Present: Larry Pilchman, Geoffrey Vitt, John Chamberlin,
Kathy.Parsonnet, Buff Mclaughry, Peter Krass, Paul Campagna,
John Aubin, Cam Brown, Bob White, Wayne Gersen, Robert Sokol,
Hilary Pridgen, Mary Danko, Mike Jackson
Minutes of last meeting: Approved
Presentation of Athletic Fields Survey Results by
Bob Sokol, Sociology Dept, Dartmouth College
In addition to summarizing the points made in his written
summary, Bob made the following comments, with discussion
following: To have 902 surveys returned is a reasonable
amount; he is satisfied that he was able to control for potential
bias; comments made by respondents (which reflected very strong
feelings) echoed the data; and the comments should be read
to capture the true flavor of the results.
According to Bob, the “messages” are:
Involve the community in the planning process and come
up with a plan that benefits the community;
The Norwich site is viable site for building fields; however,
the Board needs to consider the specific options to make
the plan compatible with the community's financial and philosophical
concerns:
Attitude of vast majority of respondents is that athletics
is healthy, and we should encourage a lifestyle that includes
fitness, but not necessarily competitive sports;
A budget that does not exceed $3 million should pass,
“all things being equal” - meaning if nothing
changes between now and the bond vote (attitudes, economic
realities);
Respondents are divided on emphasis on interscholastic
competition and the committee will have to deal with that;
Public confidence will come around if we share this information
openly.
Discussion and questions followed his presentation to clarify
certain aspects of the results. For example, Bob Sokol
characterized “No” voters of the last bond vote
to be those who think athletics are too competitive, there
are poor extracurricular alternatives, and lifelong fitness
options are very important. In addition, a member of the public
suggested adding background information about the previous
bond vote to the report so the reader has a frame of reference.
Also, it was clear to the committee that private fundraising/sponsorship
needs to be addressed.
Norwich Interim Plan
Peter Krass said that he had expressed several issues concerning
the interim plans raised by committee members to Margaret
Cheney. Namely, the committee wanted assurances that
any interim plans would in no way restrict the committee’s
work. Margaret assured Peter that would not be the case
and that the committee would have ample time to have input
into the plans.
Wayne Gersen provided a Norwich interim update.
On March 22 the Dresden Board would be voting on whether to
use the Merriman funds. Wayne's opinion was that the
use of the funds and subsequent construction would be a demonstration
of how formal and informal alliances with towns and local
businesses and Dartmouth can be leveraged. He believed
that the district was already saving over $100,000 on fill
alone by allowing Dartmouth to provide it. The
Board will be looking into private sector donations, and other
alternative means of fundraising.
Wayne suggested that if a baseball field was built in Norwich,
there was the possibility of Varsity and JV practicing there
and at Thompson Terr. until 5PM and then both fields being
made available to Hanover Rec. programs.
Other community groups may be able to take advantage of the
57 acres of land, too, Wayne said. Partnerships with
others would lead to saving money and getting people committed
to particular projects.
For the Norwich site, permitting may not be finished until
end of June, which gives everyone time to think about the
interim plans there. While this is the Board’s
project, the consensus was that the AFC should have a strong
voice in it.
Discussion turned to Lebanon Street. Wayne said renovation/development
at the Lebanon Street site may have to wait for a couple of
summers because of need for space for staging the high school
renovation. How the job is staged would affect the costs
– more would be known in a few weeks
Critical Tasks and Assignments Moving Forward
Given the results of the questionnaire, the committee discussed
next steps. Bob White thought it best to take time to
digest the results and articulate them to the community and
get further input. Geoffrey Vitt believed the results
such as the message on sharing need to be acknowledged and
resolved, but there are other considerations. Geoffrey
felt the committee should be looking into specifics immediately
such as lights.
Moving forward on a number of fronts appeared to be the most
prudent approach; however, it was agreed that any sharing
opportunities had to be looked at first.
Instead of members tackling very specific tasks, John Aubin
suggested the committee break the plans development down into
five major aspects: the Norwich site, the Lebanon Street
site, Sharing, Communication, and the Budget. Discussion
turned to whether Lebanon Street ideas and costs should be
developed first and see how much money was involved, then
look at what might be done at Norwich based on Bob Sokol saying
the total budget should be $3 million or less. Again,
the consensus was that everything would have to move forward
together because of time constraints.
To assign members to one of the critical groups, Kathy Parsonnet
requested that each member email their top priorities as far
as plans development. Assignments would be finalized
at the next meeting.
Clarification of Issues from Questionnaire Results
In addition to members voicing their plans development concerns,
Kathy requested that each member also state the five most
salient points they took away from the questionnaire results.
This would aid the committee in understanding everyone’s
position and help create guiding principles as the committee
moved forward on plans development.
In considering the questionnaire results and future plans
Mike Jackson requested that the committee consider accommodating
not only current but future programs such as an additional
boy’s soccer team.
Action Items
The communication subcommittee is to meet and work on how
to best share the questionnaire results with the public.
The fields inventory/sharing subcommittee is to meet and
determine if there are any potential sharing opportunities.
Each committee member is to email to Kathy and Peter their
list of Critical Aspects pertaining to plans development and
the Five Salient Points they took away from the questionnaire
results. All of this would be circulated among the members
so everyone has a feel for what their fellow members are thinking.
