posted by Mike Madison at 9:53 AM /
From this morning's PG:
Note the vote breakdown:
Voting for the Advisory Committee:
Remely (up for re-election)
Silhol (up for re-election)
Fraasch (not up for re-election)
Kubit (not up for re-election)
Hart (not running for re-election)
Voting against the Advisory Committee:
Cappucci (not up for re-election)
Rose (not up for re-election)
Posti (up for re-election)
I, for one, do not understand the opposition to this proposal. I am not and have never been opposed to improving the quality of the high school facility, and from the beginning I have argued that a new building or a full-scale renovation might be appropriate -- at a reasonable cost, and considering the District's other priorities and resources. For nearly a year I have been disappointed at the divisiveness that the planning process has brought to the community. An Advisory Board represents an opportunity both to make the project better, and to make it a true community enterprise.
LinkThe Mt. Lebanon school board last night voted 5-3 to create a community advisory committee to review the current design plan and provide recommendations to the board for the $112 million high school renovation project.
Board members Elaine Cappucci, Susan Rose, and Josephine Posti dissented. Faith Ann Stipanovich was absent.
Note the vote breakdown:
Voting for the Advisory Committee:
Remely (up for re-election)
Silhol (up for re-election)
Fraasch (not up for re-election)
Kubit (not up for re-election)
Hart (not running for re-election)
Voting against the Advisory Committee:
Cappucci (not up for re-election)
Rose (not up for re-election)
Posti (up for re-election)
I, for one, do not understand the opposition to this proposal. I am not and have never been opposed to improving the quality of the high school facility, and from the beginning I have argued that a new building or a full-scale renovation might be appropriate -- at a reasonable cost, and considering the District's other priorities and resources. For nearly a year I have been disappointed at the divisiveness that the planning process has brought to the community. An Advisory Board represents an opportunity both to make the project better, and to make it a true community enterprise.
48 Comments:
Mike, you note in your post that an advisory board would allow this to be a true community enterprise but seem to completely overlook the Design Advisory Committee (the DAC) that has been in place for this project almost since its inception, comprised exclusively of members of this community. The DAC has spent hundreds of hours reviewing every facet of this project and providing vital input. When members of the board and community suggested last night (and in recent weeks) that yet another layer of review, if truly needed, could be folded into the existing committee (or a subcommittee of the DAC), it was a reasonable suggestion that warranted serious consideration but was glossed over by numerous members of the board. Further, the fact that the board was not more open to providing tight parameters to this new committee is stupefying -- who is running the show here? do we really think that this new committee will complete its work and have conclusions to the board by early-mid December since it won't even be ratified before Nov 9th, has been asked to meet 6-8 times (a weekly meeting is asking a lot of busy people/professionals) and we are almost upon the Thanksgiving/Christmas holidays? Someone is wearing rose-colored glasses. Mike, I really appreciate your community blog and everything you say/believe for both Lebo and Pittsburgh (at Pittsblog) but I want you to present the full picture to commmunity members, not just one side of the story. Thanks, Elaine Labalme
Elaine,
Here's the full story on the DAC, according to Bill Matthews' comment on an recent post on this topic:
"The Design Adisory Team has not met since January 6, 2009.
This is the last date the District sought the team's input."
Whatever useful function the DAC served earlier in the process, it appears to have no ongoing role. I for one have neither heard nor seen any comments by or on behalf of the DAC/DAT over the many months of 2009 that I have been paying close attention to the project; I can only conclude that Bill's comment is accurate.
Moreover, even if the DAC/DAT has been active during that time (contrary to my observation), its presence has failed to defuse the divisiveness that now characterizes the renovation process. In its deliberations leading up to last night's meeting, the Board might have concluded that re-energizing the DAC/DAT would be preferable to charging a new Advisory Board. I can't know what all of the Board members were thinking, but given the fact that a Board majority decided not to do that -- in the fact of clear evidence that the DAC/DAT still exists, at least technically -- I can only conclude that the Board believes that an Advisory Board would be superior to the DAC in moving the project forward and unifying the community.
