"Shattering neighborhood schools?" School closing next Fall

[Betsy Voinovich]

Hi all,
I'm posting this story here, because as painful as it has been in the past, it can only be good if we discuss this decision that will affect our entire school system in the Fall. The School Board will be announcing which school they will be closing to save money, as part of the budget reductions, in August. Superintendent Patterson has pledged to examine all of the criteria very carefully to make a good decision-- for all of the families of Lakewood.

Our neighborhood schools are obviously one of the main things that make Lakewood, Lakewood-- one of the main things that attracts families to Lakewood, and keeps families here, etc. They are worth paying attention to.

The School Board and Superintendent Patterson will be discussing the 2012-2013 school year in its entirety at the meeting today, 1PM through 8 PM at Lakewood High School in the Civic Auditorium catering room. The Public is welcome. It would be good to show the Administration that we are paying attention and that we are poised to support good decisions.

Betsy Voinovich


Shattering Neighborhood Schools?

by Katie Stallbaum

It is unfortunate that Lakewood will close one of its elementary schools for the 2013-2014 school year. I would prefer that none would close. Our family has lived in Lakewood for nine years and during that time we have observed passionate, involved families supporting all of our schools. Regardless of which school closes, there will be sadness and perhaps even some anger. But dramatic reactions can be tempered by a transparent process and a logical decision.

Although our family lived in Lakewood during the initial Phase Three discussions, we did not participate in them and frankly none of us could adequately explain the controversy surrounding the decision to close Grant Elementary. However, we do perceive the entire process as one that lacked transparency and which failed to answer the questions that were continually asked by the city’s residents regarding criteria used to make the decision.

Having moved from a North Carolina community which ran county-wide school districts that forced neighborhood children to be scattered to multiple schools and caused several children to be bused for over an hour one-way, we strongly desired neighborhood schools which kept neighbors attending the same building. We found a gem when we moved to Lakewood. Not only do we have neighborhood schools, but the children are close enough to their schools to walk to them!

But this idyllic situation will be shattered for a significant portion of the Lakewood community if Grant, our only centrally-located elementary school, closes. Currently Grant Elementary School is at the center of the most densely populated area of Lakewood. It defies logic to close this school and force these young children to the corners of Lakewood and into walks that could increase tardiness and absences. Students can’t learn if they are not in school. Perhaps the community is unaware of the large numbers of elementary children who walk to and from school without supervision. I observe this every day as I walk my own children and I have assisted many young ones with untied shoes, scrapes from tripping on the sidewalk, and winter coats that need zipped. I have also sheltered children from the random person who is screaming on the street about some cause or event that has upset him. Who is going to do this when parents like me choose to drive because the school is now significantly farther from our homes?

Perhaps these relatively “intangible and immeasurable items” are too idyllic and easy to ignore. Let us turn our thoughts to cold, hard facts. It is no surprise that our district, like thousands of districts across the nation, must trim our budget. The question of which programs, staff, and resources should bet cut is a difficult one that must be addressed with care and caution. It has been stated on numerous occasions that Grant Elementary School is the least expensive to renovate and run while the renovations and operating costs of Lincoln and Roosevelt are significantly more. Why would the district ignore these cost savings? Clearly NO school will be renovated in the next few years, so why would the district ignore the opportunity to keep open a school that is in comparison less costly to operate and to seize the opportunity to close one of the schools that is causing a large financial drain?

Additionally, one of the primary complaints that I repeatedly hear is the agony parents have faced when their children must be shuffled between numerous schools while renovations are being completed on their “home” school. At the very minimum, it is only logical to keep Grant open until the renovations are complete? It has been discussed that Grant will be the “swing school” or "hub school" for students when the final two elementary schools are closed for rebuilding. Perhaps the School Board should provide stability for our students by maintaining a school that is already intended to be used as part of the process of improving our district.

And let us not forget that Grant is one of the two highest performing elementary schools in our district. Rated Excellent with Distinction, Grant ought to be considered an anchor to our school system. The formula that Grant uses WORKS!! Why would our School Board consider closing a school ranked so highly?

If the School Board wants to truly gain community support and insure that Lakewood schools remain strong, then it is their onus to be transparent and explain why one school is chosen to close rather than the remaining two. If sound reasoning is used and presented, then the community can move forward and fully support the decision. A lack of explanation resonates with rumor, hidden agendas, distrust, and ultimately lack of community support. I cannot imagine a School Board that would chose to alienate the community it should be relying upon as a partner.


