To the Editor:
The back of your last issue contained two wonderful articles – the almost 300-year history of Sherman’s Bridge, and the vital role working groups play in the town’s governance. The latter article could have used the current Sherman’s Bridge controversy as an example of what failing to convene a working group does.
Instead of a collaborative process among all stakeholders, instead we have “he said, she said” pitting concerned citizens directly against town employees. Our elected officials are largely on the sidelines, abdicating their responsibility to intervene and moderate (aka “leadership”).
Proponents of a collaborative and inclusive team approach — a “working group” — have made repeated requests for one since early September to the DPW Director, Town Manager, Board of Public Works, and Select Board. These requests were not rebuffed; instead, they have simply been ignored.
The result is the unnecessarily adversarial approach playing out now. And the state funding given as the raison d’être for the rushed approach by the two DPW directors is now threatened by it.
A working group on the bridge could easily have reached consensus on a shared approach by now and presented a unified front to MassDOT. Instead, the current trench warfare will take months to resolve, threatening the state’s June 30 deadline.
There is still time to stop the insanity. Gather all the interested stakeholders in a room and solve this.
The cliché fits: “If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.”
Doug Stotz
Sherman’s Bridge Road
