To the editor:
At 10 p.m. during the May 6 Town Meeting, we heard from the Assistant School Superintendent about the proposed debt exclusion override to fix the high school’s roof and HVAC system. I felt for him — he was clearly not the right person to present such a complex and costly proposal. Worse, no one involved with the project could answer the thoughtful questions posed by residents. It was frustrating and embarrassing.
Despite the confusion, the motion passed — likely because the roof’s condition is a clear health, safety, and financial risk. But if you asked voters what exactly the project includes, you’d get no consensus. That’s a recipe for disappointment.
Unfortunately, this isn’t new. We saw similar issues with the Transfer Station project. In both cases, the town seems to be rushing to secure funding before fully developing the project scope. That’s far from best practice.
Instead of pointing fingers, we should look at the system — or lack of one — that allows this to keep happening. We need a more structured, transparent process for developing and executing major town projects. A proven framework like a Project Management Office (PMO) model would set standards and oversight from idea to completion.
Such a system wouldn’t need to be overly bureaucratic, but it should be clear, consistent, and built around best practices. It would define stages of development, assign clear responsibilities, and ensure stakeholders are involved at the right times. Most importantly, it would have one accountable system owner.
Some might argue we don’t have the resources to run this kind of system. But skipping proper development always costs more in the long run. As the saying goes: pay me now, or pay me later.
Experienced project resources help, but when they’re not available — as is often the case — a reliable system is our best bet to make sure taxpayer dollars are used wisely.
Charlie Pihokken