Our neighborhood schools are obviously one of the main things that make Lakewood, Lakewood-- one of the main things that attracts families to Lakewood, and keeps families here, etc.

[Corey Rossen]

But dramatic reactions can be tempered by a transparent process and a logical decision.

Not only do we have neighborhood schools, but the children are close enough to their schools to walk to them!

But this idyllic situation will be shattered for a significant portion of the Lakewood community if Grant, our only centrally-located elementary school, closes. Currently Grant Elementary School is at the center of the most densely populated area of Lakewood. It defies logic to close this school and force these young children to the corners of Lakewood and into walks that could increase tardiness and absences.

Why would our School Board consider closing a school ranked so highly?

The BOE is faced with a decision that involves possibly closing one of the two highest ranking schools along with another great elementary school - with all of this in mind, why do you think that Lakewood BOE should keep open the school with one of the lowest attendance figures? Logically speaking, wouldn't closing a school with one of the lowest attendance figures affect the least students and parents? Why do you think the school with the most dense population is not the largest attended school, as logic would dictate?

I understand the deep rooted emotion of keeping the school closest to your heart open, but the BOE will not be able to please everyone with their decision. I think the BOE has done a tremendous job with this situation - considering a large number of parents and students will not be happy regardless of their decision.

Corey

[Katie Stallbaum]

Corey,

Thanks for bringing up great questions!

In regard to "keeping the school closest to my heart open", I must confess that while I do hold the teachers and staff at Grant in high regard and am pleased with their results, I am equally satisfied with the teachers and staff at the other elementary schools. I mentioned in the first paragraph the wonderful, supportive families at each school and neglected to mention the great and skilled teachers and staff that work at all the schools. The ability of these teachers is made evident by the great results achieved by ALL of the teachers at ALL of the elementary schools. I would be pleased to have my children educated at any of the Lakewood schools. Our family has friends who have children who attend each of the elementary schools and these families are evidence of the success our district achieves. While I am fond of the individuals and families with whom I have interacted these past several years, I am confident that supportive friends and school relationships exist at all schools and that these individuals would be welcoming. I consider Lakewood schools "closest to my heart" and feel I could be a supportive and active parent at any of our schools.

In response to your attendance question, I wonder how many families chose to open enroll their children at other schools when the process to discuss closing schools began. Could this be a factor? And as I clearly have gaps in my attendance knowledge could you expand on this? I cannot provide you a thorough answer and am eager to learn the answer myself.

Another concern is the cost of running, maintaining, and renovating the schools. As a taxpayer I have placed trust in the BOE to use my taxes wisely. In our current economy I do want the best possible financial outcome to be of high priority.

And I agree that the BOE has a monumental job before them. There are so many factors to consider and weigh. And, of course, as I also stated in my article, there will be many unhappy people regardless of the decision. Whatever the decision, I would like to be supportive; to be most supportive I would simply like to hear why the two schools that remain were chosen. I'm sure this is not a decision taken lightly.

Also, I would like to comment that I did not chose the title of the article. As is common process with newspapers, someone else titles the articles. I probably would have chosen something less eye-catching like: "Transparent process please" or "clear communication please" because that is what I most desire and the accusation of lack of communication during the initial Phase 3 process disturbs me. My opening and closing paragraphs reflect this perspective.

I do hope that whatever discussion exists on this thread is one that is permeated with courtesy and a genuine acknowledgement that our district is amazing and that we all want the best possible outcome. I wrote the article with no intent to add to any divisiveness, but rather to seek more clarity in regard to the decision that will soon be announced. Clearly I have an opinion in regard to our centrally located elementary school, but I would be an odd individual to not have an opinion; what is key is that I am open and eager and receptive to the opinions of others. Ultimately I hope our community will move beyond whatever emotions will arise when a decision is made and unite to continue the tradition of excellence that exists within our district.

Regards,
Katie

[Jim O'Bryan]

Katie, let me talk with Corey on this, we never argue impolitely and have the highest
respect for each other.

Corey

Wasn't it "suggested" not "demanded" we consider closing one or two schools? No one
mandated that any school needed to be closed.