As for providing all sides of the story, everyone knows that what I write here is what I believe, based on what I know. These are my views. I'm not an investigative journalist, and I don't have time to be the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal, digging around so that every person with a different opinion gets equal time in my posts. If you think that there's more to the story - as you do - then by all means chime in.
Now I'm really frosted about the handling of the Candidate's Forum on Tuesday night. Wouldn't it have nice (not to mention timely, appropriate and enlightening) to have had a discussion on the community advisory board so that we all could have discovered the candidates' opinion on this issue.
Perhaps then we would have learned that Ms. Posti doesn't want our input. Perhaps if there was something horribly wrong with the idea of the advisory board, Ms Posti could have taken the opportunity to explain her thoughts to all of us (and anyone watching later on TV) just 2 days before she voted against the idea.
Perhaps then we might have learned whether or not her running mate feels the same way, because I get the sense from his earlier comments that he might not.
Ironically, the Posti Gardner campaign uses the tagline "Leadership through Dialogue, Teamwork and Compromise". Throwing her support behind the community advisory board would have been a perfect opportunity for Ms. Posti to put her actions strongly behind those words. Instead, it appears that Dialogue is fine as long as you're saying what she wants to hear. Teamwork is great if we're working towards a goal that she supports. And Compromise works as long as she gets what she wants.
Dave,
While I fully appreciate your state of frosting, something needs to be clarified.
1) The Meet the Candidates forum took place on Tuesday, 27-OCT-2009.
2) The school board voted for the advisory board/committee took place on Thursday, 29-OCT-2009.
The vote took place a full two (2) calendar days after the forum.
No sitting candidate would have discussed pending business at the forum, and no challenger would have brought up the subject that the others could not debate.
Huh?
Kudos to the board for its vote on the CAC, if they find savings great, if not we can feel pretty confident we've arrived at a good design.
For those interested, an article on the School Planning & Management website shows we're not the only district re-examining our construction project.
Google: "MAKING THE OLD NEW AGAIN" by Jason Policastro.
One sentence I finding interesting is a number that keeps appearing in numerous articles on school construction from the PA Dept. of Ed., RSMeans, American School & University magazine.
Mr. Policastro writes: "...the average cost per square foot to renovate a school is $110, which is approximately half the cost per square foot for new building construction."
Our project is in the neighborhood of $220/sq. ft.
Since we're doing renovation and new constrcution it would be logical that our number would be lower.
Hopefully, the CAC will figure it out!
Dean Spahr
Mike,
I was at the school board meeting for last night's vote, and while I spoke in favor of forming the CAC, I will say that most of the people who spoke against forming the CAC raised valid concerns.
The main concern, which was voiced repeatedly, was delay. People who thought the CAC was likely to take more time than it would save in the construction stage of the project came out against it. Since the CAC's costs, both in time and money, will be small relative to those of the construction phase, whether a person favored the CAC was largely determined by whether that person thought the CAC would deliver meaningful construction-phase improvements, a prospect whose promise is not immediately evident.
I favored the CAC because I have good reason to believe it will deliver meaningful improvements. Prior experience from large construction projects ought to tell us that our current plan almost certainly contains errors and opportunities – many of them. Therefore, the potential for large improvements does exist. But can we expect an independent review to realize enough of that potential to be worthwhile?
Again, prior experience provides guidance. There's a reason for second opinions in medicine, design reviews in engineering, audits in business, due diligence in law, peer review in science, trust-but-verify in global politics, critique in graphic design, and proofreading in journalism. And that reason is this: Independent reviews work.
Is there any reason, then, to believe that an independent review of our plans will somehow prove less effective than usual? I can't think of any. If our plans were small or simple, they would offer less opportunity for improvement, but our plans are large and complicated: a high-school renovation that reaches $100 million is uncommon. If our plans had already been subjected to many rounds of independent review, diminishing returns would reduce the potential benefits of yet another review, but our plans have had surprisingly little independent review, and the review they have had seems to have been largely dismissed.
