To the editor:

Last week Barrington entered some novel territory for our small town democracy. 

Either the school committee decided to change school start times but actually didn’t. Or they decided not to change them (now) but actually did (for 2017). At this moment it’s hard to say whether this is actually the soft death of meaningful change through procrastination, or a judicious move to cope with the fact that change can be quite hard.

The committee itself voted to defer, but simultaneously reinforced the majority point that the science was clear and their commitment to achieving an 8:30 start time was strong. The added time would be used to further refine an implementation plan, making it clearer to all what the realities of change would mean. And so a new ad hoc committee was also announced to visualize this future.

If this new committee is to be of any benefit — if we want to avoid stumbling through an unedifying welter of repetitive discussions — the committee must create something new. To that end it really has to satisfy four criteria. It must have clarity, momentum, transparency, and resources.

Clarity can begin easily enough with the school committee members broadcasting the actual text of the motion they passed. They could follow next with a clear charter giving the ad hoc committee a mission to dispel uncertainty and replace it with creativity. There should be a continued voice and place for those who'd lobby the district to change its mind regarding the science or to shift the agreed policy to some other start time. But that place should not be the implementation committee, which should be no more a surrogate policy making body than the health and wellness committee ever was. Debates on policy no doubt remain, but they should also remain in the town’s evening meetings rather than smuggling them into a problem-solving forum.

Next the implementation committee will need momentum. This can be achieved by not giving into the seductive appeal of procrastination but by sticking with the previously announced schedule for releasing data. This should be augmented by further actionable steps, a clear communications plan, and a goal to have the public as informed as possible before we enter the fall election cycle. Voters now will get yet a third say on this endeavor, but they should do so with the benefit of more information, not more controversy. A final deadline of Sept. 30 should suffice, but it will mean a busy summer for those who dare.

This brings me to transparency. The selection criteria for committee composition should be broad but still have an eye to a manageable discussion. Group sessions should be interspersed with open forums and produce clear written and video records from an easily accessible website. No one who comes should be asked to renounce their own policy preferences, but these should be saved for policy forums; all who participate should pledge to work fair-mindedly to explore what 8:30 would really mean.

Finally the committee should have resources. It would be foolish to expect the same district mechanisms that proved unequal to the task this year to produce dramatically different results under the same pressures next year. Instead we need to invest in sound public policy. Since most of the fear of the unknown arises around conflicting views of sports, George Finn should be a central participant and frequent speaker — not an occasional under-reported guest. The coordination that is asked of him is immense, especially since for next year he'll be exploring a hypothetical future while successfully executing our legacy one. A consultant should be hired to assist him in the investigations or to take the burden off the routine items while Mr. Finn resolves the new ones. The strategic communication consultant the district is seeking for the new middle school should likewise be hired earlier, for it is clear that we could have used the help this past month on start times as well. The last resource will be the time given by the teachers, parents, students, and administrators who will make up the implementation committee and will need to start work soon and through the summer; they should have our thanks in advance.

In the end, we will find out if we "did make a decision but didn't" or actually "didn't make a decision but did."

But it would be sad thing if we found out that we proved unequal to the task we set ourselves of taking a year to clarify, rationalize, and improve our democratic process — for this is not the last important item we'll need to discuss as a town.

Scott Douglas

Barrington