Architectural Reports for Phase 3

[Mike Zannoni]

Hello, Observers. I live in Lakewood and I try to keep up with the postings here, but have myself posted only once before, under the thread "New Grant School?!!!". I wrote an article in this week's Observer, titled "Sub-groups Present Data, Seek Community Input" (9/9/09, alternately titled "Don't Be Left Out of Lakewood's Future" on the Observer web site). It's an overview of the work of the three community sub-groups of the Lakewood Schools Phase 3 Committee, from their web site, http://phasethree.org. These are the groups that researched and recommended on which of our elementary schools should be closed.

In the article, I was critical of the lack of real data from the Building Sites sub-group, especially the absence of any architectural reports on the condition of each school, and on each school's need for land acquisition. To my mind, it made their determinations seem simply subjective. In response, this morning a member of the Phase 3 Committee gave me copies of a May 2009 architect's report by Rodwell King, Architect, GPD Group, and a June 9, 2009 revision. I was told that the sub-group was not incompetent, that they had done relevant research and that they do have data, such as this architectural report.

Though I'm relieved that they actually enlisted an expert to study the building sites, and glad to have some actual data in hand, it now seems, after reading the report carefully, that some of the determinations of the Building Sites sub-group are in contradiction to these reports. Does anyone know why? Or why this report itself wasn't included with the rest of the materials on the web site?

Is this website the complete representation of the factors studied? Who makes the determination of what data is relevant to share with the community and what isn't, and what qualification do they have to blithely ignore an architectural report they presumably asked for and omit it from the body of presented data?

I would be more comfortable with a complete account of all work done by these sub-groups, and to let the chips fall where they may. Otherwise, there is an appearance of grooming the data toward some end or other. I appreciate the obvious efforts of many people, but these members of "the community" who make recommendations in all of our names may need a second look, I fear. Do these community groups really represent the whole of Lakewood?

It's really important to get this right. Does anyone know any more about this?

Thanks.

[Meg Ostrowski]

Mike,

I am a member of the Phase III Committee and the "mom" that suggested a new school at Kauffman Park. I don't think anyone intentionally left this report off of the website. The website was NOT intended for public viewing, it was simply meant as a working site for the committee and does not represent all data considered. The architectural evaluation was done at no cost to the district and seemed to be based on a quick glance at each site. I was not happy with the report because in evaluating Kauffman Park the architect assumed that a school the size of Harrison would be built on the ballfield. This was never my intention and my intial proposal clearly stated that I was proposing a school on the tennis courts. I suspect that the evaluation would have been more favorable if this had been considered.

Your article mentioned a "required land swap" for my Kauffman proposal. For the record, a land swap would NOT be required. However, the district is required to achieve LEED Silver Certification (50-59 points). A land swap is worth only 1 point out of a possible 110 on the LEED for Schools Scorecard. Building a school near public transportation and service establishments earns it 8 points for "Community Connectivity."

I have pushed for a through investigation and representation of the facts and am hopeful that the leaders of the Phase III Committee will deliver at the Community Forum Tuesday, September 15th at 7pm, LHS East Gym.

Hope you will attend.

Meg

[Ken Wilder]

from Meg Ostrowski
"I have pushed for a through investigation and representation of the facts and am hopeful that the leaders of the Phase III Committee will deliver at the Community Forum Tuesday, September 15th at 7pm, LHS East Gym."


Excuse me if I am not doing this correctly, kind of new to this posting in a forum. Is there a general Phase Three discussion here? For such a big topic, there seems to be very little public discussion here or elsewhere.

Meg, I became interested in this Phase Three Program after reading your article in the Lakewood Observer some time ago. I was going to chime in then, but simply did not have the time. Am I allowed to ask questions here? I work nights and my wife is watching the babies(2) so we cannot attend the meetings, we both have many, many questions to ask.