Wasn't it found out that one school costs $12 million dollars more than estimated to
bring it up to "rebuilt" mode. Including the purchase of 2 or 4 homes? While the others
cost 25% as much to do? Wasn't that why the architect's report was hidden from the
group? Most believe because of the mention of $12 million more to do one school, than
the other two possibly combined.

Isn't enrollment up this year?

I am not sure, and I am going over the paperwork now, but I could have sworn that the
path laid out by the "faux phase III" group study,*" made no sense from a cost or safety
point of view.

I will agree the BOE has tough questions. But why should a group of 3 people that have
dreams for a hotel in Downtown Lakewood, "the payoff of our 8 year Plan**" according to
Mayor Summers "that is coming to fruition, as can be seen by the heavy traffic on
Detroit," have any impact on schools for residents and Lakewood's children?

* The Phase 3 Committee was a gift to the city of Lakewood, and a slap in the face of
the School Board by outgoing Superintendent Dr. David Estrop. In an effort to "pay back"
the Board for getting rid of him. He knew the plans would not hold up to public scrutiny.

* Mayor Tom George knows of no 8 year plan, and that extends back to his term in office,
so that it must have started outside of city government. Which has been collaborated by
Ward 3's councilman juris in a recent interview, where he talks of delivering on
LakewoodAlive's dreams of a new city based on (retail)malls and casino overflow.

.

[Grace O'Malley]

Casino overflow?

That's about as believable as "my email was hacked."

[Corey Rossen]

Katie, let me talk with Corey on this, we never argue impolitely and have the highest
respect for each other.
Good morning, Jim. Before we begin, could you please pass the Grey Poupon. Thank you.
Corey

Wasn't it "suggested" not "demanded" we consider closing one or two schools? No one
mandated that any school needed to be closed.
Correct. Only six schools would be funded by Ohio. The seventh one, if left open, would be funded by the citizens of Lakewood. With enrollment numbers trending the way they were at the time of the 50 Year Plan (pre-Phase III Plan), it would make sense to eliminate one school, as enrollment numbers were trending downward. At the time of the 50 Year Plan, Lincoln did not even show up on the chopping block as the original planners did not see the value or need in closing Lincoln opposed to the others. Lincoln has only recently been added as one of the options to close.

Wasn't it found out that one school costs $12 million dollars more than estimated to
bring it up to "rebuilt" mode. Including the purchase of 2 or 4 homes?
Construction costs continue to soar from one year to the next, obviously. The estimated costs can be found on record and do vary greatly. Rebuild versus remodel standards do vary between schools as well.

While the others cost 25% as much to do?
Not quite sure what this means. Are you saying all other options are 25% less to do? If so, I would image that number to be wrong or inaccurate. This also falls into the rebuild/remodel catagory depending on the school.

Wasn't that why the architect's report was hidden from the group? Most believe because of the mention of $12 million more to do one school, than the other two possibly combined.
This appears to be "Shock Jock" bait - I do not think anything was hidden as I have seen numerous renditions for proposed school layouts and financial reports - as has anyone who attended all of the Phase III meetings, every month plus more for over a year. If a meeting or report was missed, I'm sure they are all on file. "Most" of the people you talked to? "Most" of the people in Lakewood? "Most" of the people who are supporters of a certain school? Again, "Shock Jock" bait.

Isn't enrollment up this year?
According to the article I read this morning it sounds as if Lakewood's enrollment is happily on the rise. I do not know in which school the enrollment numbers are up or if it a standard average across the school system. Very encouraging, though. Even with enrollment up, some schools still have more students than others and, therefore, some schools will still have less students than others.

I am not sure, and I am going over the paperwork now, but I could have sworn that the
path laid out by the "faux phase III" group study,*" made no sense from a cost or safety
point of view.
Are you calling the group I attended for more than a year a "faux Phase III Group"? Would that be like me calling the Lakewood Observer "Faux Journalism" because "most" people tell me it is? Back on topic, what path are you refering to?

I will agree the BOE has tough questions. But why should a group of 3 people that have
dreams for a hotel in Downtown Lakewood, "the payoff of our 8 year Plan**" according to
Mayor Summers "that is coming to fruition, as can be seen by the heavy traffic on
Detroit," have any impact on schools for residents and Lakewood's children?
More attempts at "Shock Jock"? Please name the 3 people? My best answer would be to refer back to the 50 Year Plan, which was in place long before Mayor Summers came into office. This plan had Grant as the front runner of closing long before Downtown Lakewood became what it is today, or as you would probably call it a "hidden agenda" of 3 people.

