If you were one of the nearly 500 at the dedication of the new school last week you may have missed what was so conspicuous by its absence. Need a hint?
Think back five months when the dissension over the new colors and mascot of a new county school had reached a crescendo to the effect of three dozen citizens crowding the room across the hall from me to give the school board a piece of their mind. Some were questioning, others puzzled, while many were incensed—outraged that the symbols of their educational experience in pre-tornado Greensburg were being tossed aside in favor of a long-term view of currying cooperation and assimilation.
Knowing full well their decision was neither the easy nor popular stance, Darin Headrick and his Board was convinced it was the “right thing to do.” The conciliatory, celebrative atmosphere at the grand opening last week would indicate they were right, as would the dozens of Haviland folks in attendance and the news that virtually every single Haviland high school student is now a Maverick.
In addition several local retailers are either selling or preparing to sell Mavericks clothing and gear, in both Greensburg and Haviland. Similarly, when it came to selling spots for the new school announcement ad, now named Mavericks on the Move, the sales came just as easily in Mullinville and Haviland as in Greensburg. The county as a whole would appear to have bought into the Maverick brand, and it’s done so more quickly and easily than I would have predicted. On the other hand, a new school year and sports season in a brand new state-of-the-art “county school” can soften attitudes more efficiently than any dosage of altruistic rhetoric.
More than once Headrick told me the board’s position was “the right thing to do.” This was an approach he and those seven individuals agreed on months ago in no arbitrary fashion, but with a formula of putting students first, parents second, staff third, and the community after all three. It simply becomes much easier to hold your ground when you determine to operate by principles borne of a clear vision.
Now think of the current situation with the Big Well design. One council member currently seems to have somewhat of an idea of the purpose to be served by the museum/tourist attraction. The others seem to be at a loss as to whether to give greater weight to the sensibilities of a small, vocal minority of residents or to the vision articulated and designed by the architects they hired.
There would likely have been no sudden urge to again consult public opinion on the design if the bids had not come in higher than expected. Suddenly the indecisive needed political cover, and they sought it by first pointing fingers at BNIM for submitting a design that brought in bids over the targeted price tag. Then they dithered over whether the “public” had been given enough input, despite the fact of public opinion and a Big Well Advisory Board having informed BNIM’s design. And now that public opinion has been sought yet once more the council is less the wiser for it.
Out of a population of 800 or so barely four dozen residents showed up for the electronic voting session with BNIM the evening of August 15, most if not all of them being over the age of 50. The only person under 20 I recall speaking up recently at a public meeting on the matter was Taylor Schmidt who told the council his architectural buddies at KSU had raved over BNIM’s original design.
The message from the public has been muddled at best, with 55.8 percent saying via the electronic vote that attracting tourists should be the primary effect of the museum, and only 7 percent naming the generation of revenue. It would seem that effectively attracting tourists and generating revenue are one and the same, in that an effective tourist attraction tends to generate revenue, if not at the site then in the community at large when visitors patronize shops and eateries. On more than one question the response was split exactly or nearly 50/50.
I realize that the relationship between superintendent and school board by its very nature more easily lends itself to a unified, strategic approach to planning and prioritizing, than compared to that between a mayor and/or administrator and their council. On the other hand, Bob Dixson is by his nature more of a facilitator than strategist. That’s neither good nor bad. It is what it is. His approach ruffles far fewer feathers than that of a John Janssen. By the same token it lacks the determination that can enable council members to arrive at and then coalesce around a central, singular objective, such as making it a priority to build a museum that will catch the eye of tourists and sundry passersby.
It seems there’s only one way for the council to extract itself in timely fashion from this morass. Simply put, City Administrator Steve Hewitt is going to have to become a more telling presence in the process. Thus far he’s stayed more or less on the sidelines, apart from occasionally trying to define the issue at hand and goading the council to come down on one side of it. It’s likely Hewitt is aware it’s time for him to step forward and is, in fact, prepared to take a more active role in deciding where the process goes from here. It’s time to quit treading water before this project begins circling the drain.