I hope I am not offending anyone, what are the qualifications of the people deciding the future of our schools and tax dollars? Your plan upset me initially as a complete waste of money. Now I can see some of the potential of your idea, and would like to know more. I have found that many things in my line of work that are designed by committee to be hideous by the end of the process, even when using professionals. While I like my neighbors, I would hate to have them plan my future. It sounds like some professionals might have been used, but were they paid? And by who? Are those reports Mike Zanonni is speaking about?

I moved to Lakewood years ago because of the good schools and the great library. I found Lakewood to be perfect for us on a tight budget while looking to start a family. As I mentioned we cannot attend most meetings, as they are at night. I really need to know more about the process, and who is involved.

I hope this post was done correctly. I do not mean to offend anyone.

“We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King, Jr.

[Gary Rice]

Just a couple of thoughts here.

First of all, welcome to you, Meg, Mike and Ken, and to anyone else willing to step into the public arena; whether that would be to initiate public discussion on civic matters, or to help influence the same.

As a former member of the Community Development Block Grant Committee here in Lakewood, I once helped to determine the spending of millions of HUD dollars here in town.

The first concern was with finding enough citizens willing to serve on that volunteer committee for a period of several years, and then sometimes, even having enough people show up on a meeting night, so that we could have a quorum for the hearings!

Then, there was the at-times empty chamber facing us- where the public was aware of, and was invited to attend those hearings.

If some of these hearings could have been cancelled for a lack of public interest, they certainly could have been.

Sure, virtually EVERYONE had an opinion regarding public matters AFTER THE FACT, but during the sometimes laborious process of fact-finding and deliberation? That's another story altogether.

Same thing with so many other task forces and planning committees that I've been around, or involved with at other times in my life, whether with churches, schools, or with business.

...and let's face it, look at our politics as well....

Just look at the pitifully small percentage of people who even bother to vote.

We certainly need more people to get involved and take interest in civic matters. It is so easy to surmise that some small cadre of elites run things, but all too often, it's not the elites, so much as it is- whomever shows up!

Just a few Saturday morning musings here....

Back to the banjo...

[Mike Zannoni]

The website was NOT intended for public viewing, it was simply meant as a working site for the committee and does not represent all data considered.

Ok, fair enough. But where, if not here, can the community at large ascertain what in total the community groups that supposedly represent them have been doing all this time? How can the community really "sign off" on the determinations and recommendations of the sub-groups without being able to retrace their steps and review their processes and data? If this http://www.phasethree.org is not the website, it should be, or there should be another. Otherwise, the community forum is nothing more than a rubber stamp, where we all nod in assent without having a clue. And what happens after the forum? When and how do people really get to weigh in, in a properly informed way? With no prior and complete briefing, all anyone can do is ask questions, thinking on their feet, in what I'm assuming is going to be a serious Q & A period. And what if we don't like the answers, or the answers beg more questions. Is this a done deal anyway? What's the point of the forum then?

The architectural evaluation was done at no cost to the district and seemed to be based on a quick glance at each siteMeg

I did not know this. Though this seems to be a more serious study than that, maybe it's not thorough enough, or it's unfair in its assumtions to the Kaufman idea (which I personally like). Then where is the more-serious follow up report? It's hard to believe that either the School Board or the Phase 3 community groups could possibly make any kind of informed decision without a reliable architect's report on the current condition, projected needs, building expandability, land acquisition requirements, constructions cost estimates, etc. And if this GPD report is not reliable, then I ask, how are the determinations and recommendation of the Building Sites sub-group anything other than subjective, a reflection of the personal preferences of the particular members of that group? If reasoning was not the guide, reasoning that we can all review and assent to, then it become important to know who the persons are whose personal preferences guided their decisions. If this report's no good, why was it OK not to get a better one?

[Mike Zannoni]

Your article mentioned a "required land swap" for my Kauffman proposal. For the record, a land swap would NOT be required. However, the district is required to achieve LEED Silver Certification (50-59 points). A land swap is worth only 1 point out of a possible 110 on the LEED for Schools Scorecard. Building a school near public transportation and service establishments earns it 8 points for "Community Connectivity."

