A Glass Façade

Barrington’s school district has earned praise recently for transparency and communication relating to the school construction bond referendum that will be on the ballot for November’s special election. Like all issues, there are a variety of ways to view the actions being taken by the Barrington School Committee (SC) and Barrington School Building Committee (BSBC).

The praise given to district officials should be evaluated within the context of the serious concerns echoing between neighbors in conversations, and on various platforms.

Transparency is important. Communication is important. Transparent communication is a keystone holding up a well-functioning democracy. Communication of transparency, however, can be a powerful tactic to create the façade of such a democracy.

The concerns echoing through our community reflect the latter. Before getting to that, I do want to acknowledge the good elements.

• Workshops being held are important ways to learn about the project. (There were also multiple workshops held the first time the district went through this process, in 2021 and 2022.)
• A dedicated website to centralize the information is helpful. (Few people know about it, the overabundance of information is hard to consume, and the tax calculator has been “coming soon” for longer than “soon” implies.)
• Email reminders to school families for building SC and BSBC meetings are helpful. (More than half of taxpayers in town aren’t on that list.)

Questions of concern from neighbors:

Is there actual transparency?
The proclamations of improved transparency are telling. In my experience, most genuine changes are evident. Shakespeare wrote it well, they “doth protest too much, methinks.”

There have been multiple statements made and responses given about decisions that have been made behind closed doors; priorities (more on this below), conversations with RIDE, school dismissal changes, etc. But when we are regularly told how transparent the process has been, we are being led to believe that maybe we just missed something. Regardless of how good their intentions are, and despite the importance of efficiency, decisions made behind closed doors are not transparent and this deteriorates public trust.

How realistic is the budget?
During a recent meeting, the BSBC Chair, the SC Chair, and their hired consultant, admitted they are using unrealistic rates. They disclosed that comparable projects are actually costing as much as 40-50% more than the rates they have chosen to use in their planning and presentations. This was raised by an architect who was in attendance as a member of the public, and the concern was dismissed by the men leading the meeting who explained to her why the unrealistically reduced figures were appropriate. Their explanation did not address the underlying concerns with using a flawed placeholder rate: how can we possibly do everything in the plans if it’s going to cost more than we have?

What is the right investment total and how much will it cost residents?
A year ago, we were talking about a ~$100,000,000 bond for the needed changes to our elementary schools. The SC/BSBC asked the Town Council to call for a ballot referendum “up to $250,000,000,” and are asking for trust and leeway from the public as they navigate a path to spend an amount of money they claimed would likely be well below that “up to” threshold. In fact, at the meeting during which the SC took that vote, they were initially discussing a lower dollar figure. After an analogy was used about getting pre-approved for a mortgage; that home-buyers find out how much they can spend, before going shopping, the SC voted to ask for the maximum allowable amount. They have stopped using “up to,” in their presentations and public discussions, and indicate an intention to spend the full amount. Whether or not $250 million is the right amount, it is concerning that it has been set under false pretenses.

A related issue to the cost is the missing “tax impact calculator” from the website. At a joint School Committee / Town Council meeting months ago, it was shared that the impact would be around $1,000/year for a median value property. As noted earlier, the BSBC has demonstrated a clear ability to present and communicate information. Why are they withholding this key element?

When and how did priorities change?
During 2021 and 2022, the public process that began this work included significant attention to determining priorities. Students were involved and had multiple ways to submit ideas. Parents and community members participated and provided input. The same was true for teachers and administrators. The collective feedback from stakeholders was discussed and deliberated during open meetings. Votes were then taken, based on that information, to set project priorities. Now, we are told the priorities were simply changed at some point, outside of open meetings. Who was involved in changing them and what was the basis for such actions? Given the recent pair of OMA violations by the SC and BSBC, this is concerning.

Who is creating the message?
Social media engagement on this issue is high. This is the source of another concern for many. There has been substantial information presented in depth by the spouse of a School Committee member. Assertions are made, sometimes without attribution, about things that do not line up with publicly-available information. It is unclear whether this information is coming as personal opinion but presented as fact, or if it is the result of an inside peek into the above-mentioned closed door decisions.

Where does that leave us?
The bond referendum will either allow planning to continue, or stop it in its tracks. If planning stops, our schools will still have major facilities deficits. We will continue to ask Barrington’s excellent faculty and administration to deliver superlative education in buildings that are substandard. And, we will lose out on millions in state reimbursement for any work we eventually do. But, if we vote in favor of the bond referendum, we allow the process to continue and will only incur costs if voters also approve borrowing the money and funding the project, at a subsequent Financial Town Meeting.

In short, it takes only one opposing vote to kill this process, whether now or later. It takes multiple approving votes to keep it alive.

I want to vote “Approve,” giving officials a chance to alleviate our concerns. However, regardless of its “fiscal responsibility,” this is simply unaffordable for too many Barringtonians. This is especially true given that with the 2023 reassessment values unknown, the bond’s impact could be as little as a 5% increase for some tax bills, but could be 20% or more for others.

In order to ensure we don’t lose out on this great opportunity for the additional reimbursement, I hope people voice their concerns to the School Committee. Tell them to vote for a lower price tag, at their October 19th meeting.

- - -
Jacob Brier (they/them) is an organizational engagement and HR consultant, living in Barrington. They are a former member of the Barrington Town Council and current volunteer with the Barrington Public School’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusivity Committee.