To the Editor:

I was astonished by information contained in a February 15 Town Topics article (“Public Input Is Integral to Task Force Mission”), which publicized a call for volunteers for the Transition Team focused on sub-committee tasks. My first question is who directed or authorized this posting?

As one of the volunteers and being familiar with the lists of both those chosen and those not, my second question is who decided that those volunteers not selected were not asked to serve and new candidates recruited? Within the long list of volunteers published in print media were several individuals known to me with outstanding credentials, some of whom were not even interviewed by those involved in the appointments process.

As I see it and as it is clearly revealed by the selections alone, the primary consideration in the culling process was support for the status quo politically and a clear commitment to continuing current ways of doing business, including organization and staffing models and otherwise.

Although I’m not one of Roger Martindell’s political compatriots, his letter in the February 15 Town Topics (“Consolidation Transition Task Force Can Re-Invent Delivery of Municipal Services”), has merit. It frames succinctly how the consolidation effort should be conducted and by whom, especially as regards the Task Force serving as the “linchpin” to “aggressively re-invent local government” and “deliver municipal services.”

Two of the three “main groups “ Martindell describes, municipal staffs and the two existing municipal governing bodies, have far too much baggage to carry, including their own self-interest to plow any new ground. As to the Task Force, in my view the individuals already listed as selected to serve on the working groups’ sub-committees of the Task Force are not the hoped for “core group of volunteer residents” to get done what needs done! They are already set up with controlling membership from the first two groups.

One could easily predict the outcomes will be that neither the Transition Team nor the sub-committee working groups will reinvent anything and just resolve to do the same functions the same way on a modestly larger scale. This also will result in cost savings less than those thought initially achievable and, more importantly, lost opportunity for synergistically magnifying consolidation benefits through innovative changes.

Informally, I have already heard that activities and organizations that are already consolidated are not to be addressed. This is transparently due to a control and status quo perspective based on an unreasoned assumption that they are already performing in a collaborative and effective manner. This preordains that any seminal changes in key areas of public interest will not even be on the table.

John Clearwater

Governors Lane