I, too, was at the meeting and understand Lorenca Rosal’s concern (Monitor letters, March 20) that the Hopkinton Select Board may not have left the town meeting with a clear vision of the town’s “mandate” related to the sale of the Bates building. But in defense of Jim O’Brien and the rest of the select board, I believe what led to the potential mixed message was the last-minute petitioned change to the article.
The successful floor amendment changing the authorization for the select board to sell the Bates building to an authorization to “explore the sale of the building” led to what I would argue was an unclear sense of what the residents truly want. Before the amendment, it seemed to me that the town would likely have voted against selling the building for many reasons. But once the article was amended to only authorize exploration of a sale, it passed overwhelmingly.
Because of the change in the authorized action of the article, and after listening to the public sentiment before the amendment was added, as a member of the select board I believe I might have come away with the message that while our town’s residents want all the information possible for an informed vote on the sale of the Bates building, they will likely still oppose the sale in the end.
Given that there are many other pressing town issues to address, it would be hard for me as a member of the board to put substantial time or attention into exploring something that is likely to go nowhere. And that, I think, was expressed in the uncertainty of a “mandate” that Rosal sensed from the select board.
SCOTT METZGER
Hopkinton