August 14, 2205 By Carol Britton Meyer
Two citizens expressed their concerns about the proposed new $35 million (current estimate) Center for Active Living during the public comment period at the end of the Aug. 12 Select Board meeting, asking in part for more oversight of the project and whether there’s a vision for all seniors living in Hingham, not just those who frequent the senior center.
As a citizen who supports a new CAL, Mary Power recalled that at the annual town meeting earlier this year, residents raised questions about the size, location, and cost of a new Center — “especially given the number of large capital projects currently under consideration. Voters were told that approving design funds did not commit the town to a specific plan, and that multiple options would be explored with opportunities for public input. Many supported the article in good faith, trusting that commitment,” she said.
‘Still five times larger than current space’
Power was present at the July 22 joint CAL building committee/Select Board meeting, when a revised design for the CAL was presented — “10% smaller but still five times larger than the current space,” she told the board. “Many of the same questions and concerns about the design were raised. It was concerning that no data was provided to justify the size and scale of the proposed facility.”
Power was under the impression that another joint meeting would be held, during which “the Select Board might ask the building committee to delay its July 29 vote.”
However, according to Power, the committee approved the design and “is moving full steam ahead. The joint meeting is now expected after the design is submitted for cost estimation, which seems backwards. At this point, it feels like we are on a forced march to Town Meeting with a project that is already decided.”
Oversight expected
Power further stated that when Town Meeting forms a committee, “it expects appointing officials to provide oversight — ensuring the project aligns with the town’s strategic, operational, and fiscal priorities, and that the process is open and responsive to community concerns.”
Oversight is “a critical part of good governance that strengthens proposals and improves transparency,” she said. “When it comes too late, it can lead to silos, wasted time and money, and diminished public confidence.”
Power concluded her remarks by stating that she wants this project to succeed. “That’s why I request that you engage in meaningful and public oversight of this project sooner rather than later,” she told the board.
Because this issue wasn’t on the agenda, there was no discussion. However, Chair William Ramsey explained that the building committee asked him if they could use the month of August “to do more due diligence on the proposed building and look in greater detail at the design features, programming, and other areas.”
The Select Board plans to meet jointly with the building committee in early September for an update on their progress, Ramsey said.
Resident Judy Sneath also shared her concerns related to the proposed size of the new Center and the large price tag associated with capital projects that are in the pipeline.
She named two things that she believes are missing from the process. “I hope they will [be addressed in your upcoming meeting] with the building committee,” Sneath said.
‘Lack of vision for all seniors in town’
She pointed to what she considers to be a “lack of vision for all the seniors living in town — including those in a residential care facility, others who are homebound, and those who don’t frequent the CAL because they are still working. Is there a vision for all the seniors or just a vision for this big building?” Sneath asked.
She also noted that town departments are held to 3.5 percent annual budget increases under the current memorandum of understanding among the select board, advisory committee, and school committee, noting that expenses will be much higher because of the proposed size of the new building, increased staff that would be needed, and maintaining the HVAC and other systems that now fall under the umbrella of Town Hall, where the CAL is currently located.
Sneath urged the select board and building committee to “not just talk about the capital expense, but the overall cost [of running such a facility]. I appreciate all that you are doing and hope these two things will come up [at the joint meeting],” she said.
In response, Ramsey confirmed that “the operating costs are definitely something we will talk about.”
For more information, go to https://www.hinghamanchor.com/citizens-air-concerns-related-to-proposed-new-center-for-active-living-others-fully-support-the-project/.
I am befuddled.
After writing the below linked piece and providing public comments at Select Board meetings, the author was appointed to the Advisory Committee by the Moderator.
Two weeks ago, the author-now-Advisory Committee Member stated she would recuse herself from any discussions and deliberations on the Center for Active Living project. The recusal letter she read into the Advisory Committee minutes indicated she gave her word during her talent bank interview that if asked, she would recuse herself. The author stressed her word matters to her.
Last week, the author-now-Committee Member un-recused herself and will again participate in discussions and deliberations of the Center for Active Living project. The statement was made at the end of the meeting where the author-now-member stated she was glad members of the public before she retracted her prior week’s recusal and stated it should be a committee-only concern.
Herein lies my confusion:
Is there a perception the author-now-Advisory Committee Member is unable to vet the Center for Active Living project objectively based on this OpEd and public comments?
Did the author-now-Advisory Committee Member affirm she gave her word during her interview to become a member of the committee that she would recuse herself if asked, then upon becoming a committee member and being asked to recuse herself, she did, then retracted her recusal as well as her talent bank interview assertion?
Why did the author-now-Committee Member state she was glad the public left prior to her retraction at a public meeting and that it should be a committee only concern?
Who is able to provide a transparent explanation of this?
https://www.hinghamanchor.com/opinion-as-the-town-moves-ahead-with-the-design-of-the-new-center-for-active-living-i-sent-the-letter-below-to-the-select-board-on-july-2/