COMMITTEE GOALS:
  • Ensure the current quality of rec services is maintained and enhanced.
  • Explore all avenues and entities before making a recommendation.
  • Actively engage the community in the process and making information easily accessible so the public is informed.
  • Be cognizant of afford-ability and ensuring the funding structure is fiscally responsible and will be supported by the public.
  • Reach a consensus on a final recommendation by mid-June.

RGSC selected "STD" option in 2+ hours!

End of March, ten residents were appointed to study the future of EJRP, a $2.3 million entity. Their first four meetings entailed:
  • April 5: introductions, ground rules, future meeting dates, list of 9 options to "dig into" next time.

  • April 25: discuss strategy to engage the public, learn about 6 options (101 minutes per the video), eliminate 1.

  • May 4: discuss public-survey results and engagement strategy, learn about 5 options and brainstorm reactions (65 minutes on the agenda). Take informal vote on preferences, STD wins by a mile!

  • May 11: "There was agreement the Union Municipal District is the prevailing option." In case you didn't catch that STD a week earlier because they call it at UMD.
The group had until mid-June to decide. Why rush to agree in early May?

More time to justify their choice:
2 meetings selecting an option,
13 meetings strategizing to gain acceptance.
Guess we're missing something:

In what universe would 2 RGSC meetings comprise a 'thorough and exhaustive' study? 

Or did Brad take it upon himself to evaluate the options so that a committee wouldn't have to?

Actually, he admits as much to the Prudential Committee, Dec. 7, 2015 (1:15:31): "A lot of this stuff Ally and I have readily available"; a group would be able to "vet it pretty quickly".
To put the haste of RGSC's decision-making in perspective, the
timetable for the Firearms Discharge Ordinance Task Force (2009, image below)
shows how differently it enacted its charge to study 7 issues before making its recommendation(s):
"When a manager pursues a single option,
he spends most of his time asking:
'How can I make this work? 
How can I get my colleagues behind me?'

Meanwhile, other vital questions get neglected:
'Is there a better way?
What else could we do?' "
Decisive: How To Make Better Decisions, by Chip and Dan Heath, p. 37

Who did the
heavy lifting on
$3+ million of 
Rec staff / services,
to assist the
RGSC appointees?

The future of EJRP
(and EPR) was
too important
to leave to
volunteers.

"It's foolhardy
to set up a fig-leaf committee
and hope nobody will look
under the fig leaf
and see what's there."
Howard Rubenstein
If RGSC appointees spent just a few hours learning about options before coming to agreement, who did the "deep dive" on the issues?

One Village Trustee (not on RGSC) stated in an e-mail to Selectman Wrenner: I know I can speak for all the trustees when I say we are deeply unhappy that you have chosen to attempt to undermine an initiative in which we have invested an enormous amount of work, and which we believe to be the best solution for our residents. (Aug. 11)

A peculiar statement, indeed. The entire Selectboard, in contrast, appointed a committee and waited to see what the RGSC recommended, trusting the process. 

The Village President corroborates this early involvement by the Trustees, saying, at the Prudential Committee Meeting on Dec. 7, 2015, creating an independent Rec District is "something that we have explored" (107:55).

Why were the Village Trustees more invested in the future of a School District's Rec Dept (EJRP) than the Selectboard was in the future of its very own Rec Dept (EPR)?
 The EJRP and EPR Rec Directors attended RGSC meetings as ex officio members. 

Given their stake in the outcome as likely leaders of any resulting entity(s), these ex officio members might have been expected to sit quietly watching the proceedings, only speaking when spoken to, lest they be accused of a conflict of interest for acting upon their own future behalf.

Instead, the EJRP Director provided a venue, set the agendas, and to the casual observer, appeared to direct each meeting by leading discussions, and so forth. (He also insisted on a voting date close to the holidays, per the data at the end of the Specifics page, rather than hearing from the masses during the Presidential election in November.)

The EJRP and ERP Directors sent an e-message on Dec. 5, 2016 to a Town-wide Mailing List during work hours, urging a YES vote, in direct conflict with Town and School (CCSU) Personnel Policy that prohibits political activity by staff!  More than 300 angry residents have since demanded to have their addresses removed from that list.

George Tyler, back in December 2015, predicted the directors' involvement would be problematic (109:19): "It would be tricky informing a committee to look at Recreation. ... We need the information of the rec directors and staff, but, on the other hand, is there a conflict of interest?"
"Using what influence we have is not in itself a destructive thing.
The problem arises when the style and force of a person's or institution's
influence outweighs the merits of whatever it is they're trying to get us to do." 
Coercion: Why We Listen to What "They" Say, by Douglas Rushkoff, p. 17.
Of the nine options noted on Apr. 5 (initial RGSC meeting), five involved consolidation.  Yet, before the group began to discuss any pros / cons -- which would happen on Apr. 25 -- EJRP Director "Luck stated that the time has come for a decision to be made on whether consolidation is right for the recreation departments."  Lines 184-185, Apr. 5, 2016 minutes
It's perfectly understandable that anyone who had been pondering (since December) the options that would determine his future job prospects at EJRP would be ready to move things along.  But the committee formed to study the issues had barely introduced themselves to each other mere moments earlier!

RGSC capably played
the hand they were given,
but all were playing with a stacked deck!