Transparency is a Two-Way Street

My head is spinning trying to keep up with the anonymous organizations creating Gmail addresses in Greensboro.

The town select board, working with the housing committee, found the organization RuralEdge who proposed a plan to convert the town hall into 20 apartments by adding an addition onto the back of the building. On the face of it, the concept seemed to fit in with the Greensboro Town Plan, which prioritized additional housing in town.

Questions about whether the town clerk could stay in the building, parking, use of the green space hosting community events, the Farmers Market and community garden and how to handle sewage remain unanswered.

The town has been in the process of developing a wastewater system and already has significant funding that must be spent by 2028. That would seem a natural fit for a 20-unit housing development.

Some in town criticized the select board’s approach to the project, feeling that the public should have been more involved in the process.

Some opposed the town hall redevelopment plan and green “Save Town Hall” signs popped up, creating controversy about where they were placed and even whether their very existence helped move the conversation forward.

Privately, some suggested the redevelopment plan was the way to save the former school building that had years of deferred maintenance and would otherwise cost the town a bundle.

Letters from an attorney representing a group calling itself the “Save Town Hall Coalition” were sent to the select board. The attorney hasn’t returned calls or emails from The Gazette.

All of the questions asked of the town by that attorney could just as easily be asked by town residents at select board meetings, or in writing. It’s hard to see engaging an attorney for what might best be community dialogue as anything more than a bullying tactic.

The organization points to a lack of transparency by the select board, but fails to identify members or offer a spokesperson for a conversation with The Gazette. Their own lack of transparency seems the antithesis of transparency and certainty doesn’t set an example of what they suggest is important.

Recently email messages from two additional addresses have appeared. The first, from “Concerned Citizens of Greensboro” suggested a middle path and smaller project be developed, but they too failed to respond to requests to identify themselves or offer a spokesperson to comment on their proposals.

Just last week, a message sent to some town residents from an email address called “Better Greensboro” using a gmail address: transparency.for.greensboro seems also to prioritize transparency. They too have not responded to an email inquiry, raising a question for us about what that transparency really means.

The Greensboro Select Board is bound by Vermont statute to follow open meeting laws and has acknowledged that they could, and perhaps should, have gathered more community input early in the process. They did hold an open meeting and listened to community input after the concerns came to light.

They are now in negotiations with RuralEdge, developing a purchase and sale agreement, but have not shared even a broad overview of the areas being negotiated, or asked for specific community input. That leaves the community to speculate about plans for parking, for sewage, for where the town office will be located, where recycling will go, what will happen to the triangle of green space and numerous other legitimate concerns.

It’s hard to see how constructive dialogue can happen when the conversation is cloaked in secrecy and people who are reasonable in the rest of their lives hide behind anonymous email addresses, legal frontmen and executive sessions.

Transparency is a two-way street with an on-ramp available to everyone.

Paul Fixx