Meg --

This is interesting. Many people have been saying a land swap would be the way for the School Board to acquire this land (Kaufman Park). What's another way? And who requires LEED and makes the point system? (The State of Ohio?) This also is interesting, and I've never heard of this.

Thanks.

[Meg Ostrowski]

Months ago I suggested to the leaders of the Phase III Committee that we post or publish information about our work publicly so that people could review it and come to the Community Forum prepared to engage in discussion. (Although I am able to quickly order dinner off of a menu in a restaurant, I am more comfortable with my decisions when I take my time...especially the really important ones.) I was told that the process, which the Board and some members of the committee leadership team feel was successful in the past, was to be used again. So the processing of information, for non-members of the committee, is scheduled to take place during the consensus exercise at the forum. Please eat some "brainfood" and come prepared to "think on your feet." The presentation will be only a condensed version of the work done by the sub-committees, given the obvious time contraint of this format.

Perhaps the role that technology, citizen journalism, and the open invitation to the community to join the committee would have on the process was underestimated. I am just sorry that it was not embraced.

[Ken Wilder]

Gary

I respect what you are telling us, but that is not a reason it is an excuse. Any business that would try to run itself with whoever shows up is destined for failure. Even the brightest and best when put in a committee are dragged down by the lowest common denominator and the project is destined to never be as good as it could have been. I am grateful for all that have done their homework, but it seems in the end the city has more questions than when the process started. Do we even need to close any schools? I think I read where 7 years ago it was decided by a 50 year committee(?) to close the schools. Many things have changed in 7 years, for one families are getting larger not smaller. Baby boomers grandchildren are having families of 3-5 children. Where are the reports that Mike and Meg claim are not on the website? I went to the website and found it very underwhelming as a way to reach out to the city. Who presents the information. Is it all, 100%, available, or do one or two people distill all of this work, and what are their qualifications? Who do they answer to? My neighbor told me to ask about Franklin School? That it was another committee farce that voted to keep it open only to find out it was already slated to be closed. Does anyone know the story?

This entire project seems designed to remove any and all blame, "we did not close those schools, you did." What an odd way to decide the future of Lakewood.



“We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King, Jr.

[Jim O'Bryan]

My neighbor told me to ask about Franklin School? That it was another committee farce that voted to keep it open only to find out it was already slated to be closed. Does anyone know the story?

“We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King, Jr.

Ken

You can often do a search, and find much of this info here online. We have almost 6 years
on Lakewood conversations on file, and are quickly bringing the rest of ALL topics back
to full. There was a slight blip when we rebuilt the new software, but have everything on
back up. DL is working very hard to make sure everything is back this month.

Here is a link, to a Franklin School Conversation. I will also bring it back to the top.
http://lakewoodobserver.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3435&p=64262#p64262

.

[Betsy Voinovich]

Ken Wilder wrote:

This entire project seems designed to remove any and all blame, "we did not close those schools, you did." What an odd way to decide the future of Lakewood.

Hi Ken,

I'm on the Phase 3 committee as well. It has been a really rough nine months. Nine months! trying to figure this stuff out. We ARE citizens and we aren't experts but I can tell you between our different groups (I am a co-chair of the District Configuration Group) we consulted experts: Cuyahoga County Auditor's Office, U.S. Census Bureau, the school system itself for addresses and enrollment figures, and yes, professional architects.

We've had to boil down a lot of information. We intend to present to the community all the information we have, in the best form we can muster, and be as transparent as possible. I think it struck all of us on the committee at different times that we weren't experts and why were we doing this? Couldn't the Board just as easily research all of this stuff? The fact is this is the method they chose, and since they did, we tried to do the best that we could. The current School Board, particularly under the leadership of Ed Favre, has been responsive and responsible, as has the new Superintendent.

Everyone is on the same page about how important it is that we make the best decision we can for the future of Lakewood's families, students, and educational system, which as everyone knows, affects everyone, since the quality of our education affects our property values.

If it turns out that information is left out at the Community Forum, there is time for the community to get on board and learn whatever else there is to know, with the information we provide tomorrow night as a beginning.

