This article explores the glaring absence of a post-project review and why "closing the books" without a proper analysis is a missed opportunity for accountability, growth, and public trust.
The all-day budget meeting on February 26 was a snooze-fest – who really can endure an all-day meeting? Nevertheless, I woke up a bit when the decommissioning of the wind turbine was mentioned. The wind turbine has been costing the municipality roughly $8,500 a year for maintenance, plus another $3,000 in miscellaneous expenses.
What struck me was the silence around this budget item. Not one question about what was achieved over the estimated 13 years of operation.
Digging through old municipal documents, I found the original project description. It promised over $20,000 in annual profit for the community. Yet at the meeting, no one asked whether that goal was ever met. No one asked what worked, what didn’t, or what we should learn from it.
I can already anticipate the response from MODS: “This is a budget review, not a project review.”
So, I’ll ask the obvious question: Does MODS have a post‑project review process? And if so, where is it?
The turbine was treated as just another budget line to close out. That’s not how mature organizations handle projects. When something ends, you review it. You document results. You learn from experience.
Ending the turbine project shouldn’t be the end of the conversation. If we don’t evaluate past projects, we risk repeating the same mistakes—or missing the same opportunities—when the next big wind project comes along.
Most importantly, every project MODS undertakes should include a post‑project analysis, and every project should leave behind a clear documentation trail. That’s how organizations mature. That’s how they improve. And that’s how they build trust with the people they serve.
Comments
Add a Comment