To the editor:

Barrington’s school district earned praise for transparency and communication of November’s bond referendum. There are multiple ways to view the School Committee (SC) and Building Committee (BSBC)’s actions, and they should be evaluated within the context of serious concerns echoing between neighbors. 

Transparent communication is a keystone supporting well-functioning democracies. Communication of transparency, however, is a tactic creating the façade of such a democracy. The concerns indicate we have the latter.

Transparency?

Declarations of transparency are telling. As Shakespeare wrote, they “doth protest too much, methinks.” 

Statements have alluded to closed-doors decisions; new priorities, direction from RIDE, dismissal changes, etc. We’re told the process has been transparent, but it hasn’t been. Regardless of intentions or efficiencies, opacity deteriorates public trust.

Realistic budget?

Officials recently disclosed that comparable projects cost 40-50 percent more than our budgeted rates. When raised by a local architect, the men leading the meeting dismissed the concern, claiming that unrealistically reduced figures were appropriate. Their explanation didn’t address concerns underlying her inquiry.

Cost to residents?

The SC called for a referendum “not-to-exceed $250 million” and asked for the public’s trust as they determine project details they had claimed could cost well below that. Actually, they anticipated asking for less. After an analogy about using a pre-approved mortgage to go house-hunting, the SC voted for the maximum. They’re ignoring the “not-to-exceed” language in presentations, indicating a concerning intent to spend the maximum, which might be too expensive for too many Barringtonians.

A related concern: the tax impact is missing from the website. The median cost of ~$1k/year was disclosed during a meeting months ago. Why has the BSBC chosen to delay communicating this key element? 

New priorities?

When the public process began in 2021, students, faculty, parents, and residents participated. Feedback was discussed during open meetings. Votes were taken to set priorities. Now, we’re told priorities changed, outside of open meetings. Who changed them? What was the basis for changes? The SC’s recent OMA violations make this particularly concerning.

Whose message?

Information has been shared online by an SC member’s spouse. Assertions made without attribution don’t always match publicly-available information. It’s unclear whether this information derives from closed-door discussions.

What to do?

The referendum will end planning or allow it to continue. If rejected, schools will retain major deficits. We’ll continue tasking excellent professionals with delivering superlative education in substandard buildings. We’ll pay 20 percent more for any work we eventually do.

If we approve the referendum, the process continues, but only launches if voters also approve the project at another town-wide vote.

I want to vote “Approve,” giving officials a chance to alleviate our concerns. However, regardless of its “fiscally responsible,” 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 percent 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 Oct. 19 meeting.

Jacob Brier

Barrington