I'm not comfortable with the Community Forum tomorrow being the only chance the community has to weigh in with their opinions. It's not fair that if you have to work, or you have infants at home, you will not be able to express your viewpoint. Plus, this is a large amount of information to process in two hours. There is time to publish our findings on a School Board site, or a Phase 3 site, or in the Lakewood Observer-- there is a feature on the Message Board that lets people take polls-- and to make the survey available to the public in the same way. I am very much in favor of this, as are at least some of the Board Members I've talked to.

There isn't anything more important than taking care of Lakewood's kids. They are our future. If you haven't been involved up to this point, now's the time to start. Come to the meeting and keep paying attention after that. We have good leaders in this town, but they need our input and our attention. It's our city, we need to take care of it with as much energy and attention as we do our own familiies.

[Ken Wilder]

Betsy

Your answer gives some comfort about the process, and that the committee has reached out for professional opinions. Is there a place where a citizen can look at all of the data you have collected? It would appear that the Phase III website is light in both data and discussion. I noticed someone mentioned architects, were there reports that you know of? Where are those reports? You are correct in thinking that nine months worth of work would be hard for anyone to really understand in a couple hours. I am sure that I am not the only one that cannot attend tonight but deeply cares about the process, and the information. I look forward to hear about the meeting tonight and look for a complete wrap-up, where we can all digest the data and feel good about everyone's hard work. Will there be a list of committee members somewhere? I have to ask, are you any relation to the senator?


“We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King, Jr.

[Mike Zannoni]

I noticed someone mentioned architects, were there reports that you know of? Where are those reports?

Ken --

I have these reports, and so does everyone on the Phase 3 Committee, I think, and if they are not made available at the forum tonight, I can provide them. (Meg has indicated that this report is not thorough, and assumes things for Kauffman that are erroneous or at least unnecessary.)

The report I have is a summary, and examined Site Size, Topography, Vehicle Access, Site Preparation, Adjacent Property, Aesthetics, Proximity, Program, Costs, Site Configuration and Green Design.

What I notice most obviously about it is that Lincoln is rated "Fair" or "Poor" (depending on whether it's Lincoln-Renovate or Lincoln-New) in many comparisons where Grant is rated "Good". This is true for the Site Size, Vehicle Access, Costs and Site Configuration criteria, for example.

In fact, in every comparison between Lincoln and Grant, the Grant site is rated better than or equal to Lincoln, except for one criterion, Adjacent Property (Lincoln--Good; Grant--Fair). I'm most interested in the direct comparison between these two, because it seems obvious to me that if one school will be closed, it would be one of these. (Roosevelt is too crucial because of its location and coverage.)

Also, it appears to be a given that Lincoln would have to acquire additional properties to even be viable at all, because it's so small and because the building already takes up so much of it's total area. It's also clear from an Addendum that there was/is an interest in combining the Grant and Board of Education properties on Warren. They are almost contiguous, and could be made contiguous with purchase of a few small properties. This would make an already large site even larger. (But I could imagine, judging from some of the chatter on the Deck, that some would like the BOE to sell this "super-parcel" to commercial interests.)

Admittedly, there are some things I don't understand, and I'm hoping this report is discussed tonight at the forum.

Thanks.

[Betsy Voinovich]

Hi Ken,

Right now, the only info that is online about Phase 3 is at that website, I think. There might be some at the Lakewood City Schools site also.

As I said in my post last night, we have been assured that all the data we collected will be provided to the community tonight at the Forum, so that the citizens of Lakewood can weigh all the of the facts for themselves.

If there is data the community needs, and they don't have it, they'll have it eventually. As I said in my post last night, it doesn't make sense that all of this is supposed to happen, in one shot, tonight, and that citizens of Lakewood who couldn't come tonight, like you, are not allowed to view the information, think about it, and weigh in themselves. It's too important of a decision to be made by a hundred people, or even two hundred, assuming that there is a big turn-out tonight.

Stay tuned.

