New thinking yields superior solutions

The RGSC made some fundamental errors in its decision-making process.

Using a too-narrow focus, they sought agreement on a single preferred option, rather than multiple ones, which leads to confirmation bias and inferior outcomes. 
  • "When we focus, we sacrifice peripheral vision." (p. 45)
  • "Our Normal habit in life is to develop a quick belief about a situation and then seek out information that bolsters our belief." (p.11) 
  • "We often pretend that we want truth when we're really seeking reassurance." (p.12)
  • "People who work on a single track begin to take their work too personally, viewing criticism as a 'rebuke of their only option'. " (p.55)

Instead of developing two viable ballot choices for Dec. 13, the vote will be to set up a Special Taxing District for Recreation OR nothing. This whether-or-not scenario is the simplest of errors to remedy and the most dangerous to propagate. (p. 10)
  • "Whether or not decisions fail 52% of the time over the long-term vs only 32% of the decisions with one or more alternative." (p. 37)
  • "When you develop only one option, your ego is tied up in it." (p.67)
  • "Keep searching for options until you fall in love twice." (p.56)
  • "Managers need to push for legitimate alternatives, not sham options." (p. 59)

Short-term emotion and overconfidence are common culprits as well.
  • Detach from the decision at hand to develop much-needed perspective. (p.21)
  • "People think they know more than they do about how the future will unfold." (p.17)

Disagreement is an excellent antidote to hubris. (p. 96)
  • The devil's advocate was known as the promoter of the faith in the Catholic Church. (p.96)
  • We need to interpret criticism as a noble function. (p.97)
  • Your willingness to test your assumptions ensures that your work will be conducted based on evidence, not folklore or politics. (p.111)

History Repeats
The RGSC didn't take time to understand how divisive it has been to propose tax relief for some residents and not for others, without providing mitigating factors to the latter.  This happened in  2006, when a proposed top-down merger plan sought tax equity, plus a change in the name of the town and relocation of the municipal offices from 81 Main Street to Lincoln Hall.  The majority of Town-outside-the-Village residents wanted to merge but couldn't vote for a plan that appeared to have nothing in it for them.

Equal Benefit, Equal Sacrifice
What bone is the RGSC throwing to Town-Outside-the-Village residents this time around?  Their job was to find out what to do with EJRP which is, frankly, not a huge concern of those who aren't its biggest users.