So there is good reason to believe that the CAC will deliver more than enough reward to be worthwhile. But those who didn't see it that way weren't being irrational. They just didn't see the evidence the way I did.
Cheers,
Tom
Mike, I disagee with your characterization that Bill Matthews' post provides the full story on the DAC. Even Mr. Matthews acknowledges that he's got but one viewpoint and no time to give other voices equal time! This design review issue is multi-layered but the meta-issue appears to be the lack of leadership from the School Board on the design review issue and how the board has handled the fallout from its lack of leadership. I have heard varying dates as to when the DAC last met -- January, February, May (I am presently trying to get better data). My question is why didn't School Board leadership advise the DAC on best practices e.g. continuous meetings throughout this process? Further, Mr. Rothschild (the architect who will presumably be leading this new committee) has been on the school board's radar since at least February of this year, which is when I met him (and his sketchbook) at a school board meeting. The time for board leadership to integrate Mr. Rothschild and his ideas into the process was then, not almost a year later. He who sits in the board leadership chair and controls the agenda and discussion bears the burden of both good decisions and bad. The lack of leadership from our board is startling and stifling opposing viewpoints betwixt nasty bickering won't accomplish much, either. I, too, want a project that acccomplishes the stated objectives and is rendered on time and within budget. At the same time, we have to realize that we could continue to review this project for days, months, even years and there will always be some new angle, technique or process that could improve things YET take even more time and time IS money as we will surely pay more for construction in three or five years than we will right now in a soft economy. This renovation is a fluid process and will not sit still for our continuous review. Can anyone tell me what Upper St. Clair paid for its high school 6-7 years ago? I'm sure less than we will and they were smart to move when they did. Let's try to stay smart -- and reasonable -- here for the sake of our community.
Tom,
That's very helpful; I certainly share your optimism.
But arguments regarding delay puzzle me; they have puzzled me for months. The only reason to prefer building a high school "now" (and I put "now" in quotation marks, because even if construction started tomorrow, full completion and occupancy would be years away), to building a high school "right" is to maximize the chance that one's own child will benefit from the building. I don't begrudge anyone wanting the best education for one's own children -- that's why many people moved to Mt. Lebanon in the first place -- but a "*my* family comes first" perspective can get in the way of the "do what's best for the community" perspective that I believe is needed to make the project successful in both the short run and the long run.
In other words, even if the tangible benefits of an Advisory Board are negligable (costs saved? errors avoided? opportunities seized?), the intangible benefits (the opportunity to recapture broad public support for the enterprise, whatever its scale) are sizable. One might even call the Board "therapeutic."
I wonder why the deadline to submit a resume requesting participation on the CAC (10/23) passed before the vote to form the CAC took place (10/29). It didn't make sense to me to submit a resume for something that wasn't decided as a "go". Mine went late and so I doubt that I will be considered, but I wonder what the thinking was behind that? I am not an architect or engineer, but given the concerns I feel about this expenditure I decided to "put up or shut up", except probably too late. I just wonder how many other folks held back until the decision to form the CAC was made rather than send their resume “just in case”. – Charlotte Stephenson
Mike, I would argue that all members of this community are equally vested in a new school now vs. 3, 5, 7 or 10 years from now. Actually, I believe that those with an even greater stake in the process are seniors who may be selling their homes in Lebo in the next 3, 5 or 7 years and would like to maximize their sale as they move to smaller accommodations, other locations, etc. Let's not be Pollyanna: the word is already out that our school board and citizenry are not fully committed to moving forward with all deliberate speed on this process. It's not as if other seniors will be buying the houses that OUR seniors put on the market -- the new buyers are most likely families. We need to appeal to that demographic. And while we're on the subject of families in Lebo, I don't find them to be a "my family comes first" bunch -- rather, I'm surrounded by families who have already put many kids through Lebo High (you, too, Mike?) who are selfless in their commitment to create a better school for those who will follow. Thanks, Elaine Labalme (who will now return to carving a pumpkin with her seven-year-old)
Elaine,
Lots of people share your view that the Board leadership on this project has been missing in action. I am one of them.
