I've been critical of the proposed Norwich DPW tower site as an answer set in stone before the questions had all been asked; resulting in an inflexible plan that may ultimately cost us much more than we've bargained for.
As I've stated elsewhere, there is no question in my mind our Town Manager honestly and earnestly believes this tower design and location are the best way to protect citizens -- and the public servants sent to aid them -- given the "narrow-banding" changes mandated by the FCC. Nevertheless, I am concerned he has pursued this solution in a manner that is beginning to undermine his credibility and raises a question in my mind whether he can steer clear of the administrator-as-advocate quicksand that eventually swallowed his predecessors. I sincerely intend this as constructive criticism of a public servant who has demonstrated tremendous administrative skills this town surely needs but now risks squandering. Uncomfortable as it may be, if we don't openly identify these issues we risk rekindling a political vortex here in town that we cannot really afford to indulge; in the process losing a talented public servant who, challenged on his decision-making, may prove to be far more open-minded and flexible than he sometimes appears.
Put very simply, I think it's a mistake for a Town Manager to provide the Selectboard only a single solution to a problem rather than a range of options.
I don't doubt our Town Manager feels the need to champion a single tower solution because weighing options takes time and the FCC year-end deadline doesn't afford us very much. However, as we've seen these past nine months, putting all our eggs in one basket begs the question, at least for some in town, "why this particular basket?" Pressing that question exposes a series of dubious political calculations that assumed we would all accept this one solution for lack of any alternative.
And up to now it's worked. Advocating a take-it-or-leave-it-198' tower-in-a-valley solution to our antiquated telecommunications infrastructure pressed a majority of our Selectboard into not simply approving the tower, but -- by the narrowest of margins -- letting a commercial telecommunications company have it and all the revenue it generates. Caught between an FCC year-end deadline and concerns that taxpayers might balk at the cost, a Selectboard majority felt it had no choice but to accept the only option offered them. A false choice such as this is not simply bad policy, it's bad politics.
Selectboard members, faced with persistent criticism of the single-option plan they'd been handed, have been forced to choose between the known costs and capabilities of this prepackaged plan and the myriad unknowns of every other option. Their plight has been heightened by the Town Manager's adamant refusal to entertain any other options. In this, I'm afraid his uncompromising advocacy for his chosen solution to the narrow-banding deadline clouded his judgment about the risks in having all one's eggs in one basket.
This week's bond vote has knocked that basket to the ground.
Will he pick it up and soldier on through months of contentious permitting and growing public unease towards the VTel contract? Or will he step back and explore his options -- our options -- for compromise on an infrastructure project that should otherwise garner broad public support?
Whatever Town Manager any of us may think we need, these next few weeks will reveal the Town Manager we have.
- - - - -
Dramatic, huh?
It's not a good sign that a Town Manager's methods are once more the centerpiece of public debate.
It's time for our Selectboard to step forward and provide the leadership to explore a compromise that can focus on practical, cost-effective solutions. That will require some imagination and open-minded discussion of what's possible. Listserv posts, such as Ed Childs' from last night, telling bond vote opponents why they voted "no," instead of actually asking them why, aren't really what I have in mind.
Wishing us all luck,
Watt Alexander
As I've stated elsewhere, there is no question in my mind our Town Manager honestly and earnestly believes this tower design and location are the best way to protect citizens -- and the public servants sent to aid them -- given the "narrow-banding" changes mandated by the FCC. Nevertheless, I am concerned he has pursued this solution in a manner that is beginning to undermine his credibility and raises a question in my mind whether he can steer clear of the administrator-as-advocate quicksand that eventually swallowed his predecessors. I sincerely intend this as constructive criticism of a public servant who has demonstrated tremendous administrative skills this town surely needs but now risks squandering. Uncomfortable as it may be, if we don't openly identify these issues we risk rekindling a political vortex here in town that we cannot really afford to indulge; in the process losing a talented public servant who, challenged on his decision-making, may prove to be far more open-minded and flexible than he sometimes appears.
Put very simply, I think it's a mistake for a Town Manager to provide the Selectboard only a single solution to a problem rather than a range of options.
I don't doubt our Town Manager feels the need to champion a single tower solution because weighing options takes time and the FCC year-end deadline doesn't afford us very much. However, as we've seen these past nine months, putting all our eggs in one basket begs the question, at least for some in town, "why this particular basket?" Pressing that question exposes a series of dubious political calculations that assumed we would all accept this one solution for lack of any alternative.
And up to now it's worked. Advocating a take-it-or-leave-it-198' tower-in-a-valley solution to our antiquated telecommunications infrastructure pressed a majority of our Selectboard into not simply approving the tower, but -- by the narrowest of margins -- letting a commercial telecommunications company have it and all the revenue it generates. Caught between an FCC year-end deadline and concerns that taxpayers might balk at the cost, a Selectboard majority felt it had no choice but to accept the only option offered them. A false choice such as this is not simply bad policy, it's bad politics.
Selectboard members, faced with persistent criticism of the single-option plan they'd been handed, have been forced to choose between the known costs and capabilities of this prepackaged plan and the myriad unknowns of every other option. Their plight has been heightened by the Town Manager's adamant refusal to entertain any other options. In this, I'm afraid his uncompromising advocacy for his chosen solution to the narrow-banding deadline clouded his judgment about the risks in having all one's eggs in one basket.
This week's bond vote has knocked that basket to the ground.
Will he pick it up and soldier on through months of contentious permitting and growing public unease towards the VTel contract? Or will he step back and explore his options -- our options -- for compromise on an infrastructure project that should otherwise garner broad public support?
Whatever Town Manager any of us may think we need, these next few weeks will reveal the Town Manager we have.
- - - - -
Dramatic, huh?
It's not a good sign that a Town Manager's methods are once more the centerpiece of public debate.
It's time for our Selectboard to step forward and provide the leadership to explore a compromise that can focus on practical, cost-effective solutions. That will require some imagination and open-minded discussion of what's possible. Listserv posts, such as Ed Childs' from last night, telling bond vote opponents why they voted "no," instead of actually asking them why, aren't really what I have in mind.
Wishing us all luck,
Watt Alexander
No comments:
Post a Comment