Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Projects topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Candidates call for clearer communications after controversy over athletic field project
Summary
Facing community concern over a recent athletic field project, Brighton board candidates urged clearer ballot language, neighborhood outreach, better website information and ongoing updates on capital projects during the PTSA forum.
Community concern over the district’s recent athletic field project surfaced repeatedly at the PTSA candidate forum, with multiple candidates urging changes to how the district communicates about large capital projects.
Dr. Richard Crowy suggested the ballot and materials offer clearer options and visuals: “Having the information in the ballot that’s not too vague… maybe more than just words, have some diagrams, see what we’re really voting on. Also… maybe saying A, B or C.” Crowy also noted difficulty finding project documents on the district website and recommended easier online organization.
Incumbent Sue Gasparino described the capital-improvement process and said athletic-field updates came from building-condition reviews, program needs and community feedback; she acknowledged the district could have done a better job with wider outreach and more transparent sharing of the project process. “If we’ve learned anything, it’s we need to be more transparent sharing the process that we go through in any of our capital improvement projects,” she said.
Other candidates raised similar fixes: Jeff Saxs urged timely public communication and community involvement; Carrie Lynn Bertino said the recent controversy showed the value of neighborhood meetings and that the board is taking feedback (including suggestions about bundling capital projects) seriously; Dr. Robert Cole emphasized more frequent ‘why’ conversations explaining alternatives and consequences.
Candidates proposed concrete steps the board could take for future projects: clearer ballot descriptions with visual plans, proactively posting full project materials on the district website with working links, neighborhood outreach sessions before final design decisions, periodic public updates after votes, and clearer explanation of alternatives and trade-offs.
The exchange reflected broader concern about how the district weighs facility needs, safety and community priorities. Candidates said improved communication and more accessible documentation would help rebuild trust as the district prepares other capital proposals.
The forum did not produce a formal board action; candidates said they would bring community feedback back to board discussions if elected.