It comes as a surprise to me, and perhaps to others, to hear criticism of the Board for not listening to residents who want to move forward swiftly. On this blog, over the last nine months the vast majority of the commentary (in principal posts and in comments) has focused on the Board's reluctance to engage with any community viewpoint that disagreed with the Board's decision to move ahead aggressively.
Getting clear information regarding the existing DAC will be interesting. I'm not sure why you suggest that Bill Matthews acknowledges that he has one viewpoint and no time to investigate others; either the DAC has met since January 6 or it has not. But perhaps you've talked separately to Bill. My experience is that he's pretty good with facts.) I myself just looked around the MTLSD High School Renovation website and found no reference anyone to a DAT/DAC meeting after January 6.
The real issue here is not "DAC or CAC"; as you rightly note, it is how to promote good decisions and avoid bad decisions regarding the project. Sure, it's true that yet another review or revision is possible. But I've renovated houses and worked as a lawyer on much larger-scale construction and renovation, and a well-managed process can keep reviews and revisions on track, rather than making them endless and open-ended. The burden of bad decisions doesn't fall on the Board President who controlled the agenda; the burden of bad decisions, and the benefits of good ones, falls on all of us.
As to USC, others will have more details, but my quick research tells me that the high school project there was finished in 2000, involved equal parts new construction and renovation of existing structures, and cost a total of $30 million or so.
I've met more "my family comes first" people in Mt. Lebanon over the years, and not just in connection with this high school project, than I could count on many fingers and toes. (There is a reason that I rarely post on this blog about sports!) Many of those people are also obsessively community-minded. Mt. Lebanon is an interested blend of both perspectives, often wrapped up in the same people.
Almost everyone in the high school process agrees that the high school has something to do with home values, now and in the future. My own view, however, is that the building as such has relatively little to do with home values and that the quality of the educational program carries much more weight -- as it should. Anyone who wants to can search the blog's archives for my numerous and extended posts on that topic. I won't repeat myself here. My own children attended pre-renovation Markham, post-renovation Jefferson, and the current Mt. Lebanon High School. (My pumpkin carving days are, for now, behind me.) The quality of their education had zero to do with the buildings and everything to do with their teachers. Many of those teachers were fantastic. A few were terrible. As much as I've heard kids complain about the high school building, I've heard them complain more about lousy teaching. In a perfect world, we get great facilities and great staff. We don't live in a perfect world. While we're prioritizing the use of limited resources in order to preserve community values (financial and otherwise), I prefer to prioritize using "high quality education" as my guiding principle. I can live with a less than perfect building.
Mike, I spoke at the meeting last night using my daughter growing as an example of the length of time this process has taken already. My main concern is not whether or not my daughter will ever set foot in the new school, but the deteriorating environment around current high schoolers and how much money will be wasted trying to keep the current buildings functional while this project comes to fruition. I would guess that most people in favor of moving this project forward share the same concerns. It is not and never has been a question of "my family first."
I continue to view this new committee as the wrong way to provide oversight to this project. Also, the DAC has operated under the leadership of the district. If they have not met recently, it is because they have not been tasked with review or they have not been encouraged to stay active by the leadership.
I question what meaningful information can be obtained from a committee formed on Nov. 9 and tasked with filing a report to the board by mid-December. It seems to me that it would take the committee that long just to get up to speed on the design and the issues.
I'm going to sign off of this comment thread. The arguments pro and con are recycling things that have been said endlessly, pro and con, on this blog already. Click on the "high school renovation" tag on any recent post to review their history.
Not only was Upper St. Clair's renovation project 1/4th the cost of ours, they are better able to pay for it.
