Selectman Fox in the late 60s at Town Meeting predicted exactly the problems emerging with the Library project in his summation comments on establishing a permanent building committee. In addition, the Library chair has only added to the problem with his slanted “role of parties” memo of Feb. 22nd and more recently his and their letter to the editor of 06/07. The memo was never given to the public. This problem is not just emerging; it has been with us for months. I wrote to the Reporter and the Selectmen on this problem over recent months, but with the “super” Town Manager statute, he and the Board have resolved this Building Committee issue using the words, shall “assist”, from an unknown by-law never voted by Town Meeting.
This Library rebuttal letter in the newspaper states that the Permanent Building Committee has changed projects “substantially ... over the past decade” and that this is nothing new. The Committee has been around for 44 years; no project was altered in the first 37 years beyond what was presented at Town Meeting as the Library implied! Yes, the safety building was flipped over and the price nearly doubled, but none of the prior work went this route. Let me state again this word “assist” does NOT exist in the by-law! (It is also interesting that the word “Planning” in their title was never deleted by a vote of Town Meeting either as both the Library and Town Hall insist.) Instead, the Permanent Building Committee by-law states, “Said Committee shall plan future municipal ... building needs and may engage architectural and consulting services necessary to issue ... building plans for town meeting action ... for future municipal ... building construction and alterations.” The reason I quote this is to state that the wrong body is named by the wrong Committee as the BUILDING Committee! They appointed themselves, without any authority to do so. They are charged in the by-laws and statutes with solely the operation and maintaining the existing facility(s).
Even their own State association (MBLC) discusses the use of existing permanent or standing building authorities, and only describes a programming and/or evaluation, Facility Needs, committee function as needed by the trustees. There is no “building committee” function noted! They continue this attitude with their statement that they are the sole responsible body, “the buck stops here”. Who appointed them to this position; the by-law states the building committee is appointed by the Selectmen!
We are now told the current (?) problems will cost us! How long have we been at this? Three weeks only? three months? or three years? I am reminded that the Architect’s national organization, the AIA, states in their handbook that “zoning and other code constraints are a major architectural influence.” And that the architect must work within these known constraints. If the Committee has relieved the architect of this responsibility, we know who to blame for this escalation. Otherwise this is the architect’s problem, without any further costs. Everyone in Town knew the Historic District exists; the Library should have as well!
Bob Hickey, in his column, got it right; I may disagree with his analogy with the car and boat but the intent is proper. Why weren’t we advised when we voted the money that the windows shown could not be done for the money? Why didn’t the “buck stops here” people determine all of the zoning and abutter issues prior to the vote of Town Meeting? They certainly had the time to forestall any problems. The time between 2005 and the present have allowed people to work for a bachelor and master degrees in a similar time frame.
The real point is that as individuals, we control very little. We are even told where we can place a building on our lot, and even a shed. The setbacks and other controls such as height are also stated. But this is true of our neighbor as well. If we don’t like it, we appeal, litigate or move to remote Montana! The library must do as well. There are two elevations of note ... looking west on historic district facades, and looking east on the library ... both co-exist, one should not be destructive of the other. If this designer cannot solve the problem get another! And if a committee cannot return to the funding authority, a town meeting, with a full visual presentation instead of a short monologue, it too should be replaced!
The choices are clear: resolve the problem! The Permanent Building Committee knows how to handle these problems, as they have for years. The Selectmen could have resolved this months ago; they kicked the can down the road ... where have we heard this recently? Let them do their job. If this is where we are heading, not even God can help us when the Town Hall project begins. The prologue on this has already been presented at $8 million rather than the real $5million! The other choice is to rescind the authorization!
Dick Heydecker, 63 Grove Street - 508-543-9412
This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.
The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?
