During a marathon regular meeting September 5, the Board of Selectmen unanimously agreed to move forward with plans to hire an independent director for the new community center, but differed over how the administrative wing of the center would be configured.

Following a presentation by Community Center Advisory Commissioners Bill Buchler and Brian Hartgraves, during which they detailed four possible management structures for the new facility, the selectmen eventually determined the administrative leader of the facility would be an independent professional who would be recruited or sought based on experience running one or more similar facilities.

The agreed upon structure is actually a combination of two other options offered to the selectmen, and as such, was described as a "hybrid" choice. As presented, the new community center director would serve in a lateral management capacity to the Senior Center director and the Parks & Recreation director. The advisory commission also envisioned the facility to tap the expertise of an aquatics director, who would presumably also oversee the outdoor pool at Treadwell Park and Eichler's Cove on Lake Zoar.

Both of those facilities are currently under the management of Newtown's Parks & Rec Department.

According to an organizational chart, a new community center director would ultimately answer to the first selectman, and would work under the guidance of a community center commission.

It was not clear whether any current members of the present community center advisory panel would revert to a permanent appointed group who would be charged with overseeing management and operations once the new community center is open.

The current commission, in creating the hybrid option, envisioned a new center director collaborating with the Parks & Rec director on developing the aquatics director post, as well as on things like programming, marketing, maintenance, operations, administration, and finance.

The advisory panel members under the hybrid model see the Parks & Rec Department readjusting existing personnel roles and adding new positions as needed to work across the Parks & Rec and community center landscape, as plans develop.

In reviewing the pros and cons of this administrative option, Mr Buchler and Mr Hartgraves said the commission determined that while it would take some time to find the right skill set in a director candidate, as well as create a hybrid personnel program under which Parks & Rec personnel might come under the direction of the community center director, there were a number of positives to the proposal.

It would give the town an opportunity to hire a director who already had experience administering such facilities, permitting the individual to hit the ground running; and would provide that person under the management of the first selectman, ostensibly benefiting from his or her input and guidance.

The independent director would also maintain a dedicated focus on marketing the new center, while utilizing a shared staff model that would lower operating costs, leverage existing Parks & Rec staffers' experience and the department's existing structure, and require fewer dedicated staff answering exclusively to the center's director.

Cross-Department Collaboration

According to the commission presentation, the initial reporting structure for the community center leader facilitates cross-department collaboration and enables the leader to focus on the successful launch, cost-efficient operation, and community connectivity of the center.

Implicit in this role, the commissioners stated, is the ability and responsibility to complete as soon as possible a business plan/pro-forma invoice, which successfully leverages the GE operating donation of $5 million well beyond five years.

The commission envisions that business or management plan and pro-forma invoice being fully vetted by the Board of Finance before it is finalized.

This option was well received by the board, particularly by Selectman Herb Rosenthal who expressed he was amenable to the proposal before the presentation concluded.

The hybrid option did not receive as warm a reception from Parks & Rec Director Amy Mangold, who expressed support for a third option that put the management of the community center under direct supervision by the Parks & Rec director, who would administer it with a combination of existing and newly hired staff.

"I think Model 3 is correct," Ms Mangold said. "It's best for the community."

Ms Mangold said her department already benefits from good structure and broad community knowledge, suggesting the selectmen consider hiring an administrator, who would function at the same level as Assistant Director of Parks Carl Samuelson.

"To create a standalone situation with an independent director is a mistake," Ms Mangold said. "There are many cost impacts to taxpayers not being considered."

In a follow-up conversation with The Newtown Bee, Ms Mangold pointed out that on the first page of the document presented by the advisory committee, is a statement that the Community Center Commission believes a center should provide educational, recreational, and artistic and creative opportunities to engage the community.

She said that Model 3 - the parks and recreation managed model - has the lowest cost impact to taxpayers, and also offers a structure that exists that can benefit the goals and success of the future of the community center.

While siding with First Selectman Pat Llodra and Selectman Will Rodgers supporting Model 4, Mr Rosenthal said he was not pleased being pushed into a vote without knowing the operations cost implications.

"This puts me in the untenable position of either voting to move forward without a business plan, or voting to delay and risk further project reductions," Mr Rosenthal said. "The only way that I can in good conscience vote to move forward is with an agreement that we will accept the Advisory Committee's recommendation, and act expeditiously to hire an experienced professional director to help oversee the project."

When approached after the meeting about the potential for conflict that may develop if Parks & Rec staff are positioned to take management orders from two directors, Mrs Llodra said, "Actually, I envision an environment of collaboration and collegiality between the two directors - a climate of mutuality of purpose which will leverage the skills and competencies of both directors and the personnel that work under their direction."

Mrs Llodra said the Parks & Rec staff are now and will be under the direction of Amy Mangold, and, it is likely that specific staff will be hired under the direction of the community center director.

"Where the work is aligned and 'common,' greater synergy can exist and better levels of efficiency and cost effectiveness," the first selectman said. "A parallel can be found in how the municipal and education offices and staffs work together... different directors with different lines of authority but common goals and lots of collaboration. It is critical and necessary for us to eliminate redundancy among staff work and positions - and we should rightfully expect that directors and their staffs will collaborate and cooperate."

Administrative Floor Plan

A more brief presentation of the layout of an administrative wing in the new community center was led by Kevin P. McFarland, AIA, an associate for the architect firm 

Quisenberry Arcari Malik, LLC, who also outlined four options.

After some discussion, the selectmen determined that designers should move forward with Option 2, which features three private office spaces, and cubicle-style seating for up to ten other staff member's work stations. It also includes a small work space and copy area.

Mr McFarland said that he also saw great practicality in the Option 2 design.

"Option 2 seems to work best with its added copy/work area," he said. "You could also take an office and make it storage space, or reconfigure for a small meeting room or program space. It's easier than expanding later."

Mr Rodgers agreed.

"Option 2 seems to accomplish all the management options," he said. "Better to go big and scale back, versus going small with the possibility we need to revisit in the future. That would be very problematic."

Mrs Llodra pointed to her own space in the Municipal Center as a perfect example of starting small.

"Our office here has no work space because of its location and the configuration of this Council room," she said, adding that with all the anticipated services center staffers would be dealing with, a bit more work space is important.

The suggestion that the configuration of Option 2 would provide enough space for both the center's director, staff and the administrative staff of the Parks & Rec Department did not appeal to Mr Rosenthal, who suggested sacrificing added community space to make room to relocate that department's staffers was a bad idea.

"I see no reason to have Parks & Rec offices in this building," Mr Rosenthal said. "There is plenty of time and space for the Parks & Rec offices to relocate."

Mr Rosenthal said that while it makes sense to co-locate staff with the Parks & Rec director because they do common work, he envisioned either keeping their offices at Town Hall South for as long as the building remains in public use, or eventually moving them to either Edmond Town Hall or possibly into one of the local schools that has extra space.

As a result, when it came time to vote on the administrative layout, Mr Rosenthal would not offer a second to Mr Rodgers motion, and voted no.