I remember attending meetings with my peers in economic development and being told I could not do what I was doing. I know that sounds odd, but it is true. I have always tried to be creative when doing economic development. I gained expertise because I would read the regulations and examine the process for getting things done. My theory was that if there is a form to ask if you can do it, you can do it if you meet the criteria. 

I got to know people in the economic development community and the administrators. I was never afraid to steal a good idea from someone and replicate their success. Past practice is always a good thing to consider when doing a project.

I learned that administrators will work with you to help you accomplish your goal. I also learned to look at the end game and adapt to the process. Sometimes, politically appointed administrators have a point of view on how grants and processes should be conducted, and they try to stay within what works for the boss.

As people with a point of view rise through the system based more on merit than politics, they may hesitate to follow the narrative. People learn through experience, but keeping that out of your thoughts when evaluating projects is hard. I have always liked to deal with merit folks because I always try to write merit funding applications.

Recently, the truth has become blurred as “misinformation” has been spread. I do not think misinformation is misinformation; it is more of a point of view. Sometimes, it is an effort to get something funded politically, and maybe not all of the “I”s are dotted or the “T”s are crossed.  To the administrators, it becomes a way of developing a path but not following a logical order because it will take too much time. If you know you can change a requirement or classification, but it will not be timely in the order of operations, one can say that we will take care of that later.

Something like that is good if everyone is on the same page and the perspective of a potential change does not accept the misconceived reality that there is a change. Sometimes, the project goes too far to go back to square one. That is a problem because I like to be merit-based and accept any waivers as truth, not potential truth.

I recently questioned the mechanics of a dam removal upstream from my hometown of Downingtown. I was aware of some conditions that others might not be aware of because I worked in Downingtown in the mid-90s. I had projects that directly related to issues that would impact the dam removal process. When I asked some questions, I was immediately laughed at during meetings. I am not used to being laughed at, and being laughed at in front of my spouse was especially troubling.

So, I spent a year gathering information under the Right to Know Act and better understood how things were done on the project. I am sure that everyone had the best intentions, but the removal seemed more political than merit-based. I found it very confusing, and at times, I would read a sentence and spend the next hour or so on the net trying to derive context. It was like a mini master’s degree in dam removal. My knowledge base is a little more than “getting the hang of it,” as some issues overlap with my skill set.

Part of my skill set is that I dislike creating waves unless I am sure I am correct. Sometimes, my name is used as a verb, such as “getting Barry with someone.” That means I become authoritative in a proactive way. I am trying very hard on the dam project not to fall into the verb category.

My knowledge base on this project is deep and far-reaching, and my experience in the process adds context to the information. As I maneuver through the process, I encounter dismissive people, which is humbling but not as humbling as being laughed at in public. 

The dam breach project was mitigation for the widening of Route 322 in Thornbury, and dam removal was considered beneficial to free access for fish to swim upstream. Fish having free access to the stream is a great goal. It can also become a narrative.

So, I asked Penn DOT to review the impact of the dam removal, and they met with me and about 15 to 20 neighbors to discuss the issue. The press was there, and a few photos were taken, as well as a feature article in the Daily Local. So, we will see what Penn DOT comes up with in their analysis. I supplied some technical data to support my position.

I look at it; I believe the breach was a political rather than a merit project and a product of a class of technical elites wanting to fulfill a narrative. If this happened to me, where else could it be happening? How many lives have been touched by interpreting a rule with a purpose rather than a neutral standing?

This has been an education for me and made me view some of my actions in perspective. Could it ever be interpreted that I did something like this? I would hope not, but it is possible, and I did not realize it, and that could be the case in this dam breach. As I move closer to closure or being a verb, self-recognition and examination of my past projects continue to roll through my mind as I hope and pray that it was never me.

Barry Cassidy is a freelance grant and economic development consultant. He can be reached at barrycassidy@comcast.net.