Click here to subscribe today or Login.
There can be a point where opposition morphs into obstructionism, where a sincere determination to stop something from occurring — or to make it occur — prevents anything from being done, no matter how urgently action is needed.
When the opposition is principled, detecting that moment gets difficult. Yet if those in the fray don’t, from time to time, step back and assess the situation with a gimlet eye on their own position, any fight for a just cause can erode into just a cause.
The duel between the Wilkes-Barre Area School Board and opponents to the plan to consolidate Coughlin and Meyers high schools may be at such a point, for both sides.
After spending more than $6 million with little to show for it, the board is back to looking for a site for the building thanks to the Wilkes-Barre City Zoning Hearing Board’s rejection of a needed variance. News that Geisinger is willing to donate 55 acres is welcome but small comfort; the projected cost of the school is climbing even without purchasing land.
So yes, as suggested at an informational public meeting Thursday by residents, the board should seriously consider delaying a planned Wednesday vote on narrowing the site options to one. Bringing in an outside consultant is still an option, as is some sort of voter referendum. The point of no return is not yet reached; a breather in the process has value.
That said, it may be time for the opposition to re-evaluate. Consider:
• Something has to be done. Coughlin High School stands half-gutted from asbestos removal in anticipation of a razing that will not happen because the zoning hearing board nixed a plan to build the new school there. The students are split between the annex and the renovated Mackin building. How long does anyone want this situation to remain?
• Consolidation has been backed by all nine board members and the current and previous superintendent, even as some voiced passionate preference for retaining three high schools. Can they all be mistaken? Are they all in cahoots with some nefarious plot? Or is it possible they all saw enough proof that this is the best way to go?
• Despite years of criticism of the plan, only one opponent got on the ballot for the upcoming primary election (there are promised write in and independent runs). It doesn’t prove public support of consolidation, but this was the golden opportunity to bring unequivocal change, and it isn’t happening.
In a recent newsletter to shareholders, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos wrote “If you have conviction on a particular direction even though there’s no consensus, it’s helpful to say ‘Look, I know we disagree on this but will you gamble with me on it? Disagree and commit.’”
Barring a reversal of the board’s position, opponents of the consolidation plan will someday face a choice: Fight for forever, potentially stalling any progress, or “disagree and commit,” voicing concerns but helping to make the final decision work.
It’s essential to stay open to the latter option.
— Times Leader