[Ken Wilder]

Thank you for the answers, and I would like to thank all for their time. It is great having this forum for those of us that could not attend. As I sit back and try to digest all of the information that is coming in and look back and the Franklin School messages, it reminds me of a magic trick. This is often the case in things designed by committee. They are either destined to fail by trying to serve all, or the committee is merely the beautiful assistant to make you look left while the right hand makes miracles happen. This allows the magician to force the card that he has already hidden deep in the orange.

My questions would be right now is how was the information assembled for this presentation? Was it with a member from each committee? Was it an outside firm? Or the worst case a single person that might have been beholding to one school over another, or with aspirations to hold public office? I would hope it was small group representing each school working with an expert. Was everything presented fairly?

It seems that all of the information that was presented pointed to the need to not close any school. At what point was it discussed that the district has one school that sat on valuable land, so instead of serving the city, it was decided to take the money and run? While it sounds cold and harsh, finances are a very real driving force in any district or school. If that is true, why not take the money and use that Kaufman Park idea for building a school that could serve the center of the city, and become the new school for the gifted students and those in the neighborhood.(God I hate the term gifted. My neighbor told my wife, do not worry one call, and your children could be gifted too).

As I poured over the data, or what I could find of the data, I never saw economic development or saleability even mentioned. Where is that data? Also I find it odd, that the shape and scope pf the committee seemed to be in constant flux, another recipe for abuse in the end. At what point, as I could not find it, was the discussion or map for how the final decision was made in committee? Once again, with a call for all to come digest all the information and vote, seems like a great chance to stack the deck one way or another. Did each person get a vote? How was that done?

After speaking with neighbors, and others, I would hope that the schools would clear the air and bring in some one from outside like the attorney general's office or other state agency to pour over all of the data, talk with committee members and then assure us the Lakewood residents, that the hard work of all of the volunteers was proper. We are talking about many things here, tax dollars, children's future, the future of the city, and respectful to all. To all members of this committee thank you for laying the groundwork, now let's bring in the outside professionals to make sure it is not just an illusion.

“We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King, Jr.

[Mike Zannoni]

Ken --

I hate to say it, but it seemed that the presentation was unified in its attempt to distort the findings of the community sub-groups in favor of closing Grant.

No, the sub-groups were not allowed to speak for themselves. Not even their recommendations were presented. No one from "the community" was allowed to speak, not even a question-and-answer period. Only the "Overlords" spoke, presenting strategically groomed material to a stacked "audience".

The most important piece of research done by the District Configuration sub-group -- the housing density data -- was suppressed. It unequivically favored Grant, or at least some centrally located school. Someone from that committee had to run around crazily passing out hastily-made xeroxes because of the omission of this data from the "official" slide presentation.

The most damaging piece of research toward the Lincoln building site -- the architectural report citing the overall site size as poor -- was suppressed. In fact the presenters acted as if no architectural report was ever done.

The fact the Lincoln site would definitely have to acquire additional land to be viable for re-building -- was suppressed. The fact that the needed land might not be acquirable at all, since eminent domain is promised not to used -- again, suppressed.

"Re-use" of the Grant site was sited as the #1 reason among the turnout to close Grant. Clearly, there is some behind-the-scene plan of what "re-use" is being considered -- it was not discussed or presented, not even a whisper. Though one could easily imagine how the BOE building site could be part of a Downtown commercial development plan, from Marc's plaza to Hilliard down Warren from Detroit, I can't imagine what is being planned for the Grant property -- some strip mall extending halfway up residential Elmwood Ave.? In these economic times? With the number of empty store fronts in Lakewood currently? I'm sure the residential property owners will love that . . .

The room was obviously stacked with pro-Lincoln people, as nothing in the presentation could have reasonably swayed anyone in that direction who was not already of that determined mindset. In fact, anyone earnestly listening to even the groomed presentation could only go the other way, as actually happened to a someone at my table.

This forum was an embarassing sham, without even an appearance of actual "community involvement". I fear its only value will be to help posture a pre-determined decision by the School Board as "validated" and "co-authored" by the community. Truly, a cynical display.

Thanks.