Brodeur did - with a realistic view of the situation. As with the other two presentations, it was a marked contrast from prior years when overrides were sold based on the cost to the taxpayer instead of the benefits of the override.
Included also was a more tempered presentation by Superintendent Dennis Richards about the accreditation. Contrary to the previously made alarmist statements, Superintendent Richards stated that failing to finish the high school would not cost us our accreditation, but likely just put us on probation. Indeed, only the facilities (the building) failed to pass with flying colors during our last accreditation in 1999.
It was a good start, but it didn't end the same way. Unlike the first two presentations, this one devolved into the typical we're-only-going-to-give-you-as-much-information-as-we-think-you-need-to-know.
Robert Young, a representative from Precinct 5, offered an amendment to cut about $5.1 million from the requested override. Instead of $18.8 million, it would be about $13.7 million. This immediately brought on charges of micromanagement from Dr. Antonucci and, near the end of the debate, a tirade by Chairman Kevin Murphy (he turned red) against the $5.1 million cut, which he painted as arbitrary.
If Chairman Murphy had been listening, he would've heard Mr. Young say that the legal expenses ($1 million) and the furniture, equipment and technology ($4.1 million) aren't related to finishing the actual building, but are extra costs that could - and should - be reviewed later.
Mr. Young's logic was solid. If the object here is to finish the high school, let's get what we need to finish it and address the wants later - a point made also by Precinct 8 representative Leslie Lichtenstein.
I stood up to support the amendment. I'd previously planned on offering my own amendment to cut $2.1 million from the Furniture, Equipment and Technology line item and bring the overall request down to $16.7 million. However, Mr. Young beat me to it, and rather than confuse the situation with amendments to the amendment, I shared my rationale for cutting this back.
Many weeks ago, I had asked for a list of furniture, equipment and technology, but was told that it didn't exist. However, immediately after presenting my justification for the cut, Dr. Antonucci was ready with a rebuttal and, apparently, a list; albeit a vague one.
[an aside]
Good politics is about talking to people. It's about giving them the information they need to address their concerns and making them a part of the process.
Bad politics is about hiding things as long as possible. It's about keeping someone at arm's length and then hitting them when they have no opportunity to respond.
I've spent many weeks approaching the building committee and school department with questions and requests. I made it clear to several key individuals that I think that additional money is truly needed, and that I would support the override if need be, but I wanted answers first.
In contrast, they've been tight-lipped and reluctant to share information. When they do share it, we get only what they want to share and not what we want to know. Rather than reach out, openly share this information and address my concerns, they ignored me.
[and now we return to our regularly scheduled post]
An incomplete list presented at the last minute on town meeting floor is bad politics. When I pressed for an inventory of what is good and what needs to be replaced, we again heard cries of "micromanagement."
If they are going to reuse something, at some point they have to do an inventory. It is best to do this before asking for money so you know exactly how much you need. And there is no excuse for hiding this information from the public.
Precinct 9 representative Mike Netto asked some pointed questions about the project management, pointing out, among other things, the conspicuous absence of Gilbane, to whom we are paying more than $1 million.
There was also talk of additional reimbursement from the state. However, if what I heard is correct, this is not based on the additional costs, but on square footage that may not have been counted the first time around. Basically, don't count on it.
In the end, I voted "Aye" for the amendment; it failed.
Immediately thereafter, Town Meeting Moderator David Vieira called for the vote on the article. I voted, "Aye" - to give the taxpayers a voice in the process - and it passed.
However, no controversy is ever truly finished, and during the break, several individuals approached me. They had wanted to speak, but on the article, not the amendment. They were denied the opportunity. Precinct 8 representative Michael Freeman requested reconsideration. I voted "Aye" but it failed.
[addendum]
The micromanagement accusations levied by the building committee and their supporters belie a larger issue here that these folks just don't seem to grasp. This is about trust. When there is no trust, more information is requested because people want to verify - for themselves - the statements that are being made.
The school department and building committee have already dug themselves into a hole by making inflammatory statements - for example, the status of accreditation. They must now rebuild trust with the community by openly sharing everything - no matter what it is that is requested.
Wednesday's presentation started that way, but quickly degenerated into business as usual. That is no way to rescue the high school, and they've only a few weeks to convince 51 percent of Falmouth they are sincere about regaining the public trust.
No comments:
Post a Comment