As a recently elected member of the Dighton-Rehoboth Regional School Committee, I would like to report on some of my experiences over the past few months. On April 7, some 1,300 voters cast ballots requesting that I dedicate three years of service to the town by offering a new and fresh perspective on some of the issues that the school committee faces. It has been a learning experience and there is so much more to know but I feel that I've made progress in understanding my responsibilities and the function of the superintendent's office with respect to the school committee.

My associate Robyn Balents and I have examined the budget and looked for ways to save money by seeking to reallocate funds to help restore teaching positions and open the library. I have been in contact with a professional grant writer who would be able to work with us to fund new programs in our schools. We've met often with every member of the business office as well as with each of the Rehoboth principals.

The focus of my efforts, though, has been spent studying and analyzing the septic system project at the high school. This project began long before I became a member of the school committee so it puts me in the awkward position of criticizing fellow committee members who worked for many months on this project. I commend their efforts and feel that they have made decisions based on information that was presented to them. David Katseff has assumed the role of spokesperson and I must say he has a good command of the English language and is a formidable debater. However, I feel the need to point out the information on which he has based many of his arguments has been inaccurate and misleading at best.

Misleading

When he spoke on town meeting floor he warned of a June 30 state deadline which would levy fines on the town if we did not start the project. That was false. He spoke of the 52 percent state funded grant as being a good possibility. We discovered we're not getting it. He said he was advocating on behalf of the entire school committee that $1.7 million was necessary to fund this project. I disagree. He said disruption in the three ball fields would validate the renovation of those fields as part of this project. Not exactly.

No matter how many ways he attempts to explain this to the town it is still a fundamentally flawed argument.

I became concerned over this project when I looked at the contractor bids back in April. The lowest bidder had a figure of $214,000 just to restore playing fields adjacent to the project. I took it upon myself to bring a private contractor out to the soccer field and he estimated that it could be done for around $50,000. What?

Also, I have serious reservations about the qualifications of the consultant Paul Carey. He has never had experience doing a project of this magnitude. We've paid in excess of $125,000 in consulting fees to his company, Waste Water Alternatives.

The "low bidder" of about $1.2 million is D-CAM certified. I asked our business administrator Paul Martin if this certification is required. He told me that he required it. By doing this, it rendered most local contractors ineligible to bid! Why? He has stated that he wanted the most qualified company doing the work. Just so that we're clear on this, I think we all are in agreement on that point. However, having that requirement potentially doubled the cost of the project without guaranteeing that the contractor is any more qualified than a non-D-CAM certified company. This certification is only required of the plumbing contractor doing the interior work - a very small percentage of the total job.

I believe that it is in the best interest of our town to rebid this project to find a qualified contractor if we can save a significant amount of funds. If we are able to reduce the cost by half or even a third by following through with a rebidding process I would like to challenge my fellow committee members to support that effort.

The town is poised to decide on an override of Proposition 21/2. In the days to follow you will be receiving mail pieces and reading articles promoting this override by stating that we have no choice but to vote for this if we want to balance the school's budget. The question I have for my fellow voters is this: What makes you think that giving more of your tax dollars will suddenly cause "the powers that be" to allocate these funds more effectively? Should we really try to put out a fire with gasoline? Just remember one thing when you cast your ballot on July 22: the 21/2 override is permanent. There is no turning back and what happens next year when this is not enough?

We are facing very difficult economic times. It's time we put our egos and political differences aside to seek viable alternatives wherever we can. Let's work together in the interest of what is best for our town as the focal point in the decisions that we make.

JIM PAON is a member of the DR Regional School Committee.