Let’s Reconsider!

Vermont has an unusual provision in its laws that allows voters in various towns to think twice. Sometimes that provision is nothing but a headache for town officials—when they think they have a budget passed, for instance, and then they have to pass it all over again.

Sometimes, however, thinking twice, or taking a second look at a policy issue, makes sense. One such case, it seems to us, is the matter of the Randolph town offices.

Another look at that question, another vote—with much better information and more time to digest it—would be a good idea. Having that second vote on Town Meeting day, where a good turnout is guaranteed, is an even better idea.

Eight years have been spent planning to renovate and expand the existing town offices, eight years consumed by starts and stops, townwide surveys, and, finally, three lawsuits.

Now, a brand new proposal has been made to move the whole kit and caboodle away from the brick office building into the first floor of the former Merrimaids building on Pleasant Street, the floor recently occupied by the Randolph Cooperative Market.

The Municipal Building Committee, which is headed by Selectboard Chair Jim Hutchinson, liked the new proposal well enough to recommend it to the voters. The selectboard warned a meeting which would transfer the $1.2 million bond issue from the old site to the new site.

On Dec. 11, the voters said no, by a score of 223-173.

That was not surprising. The proposal was a brand new idea, which had not had time to percolate. It came accompanied by very little hard information about the proposal. The town clerk and town assessor were against it. It seemed like a risky, last-minute proposal, and the voters decided not to take the risk.

Now, a petition is circulating asking for a reconsideration of that vote. Hutchinson has said that the timing is such that it could be reconsidered at Town Meeting—where it belongs.

* * *

Reconsideration is a good idea this time for several reasons. Most important is that the first vote was held too quickly and with too little information—as people on both sides of the issue point out. Second is that the turnout was miserably small for such an important issue—just 13.2% of the eligible voters turned out.

Third is that there are some very attractive aspects to the new proposal. It does appear that it would be substantially less expensive than the old plan—perhaps a quarter million dollars less expensive, assuming the old building would be sold and turned to productive, taxable use. That’s not chump change.

It would avoid new delays caused by new lawsuits which, unfortunately, remain a distinct possibility.

The Pleasant Street proposal also promises to fix up an important, albeit problematic, downtown building in a way that is not likely to happen otherwise.

Finally—and perhaps the most important plus, moving to Pleasant Street would mean that town business could continue for the next year in its existing space, without the huge distraction of major repairs being noisily pursued all around the employees. When the new building is done, there will be a simple move into new space. What could be simpler?

Michael Penrod, who has been on the Building Committee from the beginning, wrote a perceptive letter to The Herald two weeks ago. There, he apologized for the inadequate information that was available at the time of the vote, and he lists the questions that need to be answered.

If town officials can answer those questions, and provide that information, a new Town Meeting Day vote will be worthwhile. We hope the petition receives the necessary 160 votes. Petitions can be found at Tewksbury’s Store, the Three Bean Café, Cover-to-Cover, M & M Beverage, Floyd’s Store, and Messier’s General Store.