Piqua's Battery Burning Committee Continues to Smolder

Has A Frustrated Committee Hit a Dead End?

In Piqua, the drama behind last year’s revelation of battery burning continues to unfold. Five volunteers, appointed to the "Commissioners' Committee on the Fire Training Facility," have been meeting every Thursday since spring. Their task? To unravel the mystery of battery burning at the city's old water treatment plant. It's a story that speaks volumes about the often frustrating intersection of civic engagement and local government bureaucracy. This publication covered this committee’s work back in July.

These civic-minded individuals, who likely imagined they'd be diving into the technical aspects of fire safety and environmental concerns, have instead found themselves grappling with a less than cooperative bureaucracy. They thought they were close to a breakthrough when they found a lawyer to help organize their report and guide their investigation. This glimmer of hope, however, was short-lived.

After months of discussion, countless emails, and probably more than a few headaches, the identified lawyer backed out, feeling he wasn’t the right fit. In the end, the committee was left adrift in a sea of procurement policies they never signed up to navigate. It's a situation that would test the patience of even the most dedicated public servant, let alone volunteers giving up their free time for the good of their community.

At Monday’s City Commission meeting, the committee recounted their Sisyphean struggle. Every step forward was met with an obstacle: no budget allocation, insufficient statements of work, engagement letters meant to be signed then withdrawn. It was a litany of bureaucratic hurdles that would be comical if it weren't so frustrating for those involved. The Commission's response to this tale of woe? A shrug and a platitude: "That's how government works."

But is it really? Should it be? Any competent local government bureaucrat should be able to hire an outside lawyer in a week, not months. The process should be straightforward: find the money in the budget, issue a quick Request for Proposals, get responses, issue a purchase order. Simple, efficient, done. It's not rocket science, nor should it be.

In fact, the city could have streamlined this process from the start by issuing a Request for Proposals to law firms and ensuring budgeted funds in the right accounts. This proactive approach would have saved time, reduced frustration, and demonstrated a commitment to the committee's work. Instead, these volunteers are getting an unwanted crash course in municipal procurement. It's hardly the civic education they signed up for.

When the committee, likely feeling a mix of frustration and futility, asked the Commission, "What now?" the response was a masterpiece of bureaucratic non-commitment: "Keep going." But to what end? What will become of this report once it's finished? These are questions that deserve clear answers, not vague assurances.

Will the report spark litigation against those involved in the battery burning or the agencies that permitted it? It seems doubtful. Even if legal action does ensue, it will likely involve a new set of lawyers and investigators, rendering the committee's work redundant. And let's not forget, the Commission has already banned battery burning on public property. So what's left for this committee or the City Commission to do when it comes battery burning?

The real tragedy here is the personal cost to these volunteers. They've sacrificed family time, missed their children's events, all for what appears to be an exercise in futility. Imagine the frustration of spending countless Thursday evenings away from home, only to feel like you're spinning your wheels. It's a stark reminder of the often-overlooked cost of civic engagement.

This situation raises broader questions about how we value and utilize citizen volunteers in local government. Are we setting them up for success, or are we inadvertently creating disillusioned citizens? The Commission owes these volunteers, and indeed the entire community, a clear strategy. If this report is destined to gather dust on a shelf, they should have the decency to disband the committee now and let these civic-minded individuals reclaim their Thursday evenings.

But if there's a genuine intent for meaningful action based on the committee's work, that vision needs to be shared immediately. What specific outcomes are they hoping for? How will the findings be implemented? These are questions that should have been answered at the outset, not months into the process. And the pat answer of, “Well, we won’t know what we will do until we see the report,” isn’t helpful — it’s an excuse.

In the end, this saga seems less and less about battery burning and more about the disconnect between civic engagement and governmental action. It's a cautionary tale of good intentions mired in bureaucratic quicksand, and a stark reminder that in local politics, the path from volunteer commitment to effective change is often frustratingly long and winding.

Moreover, it highlights a critical issue in local governance: the need for clear communication and well-defined objectives when engaging citizen volunteers. Without these, we risk not only wasting valuable time and resources but also discouraging future civic participation. In an era when many communities struggle to get citizens involved in local government, Piqua can ill afford to squander the goodwill of those who step up.

As this committee continues its work – or doesn't, depending on what the Commission decides – it serves as a microcosm of larger issues in local governance. How do we balance the need for due process and careful consideration with the desire for efficient, effective action? How can we better harness the enthusiasm and expertise of citizen volunteers? And perhaps most importantly, how can we ensure that when citizens give their time and effort to their community, it leads to tangible, meaningful results?

The answers to these questions will determine not just the fate of this particular committee, but the future of civic engagement in Piqua and communities like it across the country. It's a reminder that good governance isn't just about making the right decisions – it's about making those decisions in a way that respects and values the time, effort, and goodwill of the citizens who make our communities work.

What Do You Think?

Is it time for the committee to disband? Is there still valuable work for the committee to accomplish? Our paid subscribers are welcome to leave their ideas and insights in the comment thread.

A New Way to Support This Work

Our readers and subscribers have been asking for a new way to support the work being done here at Civic Capacity! Some of our readers do not like the idea of having to sign up for another subscription service. Some of our subscribers occasionally want to give more support through a one-time transaction.

Civic Capacity is partnering with “Buy Me A Coffee” to give our readers, subscribers and friends an opportunity to give one-time support to Civic Capacity. Personally, I don’t like coffee, but I will never turn down a nice iced tea. If you feel compelled to support this effort, just click the button below.

Thanks for reading today’s Civic Capacity Newsletter! Please feel free to share this information with your friends and neighbors.

Also, please consider subscribing to our work. If you are a free subscriber, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. For less than $1 a week, you can get timely and conversational updates about the decisions that are impacting you and your community!