This past fall Windham residents were given the opportunity to weigh in on the public sewer project through a survey. The survey and accompanying sell sheet (marketing speak for a flyer intended to evoke an agreeable reaction), were framed as a “public conversation” and the very beginning of an ongoing community discussion and outreach (indoctrination) effort.

Survey results were delivered to the Town Council by Town Manager Tony Plante at the Jan. 4 council workshop in anticipation of authorizing preliminary engineering and construction estimating for a public sewer.

Did the survey produce any mind-blowing revelations? Of course not, but it wasn’t designed to either. Questions were skewed toward producing favorable responses and as stated previously, the survey came wrapped in a sell sheet intended to push the need for public sewer. I’d venture to say that the number of respondents-approximately 200-may have been higher if the survey and packaging were less leading. Residents probably felt used knowing their responses would, in effect, show their approval of a project that they may actually be against.

Question 3 of the survey was especially designed to garner supportive survey answers. It reads:

“Regarding the issue of a sewer, how important to you is: Safeguarding public health?, Protecting Windham’s groundwater resource?, Allowing Windham to expand its commercial base?, Continued evaluation of a public sewer system?”

Seriously? Who in Windham wants non-potable water, is interested in ruining our natural resources, doesn’t want commercial growth (commercial growth has actually contributed to an increase in Windham’s tax levy over the last 30 years, but that’s another column), and has no interest in studying our town’s infrastructure concerns?

Immediately apparent wasn’t Question 3’s attempt to elicit pro-sewer responses, but that obvious resident concerns and opportunity for input with regard to property tax implications, user fees, cost to tie into the system, residential and commercial growth, and resident cost outside of the project area were completely ignored.

Further, one respondent used the survey’s comments section to ask why the question “Do you favor a sewer project expansion?” did not appear on the survey. They went on to say, “Perhaps you do not want to know that answer.” They were probably right and this same sentiment was echoed by other survey respondents.

In the “Summary of Comments” attached to the charts and data analysis based on a flawed survey, the author writes:

“As usual, the negative responses stand out more. However there were quite a few responses that are in favor of this project. While these responses do not stand out, there is support out there for a sewer project.”

This statement borders on laughable. Why do our town leaders continually label opinions that are not in line with their policy goals as being “negative?” I would be inclined to say that every opinion is important in shaping a comprehensive view with regard to resident concerns about this project. Moreover, at a time that I feel town leaders should be approaching this project with open minds, the author’s statement seems more concerned with what I guess are positive comments affirming support for a sewer project.

A survey with bias is worse than meaningless, it will mislead our town leaders by affirming their support for a sewer, further positioning Windham on a myopic course towards a dubious future. Not to mention, the survey, as written was a total waste of taxpayer money that should put our leaders’ lack of fiduciary responsibility into question. If they are not able to build a useful survey, why should residents have faith in their ability to manage a sewer project with costs ranging from $92 million to $197 million with debt service and estimate accuracy percentages factored in using data taken from the “Wastewater Facilities Plan.”

Do not wait for Windham’s leaders to solicit your concerns with regard to the sewer project. Our leaders’ last attempt was wrought with an obvious aim to sway and misrepresent your opinion and use it to ratify their policy goals. Let them know that you will not be their pawn.

Patrick Corey lives in Windham.