Why Is Burlington’s Problem Our Problem?

Introduction

Years ago, the Chittenden Solid Waste District considered a proposal that appeared certain to pass.  The City of Burlington wanted the district to provide $400,000 to help purchase large recycling totes that would allow the city to modernize its recycling collection system.

The benefits sounded compelling.  For years, Burlington had relied on small sixteen-gallon blue bins for curbside recycling. The bins frequently overflowed. On windy days, recycling could end up scattered across neighborhoods.

The larger totes solved that problem.  They had lids that reduced litter and improved appearance.  Even more importantly, they could be emptied mechanically using a robotic arm mounted on the collection truck. Workers would no longer need to manually lift and dump hundreds of recycling bins every day, reducing injuries, back strain, and collection time.  The presentation was well done. The benefits were real.

After a brief discussion, the General Manager took a straw poll.  Every hand in the room went up.  Except mine.

Nobody seemed particularly surprised.  At the time, I had a reputation for being protective of Milton's interests and was often viewed as a contrarian on regional issues.  When the General Manager asked about my concerns, I gave a vague answer about needing time to think through the implications for Milton.  The truth was simpler.

I understood why Burlington wanted the money.  I just didn't understand why Milton should pay for it.

Burlington's Problem

Most communities in Chittenden County relied on private haulers to collect both trash and recycling.  Burlington had made a different choice.  The city had chosen to collect recycling itself.

That decision created advantages, but it also created operating costs.  While the new totes were expensive upfront, they would help reduce those operating costs.

From Burlington's perspective, the proposal made perfect sense.  In fact, if I had been Burlington's representative, I probably would have made the same request and voted for it.

The worker safety benefits were real. The efficiency gains were real. The recycling benefits were real. Burlington had a legitimate problem and the totes were a legitimate solution.

The problem was that I wasn't there to represent Burlington.  I was there to represent Milton.  And Milton residents would receive none of the direct benefits being described.

Our residents wouldn't receive new totes.  Our recycling system wouldn't change. Our collection costs wouldn't decline.

What I couldn't understand was why residents in one of the lower-income communities in the county should help pay for a solution to a problem created by a collection model Burlington had chosen for itself.

The Questions

I worked for Burlington Electric Department at the time, as well as representing Milton on several other county boards, and had watched Burlington pursue regional funding opportunities through several other organizations.  I knew the city had budget pressures. I knew why this request was being made.  What I didn't understand was why the rest of the district should be asked to pay for it.

Over the next month, I began talking with other district representatives.  I started with people I trusted.  Members with whom I sat on the executive committee. Other board members with whom I had good working relationships.

There were others I didn't approach at all. We had poor relationships and I knew the conversation would go nowhere.

I wasn't campaigning. I wasn't attacking Burlington.  I was asking questions.  Why was this a district responsibility?  Would private haulers receive similar assistance?  If not, why not?  If they did, how much would that cost?  What precedent would this create?  Would Burlington have avoided the entire problem if it simply used the same collection model as everyone else? 

Most importantly: Why is Burlington's problem our problem?

Those conversations helped refine my own thinking. Just as importantly, they gave other representatives questions they hadn't considered.  Some of them carried those conversations to other board members. Gradually, the discussion began to change.

The Assumption

At first, the discussion focused on the benefits.

The totes would improve safety. The totes would improve efficiency. The totes would reduce litter. The totes might increase recycling.  All of those things were true.  But gradually a different issue emerged.

Everyone had accepted that because the proposal benefited Burlington, it was appropriate for the district to pay for it.  Once that assumption became visible, the conversation changed.

The proposal itself hadn't changed.  The benefits hadn't changed.  The assumption underneath it had simply become visible.  And once people saw it, they started asking different questions.

The Vote

The CSWD used a weighted voting structure.  Every member community received one vote, plus an additional vote for every 5,000 residents.

Milton had three votes. Burlington had eight.  Burlington's voting strength meant coalitions mattered.  Even if I changed a few minds, Burlington remained a powerful voting bloc and only needed a handful of allies to prevail.  I wasn't particularly optimistic.

By the time the board reconvened, however, something had shifted.  The board chair, Bill Leach, was exceptionally good at reading the room and likely sensed it before the meeting began.  The General Manager didn't seem surprised either. By that point, he knew I had been talking with other representatives.

Steve Goodkind was another story.  He was clearly expecting approval. 

When the vote occurred, every community except Burlington voted no.  The proposal failed.

That outcome came as a complete surprise to Steve.  He was stunned. Then he was angry.  He immediately began warning representatives that Burlington's support might not be available when their communities eventually needed help on future projects.  It wasn't a legal threat. It was a political one.

The Mayor

Several weeks later, Burlington Mayor Peter Clavelle had a meeting scheduled with Burlington Electric General Manager Barb Grimes.  Before the meeting, he suggested that Barb bring me along so he could “remind Ken who he works for.”

To Barb's credit, she refused.  She reminded the Mayor that my role at the Solid Waste District had nothing to do with Burlington Electric.  At the district, I wasn't representing Burlington.  I was representing Milton.  If he had concerns about how I cast my vote, he was welcome to call me directly and discuss it.

The issue never went any further.  But the lesson stayed with me.

Final Reflection

Looking back, the most interesting part of the story isn't that the proposal failed.  It's that so many intelligent people viewed the same issue through different lenses.

Burlington was asking: “Is this a good solution?”

CSWD staff was asking: “Will this improve the recycling system?”

I was asking: “Why are Milton residents paying for it?”

None of those questions were irrational.  But they led to different conclusions.

One of the easiest mistakes leaders make is to start viewing problems through the lens of the organization they are sitting in rather than the people they represent.

Over time, it becomes easy to ask: What's best for the organization?  instead of: What's best for the people who sent me here?  Those questions are not always the same.

The recycling totes taught me something I have carried with me ever since.  Before evaluating whether a proposal is good or bad, be clear about whose interests you are representing.  Everything else comes after that.

Strategic Judgment Questions Raised by This Case

Why is this our problem?
Organizations routinely inherit responsibilities that properly belong elsewhere. Separating local problems from shared problems is an essential leadership skill.

Whose interests am I representing?
Leaders often serve on multiple boards, committees, and organizations simultaneously. Clarity about who you represent is essential because different roles can legitimately lead to different conclusions.

Who benefits from this decision?
The benefits of a proposal may be real and still not justify asking others to pay for it.

What assumptions are we accepting?
The proposal itself never changed. The discussion changed when people began examining assumptions that had previously been taken for granted.

Are we evaluating the proposal from the same perspective?
People can reach different conclusions about the same facts because they are viewing the issue through different responsibilities, incentives, and obligations.