When Good Intentions Aren’t Enough: Why the BOE’s Solar Decision Matters for All of Stafford

By John Whetton

Selectman, Town of Stafford 

Stafford is a town built on shared values—community, responsibility, and long-term thinking. That spirit is what drove our investment in large-scale solar infrastructure nearly a decade ago. It was smart, sustainable, and—perhaps most importantly—a cooperative effort between our municipal and educational systems. But today, that partnership is at risk.

The Stafford Board of Education (BOE) has signaled its intent to walk away from its share of the town’s solar lease obligation. This decision—whether driven by budget pressure, disagreement within leadership, or simply financial fatigue—has real consequences. It threatens a successful long-term energy strategy, shifts financial burden to the town, and breaks with nearly ten years of established practice. Even more concerning, it reflects a broader pattern of short-term decision-making that’s increasingly out of sync with the needs of Stafford’s taxpayers.

Let’s start with the facts. The BOE has historically contributed to the town’s solar lease through documented budget line items labeled “Debt-Related Expenditures.” These payments were not symbolic—they were material. In FY2023–2024, the BOE’s contribution increased to $490,000, a figure that was directly tied to its declining energy costs and increasing benefit from the program. These savings weren’t minor. In 2013–2014, the BOE’s total energy costs—including electricity, heating oil, propane, and natural gas—stood at roughly $919,679. As of this fiscal year, that figure has dropped to $429,307. That’s a reduction of more than 53%, achieved not by happenstance, but because of a joint investment in solar infrastructure and energy efficiency upgrades.

The Town of Stafford, for its part, has remained consistent. The Board of Selectmen’s budget reflects nearly $1 million annually in lease payments to support this infrastructure, listed transparently under account 20-480-9000: “Capital Lease Payment – Solar Project.” In other words, this isn’t a theoretical partnership—it’s a financial one, underpinned by shared obligation and direct benefit.

What’s often misunderstood about this lease is its true scope. The project wasn’t just about generating electricity. It was part of a broader plan to reduce the schools’ overall energy use. Alongside solar panel installations, the Town undertook substantial upgrades to school HVAC systems, including replacing outdated oil-fired boilers with high-efficiency geothermal heat pump systems. These systems were designed to slash heating fuel consumption—eliminating the need for oil and propane in favor of electric heating and cooling. And because that electricity would be covered by net-metered solar generation, the BOE would, in effect, stabilize or reduce long-term energy costs across the board.

Now, it’s true that the geothermal system has not functioned perfectly. There are known performance issues, and the matter is currently under litigation. But that does not negate the intent or value of the investment. The system functions—just not entirely as intended. And legal remedies are being pursued to correct any gaps. Meanwhile, the BOE continues to receive monthly solar energy credits— valued at over $222,000 per year (this figure is from an older document,so I imagine it’s more now)—that reduce its electric bills across multiple facilities.

This benefit is measurable. Over five years, the BOE stands to save more than $1.1 million in energy costs from solar credits alone. Over the 25-year term of the lease, the combined savings from electric, oil, and gas reductions were projected to exceed $24 million. So when the BOE now attempts to walk away from its $490,000 contribution, it’s not simply rejecting a budget line—it’s undermining an integrated system that was designed to serve the entire community.

The argument that there is no signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Town and the BOE is technically accurate—but irrelevant. While a formal document may not exist, the BOE made consistent payments for years. These contributions appeared in budget documents, were approved by the Board, and reflected the district’s continued use of solar infrastructure. The absence of an MOU doesn’t void nearly a decade of cooperation. It merely reflects a transitional period in leadership, when superintendents were reluctant to commit their successors to long-term obligations. But in practice, the commitment was real.

The more pressing concern is the timing and manner of the BOE’s decision. After Stafford’s budget was rejected at referendum, the Board of Finance gave clear guidance: departments needed to reduce spending in a meaningful way. The BOE was expected to make nearly $1 million in cuts. But instead of reducing internal costs, it offloaded the $490,000 solar lease obligation onto the Town. The line item disappeared from the BOE’s budget—but not from the taxpayers’ burden. This is the kind of maneuver that violates both the spirit and the letter of the directive given by the Finance Board and the will of the voters.

This isn’t fiscal responsibility. It’s fiscal avoidance.

The optics of this shift are also deeply problematic. The BOE can now present its budget as “cut” by $490,000—while knowing full well that the Town will have to absorb the expense anyway. The taxpayer pays either way. The only difference is which side of the ledger it appears on. This is creative accounting—not responsible budgeting.

Unfortunately, this isn’t an isolated incident. There is a broader pattern of administrative oversights that warrant public scrutiny. Take, for example, the Stafford Middle School roof project. In 2022, the Town approved a $1.86 million bond for the work, with the expectation that roughly $1.06 million would be reimbursed by the state. That reimbursement is now delayed due to incomplete paperwork. In the meantime, the Town is left fronting the full cost.

Or consider the district’s self-funded health insurance plan. Due to underfunding, the reserve has run a deficit, requiring the Town to temporarily cover more than $600,000 in claims from its general fund. These are not one-off oversights. They are signs of systemic administrative breakdowns—and the costs are being passed directly to the taxpayers.

It’s reasonable—if not necessary—to question whether this administration has lost touch with the realities facing the average voter, operating instead within its own echo chamber. At this stage, it seems clear that simply adding more money to the system won’t fix the administrative and fiscal challenges they continue to face.

Let me be clear: I don’t believe these decisions come from a place of malice or negligence. I believe they come from a place of good intent—an earnest desire to protect students, staff, and programming. But as the saying goes, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” And while I admire the BOE’s commitment to its mission, good intentions alone don’t pay the bills, fulfill obligations, or satisfy voter directives. They don’t preserve long-term partnerships. They don’t build trust.

This issue isn’t just about a lease. It’s about how we govern. It’s about transparency. It’s about accountability. And it’s about living up to the expectations that Stafford residents place on all of their elected boards—whether that’s the BOE, the BOS, or the BOF.

Some will say this is a technical disagreement. Others will say it’s just politics. But I believe it’s something more. It’s a test of our willingness to act with integrity, even when it’s uncomfortable. To keep our promises. To acknowledge shared responsibility. Just as the Board of Selectman did, when we decided to cut $107,500 from our budget in response to the referendum, even after the Board of Finance decided to leave our budget alone.

I’m not writing this to make enemies or stir division. I’m writing this because we all deserve a conversation rooted in facts, fairness, and mutual respect. This is not a moment for finger-pointing. It’s a moment for coming together. 

We need the BOE, BOS, BOF, and the public at the same table—committed not just to their own interests, but to a united vision for the town. Not in silos. Not behind closed doors. But in open, honest, and informed dialogue.

Because Stafford doesn’t need factions. It needs functioning checks and balances. It needs public servants who understand that leadership is about more than balancing a spreadsheet—it’s about balancing priorities, relationships, and trust.

We can move forward. But only together. 

I challenge both the Board of Education and the Board of Finance to dig deep and find the courage to do what’s right. These boards should not become echo chambers for aged, long-winded men or mere yes-people for professional educators—they are meant to represent the constituents who entrusted them with leadership. If any members are unable or unwilling to make that distinction in their decision-making, then perhaps it is time for them to step aside and allow others the opportunity to serve with integrity and focus.