From everything I have heard and read here and elsewhere it would seem that all of the hard work was not just ignored for the most part if it did not fit the preconceived notions of whoever was in charge, which I take to be the school board and/or that Alive group. Even at the last meeting my wife said they, the Lincoln parents,were pushing for this reuse, that did not even appear in the paperwork she was given? How does something like that even happen in the real world? A bunch of people suddenly appear with a different agenda on the last night of a study! It would either be a complete takeover of the project, or a hail-o-mary by whoever was controlling the process probably from day one. My wife said she heard a woman in charge yelling at one of the leaders about doing the right thing. What does that mean?
The fact that many have said the school board was at all the meetings and this was a school board process that is where I would be looking. Why would they do it? For who? and What was being gained? Last week my neighbor mentioned one person in the administration was getting two pay checks for the same 40 hours of work, and wondered who else was getting these sweetheart deals. Is there a connection?
If this was state or federal money, and the school board had played these tricks before,why wouldn't they make sure it was an honest process!
(Jim did I do this correctly?)
Ken,
I don't know all about what you are referring to in your response so I cannot respond to all of it.
As one of the six members of the Coordinating Council, I can say IN MY OPINION that there was a push by one of our Coordinating Council members to make sure that Option B (Lincoln would remain open) came out as the top choice at the second Community Forum. Anyone who worked with me on Phase III knows how I felt about this process being fair, honest, and transparent. As hard as a fought, since there was not a lot of collaboration on the presentation for Forum 2, there was information not presented and a statement of land re-use for Grant that the person putting together the presentation would not change. What was missing? In my opinion, information from a report from an experienced architect familiar with school reconstruction projects was left out. Why? Again, in my own opinion (and others) was because the report did not list Lincoln has a good choice for a re-build or renovation. Grant fared much better in most of the criteria. Especially in terms of traffic, land mass and purchasing of additional properties, and other criteria that is public information. Of course, the committee who looked at this issue, Building Sites, did report that they had additional conversations (nothing written) with the architect that did reassure them that Lincoln rebuilding was plausible. There was one person on the CC who felt that the differences between Grant and Lincoln were not so critical and that making them appear both Options at being almost identical would be a good choice. At almost the last moment before our presentation was approved, the statement, "Greatest Potential for Reuse" was inserted into the presentation. Originally, while there was still some collaboration on the presentation we simply stated that Lincoln and Roosevelt were zone for residential use, and that Grant was zoned for residential/commercial use. There were no value statements originally in an attempt to sway those who attended the Forum. The Phase III committee was not charged with reuse for any of the empty buildings, if so, we would have had organized a sub-committee on the issue. Unfortunately, we had a Phase III member present to their PTA in advance of the Forum. It was reported, and so this may or may not be true, that there was coaching of the PTA members of how to sit at the Forum and what to say. This may answer your question about the Lincoln parents at your wife's table. Again, this information came second-hand to me while the other is my own first-hand experience as I view it.
I believe that the process could have been improved (it almost always can be), but I do believe some of the issues that did arise could have been prevented. For example, 2nd Forum results were released to the media before the Phase III Committee could review them. The results released were NOT accurate and a determination for which Option citizens' preferred could not be deciphered. Which is part of the reason that the Committee didn't make a recommendation to the BOE on which school to close. So many feel a decision has been made. The BOE has assured us time and time again that no decision has been made or predetermined. Unless someone has information that proves otherwise I have decided to trust the BOE on this issue.
When the Phase III Committee made its report to the BOE we asked that the Board do some additional research and take a critical look at the data/information being given them by the committee (2 huge binders). In there is ALL of the data that the committee looked and debated over. So, although left out of the 2nd Forum presentation it is contained in the report. The BOE has said they will do this and so I am trusting that is what they will do.
Kristine