A decision about paper

It is not often that a request to accept a bid for copier paper generates a 25-minute discussion, especially one that concludes with a 6-3 vote.

But as I said last night, this is a classic Public Issues Forum type of dilemma: competing courses of action (purchase recycled paper at a higher price, vs. regular copier paper at the lower price) driven by competing values (social/environmental responsibility vs. fiscal responsibility).

But this wasn't a case of simply one point of view versus another. I was struck by the fact that everyone at the table seemed to appreciate both sides of the argument.

Everyone understood that we have a responsibility to be stewards of the taxpayers' money.   

Similarly, there was a general recognition that, at some point, we have to put our (that is, your) money where our mouth is: that there will be a cost associated with supporting the sustainability resolution that we passed several months ago.

In this case, at what point do the scales tip? Is $10,000 too much? What if it were $5,000? $1,000?

Would I personally spend an extra 10% in order to be environmentally responsible? Probably so. As a taxpayer, would I be ok with a board decision to spend the extra $10,000? Again, probably so.

The question is, does the public feel the same way?

Given the current economic climate, perhaps not. In any event, I did not feel confident that I could make that assumption, so I voted for the least expensive option.

But I am confident we will face this issue again.