One lesson I learned as a helicopter mechanic is that every requirement competes for someone’s time and attention.

Obvious, right?  But it becomes very real when you are standing in a hangar with an aircraft that needs inspection, repairs waiting to be completed, parts to track, paperwork to finish, and a growing list of administrative requirements.

At one helicopter operator where I worked, we maintained multiple systems for tracking the same work. There was a paper logbook, a computer logbook, and a maintenance and parts tracking program. There was also a binder full of procedures explaining how to use the maintenance tracking program.  I spent the better part of the week at company headquarters out west learning the binder, the software, and the procedures for using the software.  

Some of these required tasks clearly served a purpose. Others seemed to be solutions to problems occurring somewhere far upstream in a large organization.

Each requirement could sound reasonable on its own. A new form might improve accountability. A new database might improve tracking. A new procedure might standardize how information was entered or reviewed.

The problem was cumulative.

Every additional form, tracking system, duplicate entry, and administrative task consumed time and attention. Those resources are not unlimited. Every minute spent entering the same information into multiple systems was a minute not spent inspecting an aircraft, troubleshooting a discrepancy, cleaning a component, or completing actual maintenance.  I spent a lot of time with my back to the aircraft, staring at my computer and rifling through binders and notebooks.

Human focus and mental energy are limited too. If mechanics spend too much of it satisfying administrative systems, they have less available for the physical work those systems are supposed to support.

The frustrating part was that everyone involved could honestly claim they were improving safety, accountability, or compliance. And sometimes they were. But there were also many days when the aircraft sat nearby while mechanics focused on computer entries, duplicate records, or figuring out how a spare liquid oxygen tank had disappeared into the virtual black hole of a parts tracking program because someone didn’t check the right box on a certain page.

That experience taught me a lesson that followed me into municipal government:

A new requirement is never free.

A new procedure consumes attention.

A new form consumes attention.

A new review process consumes attention.

That does not mean new requirements are bad. Some are necessary. Some correct real problems. Some make a system more consistent, more transparent, or more defensible.

The question is whether the benefit is worth the attention it consumes.

In aviation, getting that balance wrong can have serious consequences. A critical inspection can be missed when attention is spread too thin, or when the administrative system begins to compete with the maintenance work it was meant to support.

Municipal government operates on a different timeline and with different consequences, but the principle is similar. Every new regulation, review trigger, permit requirement, application checklist, reporting obligation, and procedural step competes for limited staff time, commissioner attention, and public understanding.

A town may add a requirement because it wants better environmental protection, clearer records, more consistent review, or fewer mistakes. Those are worthwhile goals. But if the requirement is poorly understood, duplicative, hard to administer, or only loosely connected to the problem it is supposed to solve, it can make the system heavier without making it better.

More process can create the appearance of control. It can make a file look more complete, a meeting look more thorough, or a regulation look more protective. But process only helps if it improves the decision, clarifies responsibility, supports enforcement, or helps people understand what is required.

Otherwise, it becomes another thing for someone to manage.

This is especially important in small-town land use, where staff time is limited, commissioners are often volunteers, and applicants may already be struggling to understand the process. A new requirement that looks minor on paper may become one more point of confusion in practice.

Before adding a new procedure or requirement, it helps to ask a few simple questions:

What problem is this meant to solve?

Is that problem already addressed somewhere else?

Who will administer this requirement?

Will it help the commission make better decisions?

Will it help applicants understand what they need to do?

Will it still make sense when staff changes, memories fade, or a difficult application tests the process?

The goal is not to avoid process. Good process matters. Clear records, consistent procedures, and defensible standards are important.

The goal is to make sure the process supports the work instead of quietly replacing it.

Whether maintaining helicopters or administering local regulations, the strongest systems are not always the ones with the most forms, steps, or procedures. They are the ones where each requirement has a clear purpose, can be understood by the people using it, and earns the attention it consumes.