* The Phase 3 Committee was a gift to the city of Lakewood, and a slap in the face of
the School Board by outgoing Superintendent Dr. David Estrop. In an effort to "pay back"
the Board for getting rid of him. He knew the plans would not hold up to public scrutiny.
The public is constantly speaking in this regard, scrutiny or not. Dr. Estrop one, O'Bryan theory zero. The community wanted involvement and poof the Phase III Committee was formed and heard. Not bad for reacting to what the community wanted, I think.

* Mayor Tom George knows of no 8 year plan, and that extends back to his term in office,
so that it must have started outside of city government. Which has been collaborated by
Ward 3's councilman juris in a recent interview, where he talks of delivering on
LakewoodAlive's dreams of a new city based on (retail)malls and casino overflow.
Slow down and stay on subject.
I have no idea about, nor have I heard of an 8 Year Plan, so you will have to tell me more about it. Please be concise, leaving siderails and opinions out of the description. How does this relate to closing schools? "Must have been started..." sounds like it is lacking fact, resource and confirmation. Sorry, but I cannot answer this question until I am better informed of the 8 Year Plan.
.

Jim, I hope that answers some of your questions, please feel free to ask more.

Please keep in mind that I only am speaking for myself, and please feel free to check on any of the Phase III concepts I have mentioned, as I could be wrong. Just ask my wife.

Corey

[Jim O'Bryan]

Corey

Two many questions and I am running out the door.

Yes one school is according to the architects study, which was never shown to Phase III
had one school costing $12 million wither of the other schools. If I read it correctly that
would be more than the renovations of those two schools.

Am I calling the Phase III faux? - Yes I am. Call the Observer whatever, but do not call the
volunteers whatever. The people that showed up with best intentions for the Phase III
Committee were good honest people, with the best of intentions. However many involved
in the process and direction of the process had agendas that steered the entire project
to their agenda. This is not baiting, there is a record, you can go back read how the
targets were moved from what was best for the kids to also include best reuse. Safety
thrown to the curb in the end. Cost thrown to the curb in the end. "Best reuse"

Ask the school board, they never wanted the Phase III Committee. It was completely a
gift left behind by Dr. Estrop.

This should come as no surprise. Look no farther than the closing of Lincoln. Right or
wrong, which is still up for debate, the school was slated to be closed, then the BOE had
meetings to decide what to do. The residents wanted it open, it mattered not.

For the record, I saw no reason to keep Grant School open. I always thought it was a
hideous building. However during the Phase III committee, when you look at the facts
it becomes obvious that the city desperately needs a school in near the center of the city.

The only problem it clashes with the "8-year plan" to bring a hotel and retail development
to the "Mainstreet," "DowntowN" area.

My issue, from day one quit trying to trick residents into making the decisions elected
officials want. Stop wasting their time.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh what whine goes with Grey Poupon?

.

[marklingm]

Wasn't it "suggested" not "demanded" we consider closing one or two schools? No one mandated that any school needed to be closed.
Correct. Only six schools would be funded by Ohio. The seventh one, if left open, would be funded by the citizens of Lakewood. With enrollment numbers trending the way they were at the time of the 50 Year Plan (pre-Phase III Plan), it would make sense to eliminate one school, as enrollment numbers were trending downward. At the time of the 50 Year Plan, Lincoln did not even show up on the chopping block as the original planners did not see the value or need in closing Lincoln opposed to the others. Lincoln has only recently been added as one of the options to close.

Corey,

Your statement is not accurate.

The Pre-Phase III plan was to keep Roosevelt, Lincoln, and Grant open based upon enrollment data at the time.

So, actually, your statement should read: “Roosevelt, Lincoln, and Grant did not even show up on the chopping block as the original planners did not see the value or need in closing Roosevelt, Lincoln, and/or Grant at all. Roosevelt, Lincoln, and Grant have only recently been added as one of the options to close.”

What keeps getting lost in the dialogue is that the Board was ALWAYS going to have to revisit enrollment data when Phase III actually becomes a reality. I never understood the need to make the original Phase III decision in the first place for many reasons ... one being that enrollment is going up.

In any event, I have faith in our current school board members, Superintendent Jeff Patterson, and Treasurer Tim Penton. Our school district leadership team will ultimately make the best decision for all of the Lakewood City Schools.

