There’s plenty of blame to go around at the Vashon Park District, an agency that seems to be imploding financially.

Did former Executive Director Jan Milligan over-promise? Did the pro-fields commissioners push too hard for a financially ambitious fields project? Did Chair Bill Ameling, a CPA by training, minimize the agency’s financial problems? Did the staff, in the wake of Milligan’s sudden departure, make some mistakes?

Easily, one could answer “yes” to all of those questions.

And while it’s important to look at what went wrong and learn from these mistakes, there’s another fundamental issue before the four-member board: Where does the agency go from here?

At Monday night’s emergency meeting, we saw a classic split before the four commissioners: Ameling and Lu-Ann Branch want to finesse the situation, seeking the cash infusion necessary to keep the financially strapped agency afloat. David Hackett and Joe Wald, meanwhile, are angry and frustrated and are calling for some immediate measures to try to instill a sense of fiscal responsibility on an agency that appears to have lost its bearings.

Both sides have legitimate concerns. Indeed, the only way the agency will regain its financial footing is for the commissioners to listen fully to one another and work collaboratively to address this difficult situation.

Ameling is right in seeking an immediate cash infusion. Were the district to default on its loan from Cashmere Bank, apparently a strong likelihood if it doesn’t get some cash, the agency stands to lose a lot — including the ability to borrow funds in the future. Ameling’s insistence that a measured approach is needed to move the agency gradually toward fiscal health makes a lot of sense.

But as Hackett rightfully pointed out at the commissioners’ emergency meeting Monday night, there’s a matter of trust after months of receiving reports that the park district was on a path toward a brighter future. He understandably felt blindsided by the latest news that those rosy predictions turned out to be wrong and by Ameling’s constant refrain that the agency is doing fine.

So where should the district go from here? After months of watching a group of well-intentioned people struggle, The Beachcomber suggests the following:

The park district board needs to restructure the agency’s debt so it doesn’t default, hire a new director with a good head for numbers and experience in management, trust and support the person it hires and understand its limited but vital role as a board — to establish and oversee a fiscally sound budget and give its director the tools he or she needs to succeed.

Of course, these changes can’t happen overnight. But the district can move forward, one step at a time, if its commissioners work collaboratively, understand their role and hire someone strong and experienced to lead the agency.

The park district — and the constellation of parks and programs it runs — adds considerably to our quality of life. We don’t want to see it close for four months, default on its loans or continue to limp along for years to come.