Matt

[Corey Rossen]

Wasn't it "suggested" not "demanded" we consider closing one or two schools? No one mandated that any school needed to be closed.
Correct. Only six schools would be funded by Ohio. The seventh one, if left open, would be funded by the citizens of Lakewood. With enrollment numbers trending the way they were at the time of the 50 Year Plan (pre-Phase III Plan), it would make sense to eliminate one school, as enrollment numbers were trending downward. At the time of the 50 Year Plan, Lincoln did not even show up on the chopping block as the original planners did not see the value or need in closing Lincoln opposed to the others. Lincoln has only recently been added as one of the options to close.

Corey,

Your statement is not accurate.

The Pre-Phase III plan was to keep Roosevelt, Lincoln, and Grant open based upon enrollment data at the time.

So, actually, your statement should read: “Roosevelt, Lincoln, and Grant did not even show up on the chopping block as the original planners did not see the value or need in closing Roosevelt, Lincoln, and/or Grant at all. Roosevelt, Lincoln, and Grant have only recently been added as one of the options to close.”

What keeps getting lost in the dialogue is that the Board was ALWAYS going to have to revisit enrollment data when Phase III actually becomes a reality. I never understood the need to make the original Phase III decision in the first place for many reasons ... one being that enrollment is going up.

In any event, I have faith in our current school board members, Superintendent Jeff Patterson, and Treasurer Tim Penton. Our school district leadership team will ultimately make the best decision for all of the Lakewood City Schools.

Matt

Thank you, Matt. I appreciate the correction, it definately helps in the understanding of the process and task at hand.

I agree that the BOE will make the best possible decision, one reason I think Lakewood City Schools are heads and shoulders above the rest.

Corey

[Corey Rossen]

Corey

Two many questions and I am running out the door.

Yes one school is according to the architects study, which was never shown to Phase III
had one school costing $12 million wither of the other schools. If I read it correctly that
would be more than the renovations of those two schools.
Why have you seen these reports and Phase III members have not? Please follow through with details, renderings and financial statistics. I would like to see the whole picture that you have seen.

Am I calling the Phase III faux? - Yes I am. Call the Observer whatever, but do not call the
volunteers whatever.
I was just using your "most" example. I love the Lakewood Observer, I buy every issue! (my first face on the Deck!)
The people that showed up with best intentions for the Phase III
Committee were good honest people, with the best of intentions. However many involved
in the process and direction of the process had agendas that steered the entire project
to their agenda.
Show me.
This is not baiting, there is a record, you can go back read how the
targets were moved from what was best for the kids to also include best reuse.
In part, this makes good sense to me. Although, I disagree with the proof that the best interest of the kids was jeopardized. Please show me, although it sounds more like an opinion to me.
Safety
thrown to the curb in the end.
Nope. I sat through the meetings. I counted the street crossings. The main street crossings. The railroad track crossings. Etc. All were considered, afterall, it was a group of parents looking out for their kids, as well as other kids' safety.
Cost thrown to the curb in the end.
Nope. You should have attended the meetings, you would have experienced all of the details that went into making each and every decision. Informed decisions are always the best decision. In this case it's like a bad college joke reference - "I guess you just had to be there."
"Best reuse"
Opinion, or prove it. again, I think it is hard to find statistics on opinions.

Ask the school board, they never wanted the Phase III Committee. It was completely a
gift left behind by Dr. Estrop.
Whom on the Board should I ask? How was Phase III Committee brought into action without approval? Could Dr. Estrop make that kind of decision and action without the Board's approval? I am not familiar with the process and formation of Committees.

This should come as no surprise. Look no farther than the closing of Lincoln. Right or
wrong, which is still up for debate, the school was slated to be closed, then the BOE had
meetings to decide what to do. The residents wanted it open, it mattered not.
Mr. Markling just corrected my inaccurate statement (thank you for the correction), I'm guessing he will be able to clearify your viewpoint as well. In my understanding of my false statement, Lincoln was not meant to be closed at all, resident approval or not.

For the record, I saw no reason to keep Grant School open. I always thought it was a
hideous building. However during the Phase III committee, when you look at the facts
it becomes obvious that the city desperately needs a school in near the center of the city.
Opinion. I would think that if the city needed a school so badly near the center of the city it would be overflowing with students and looking to enlarge. Please tell me what facts lead you to your "obvious" belief.

The only problem it clashes with the "8-year plan" to bring a hotel and retail development
to the "Mainstreet," "DowntowN" area.
These plans, the BOE and the City's, were done at completely different times/years. Why are you placing them together as if they were done in unison?

My issue, from day one quit trying to trick residents into making the decisions elected
officials want. Stop wasting their time.
A valid issue. The problem I see with your expressing your issue is that you are trying to tie too many "Lakewood Issues" together in your explanations. I thought Six Degrees to Kevin Bacon was just a game.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh what whine goes with Grey Poupon?
Freudian slip?

.

[Christopher Bindel]

* Mayor Tom George knows of no 8 year plan, and that extends back to his term in office,
so that it must have started outside of city government. Which has been collaborated by
Ward 3's councilman juris in a recent interview, where he talks of delivering on
LakewoodAlive's dreams of a new city based on (retail)malls and casino overflow.

http://freshwatercleveland.com/devnews/?page=all

There seems to be some discrepancies here...

[Christopher Bindel]

13 Million dollars? How was it spent? The investment started in 2004 under Mayor Tom George. The first step was a $3.9 million dollar sewer replacement, paid for with bonds financed by our sewer fees. This was a very smart first step because it required tearing up the entire street. The second step was to resurface the torn up street. This was primarily paid for by the State of Ohio.

http://lakewoodmayor.blogspot.com/2012/07/whats-up-with-all-of-activity-on.html?m=1

* Mayor Tom George knows of no 8 year plan, and that extends back to his term in office,
so that it must have started outside of city government. Which has been collaborated by
Ward 3's councilman juris in a recent interview, where he talks of delivering on
LakewoodAlive's dreams of a new city based on (retail)malls and casino overflow.

This also seems inconsistent.

[Jim O'Bryan]

* Mayor Tom George knows of no 8 year plan, and that extends back to his term in office,
so that it must have started outside of city government. Which has been collaborated by
Ward 3's councilman juris in a recent interview, where he talks of delivering on
LakewoodAlive's dreams of a new city based on (retail)malls and casino overflow.

This also seems inconsistent.

Chris

Mayor George knows of the sewers, and the $50 million+ sewer job for the EPA on Clifton.
He knows of the Detroit Streetscape study undertaken by Tom Jordan, which was merely
a concept nothing more drawn up by City Architecture. But it was not a plan.

Nate Kelly, my neighbor and Planning Director under Mayor FitzGerald once tried to pass
the "concept" off as a study to me. I challenged him on the fact that it was a plan, and he
had to admit, it was nothing more than a visual concept.

So when I read from Shawn about a plan, and the mayor, though the news source which
is basically controlled by city hall has edited it out. Mentions that the payoff and proof of
this 8 year plan is in the traffic problems. Which makes me go well do we have a plan or
not? The stement would also indicate to me, that the traffic is not a problem with setting it
up but the thousands coming to DowntowN as the Mayor said. Which would be a good
thing for Lakewood, but negates the "setting new lights" issue.

You simply cannot have it both ways.

In one breath elected officials talk of a plan, out the other side of their mouth they say
no plan, we are looking to the community to make one.

While you seem to be overly concerned with my inconsistencies, again when I make a
mistake it is not costing you or anyone else millions of dollars, or loss of services.

FWIW

.

[Corey Rossen]

This should come as no surprise. Look no farther than the closing of Lincoln. Right or
wrong, which is still up for debate, the school was slated to be closed, then the BOE had
meetings to decide what to do. The residents wanted it open, it mattered not.

.

Matt Markling - Can you help with this comment? According to your correction of my statement, should this be inaccurate as well?

Thanks.
Corey

[marklingm]

This should come as no surprise. Look no farther than the closing of Lincoln. Right or
wrong, which is still up for debate, the school was slated to be closed, then the BOE had
meetings to decide what to do. The residents wanted it open, it mattered not.

.

Matt Markling - Can you help with this comment? According to your correction of my statement, should this be inaccurate as well?

Thanks.
Corey

Corey,

Your initial statement was factually inaccurate. But that was corrected above.

I cannot speak for Jim. I'm guessing that Jim meant "Grant" and not "Lincoln" as he seems to be discussing the Board's prior Phase III decision. I'm not commenting on the rest of Jim's quote other than to refer to my prior correction to you in this thread.

Matt