Mt. Lebanon 2008 - 2009 Market Value/Personal Income Aid Ratio (MV/PI AR): 0.35200
Upper St. Clair 2008 - 2009 Market Value/Personal Income Aid Ratio (MV/PI AR): 0.32200
I attended last night's meeting and I have read all of the comments on this blog. I have followed the high school renovation process closely throughout. Frankly I am baffled by the sudden desire in the 11th hour to include yet another community-based advisory committee. As stated earlier, the Design Advisory Committee (DAC) has been in place already for quite some time. The fact that they have not met for months is a question that I would have liked to have asked our board president, Mr. Silhol. Is it not his responsibility to steer this ship? Why ever did the DAC fall by the wayside? If Mr. Silhol and others are so concerned about the input of our community, why have they allowed the DAC to vanish into the woodwork. More importantly, why NOW, in the 11th hour, is it suddenly so vital that we establish a new group of overseers when we didn't take advantage of the one we already had in place months ago? The DAC should have been functioning effectively since his birth, and it has not. This can only be due to lack of leadership on the board. Mr. Silhol has NOT been steering this ship. The result is a board that is entirely dysfunctional. Very little is getting accomplished, and the pace is painfully slow. I can only assume that worries about further delay stem from the fact that community members are fed up with the already terrible track record the board holds for "timeliness". I have one final comment that I feel is extremely important regarding the board. As a member of the audience last night I was astonished at Mr. Silhol's extremely rude and disrespectful behavior towards other colleagues on the board. His lack of professionalism and complete disregard for others' opinions was deplorable. Granted, every committee will have its disagreements. However, in order to move forward in a positive way, all members must be willing to work in a civilized manner - especially the president, the LEADER! Mr. Silhol apparently does not possess the self-control to accomplish this. His complete lack of control was absolutely shocking, and frankly, embarrassing. Unacceptable does not even begin to describe what went on last night. Needless to say, I am deeply concerned that the fate of education in Mt. Lebanon is currently held tightest in the hands of a man who can't even conduct himself more maturely than a toddler. I look forward to Tuesday's election. Last night's meeting shed much light on the current state of this board in all of its dysfunction and lack of leadership. The time for change is NOW.
DAC...CAC I wonder if there are members from the DAC who are now applying for the CAC. Gee, is this an example of "Making The Old New Again?"
Elaine Gillen
Kristen Linfante asked some good questions, questions many members of our comminity are probably wondering about, questions for which the board hasn't provided clear answers. A lack of clarity is one reason why so many people seem to have conflicting views about the CAC.
In any case, the answers to two of those questions are evident with a little sleuthing. Here's what I've been able to come up with:
Why do a review now, at the 11th hour? Because it makes sense to review a plan when it is complete (or nearly complete). If you do your final review earlier, you will forfeit the opportunity to spot problems introduced later in planning. The later the review, then, the fewer problems you'll miss.
Why form a new Community Advisory Committee instead of using the existing Design Advisory Committee for the review? Two reasons. First, the purpose of the CAC is to review the current plans, to find overlooked problems and opportunities. The DAC, however, was formed for another reason (to provide input during the design of the project). Its members are therefore not as equipped to perform a review of architectural plans as a committee chosen expressly for the purpose. Second, fresh eyes are the best eyes for finding problems and opportunities that were overlooked earlier. People who are already involved in the project are more likely to have formed impressions that will prevent them from seeing the project afresh.
Cheers,
Tom
Tom,
My next question is then, when will we not require a fresh set of eyes? Once the new committee has taken a look, will we then need yet another set of fresh eyes? When do we say enough is enough? Furthermore, if I felt more confident about our board leadership, I might feel more comfortable about the fact that they currently hold all the cards. I have lost all trust in the leadership at this point. Based on recent history of the DAC falling flat, why should I expect any more from the CAC?? Time is ticking away here folks.
Kristen,
You ask another great question: When should we stop reviewing our plans and start acting upon them?
I don't know what the board thinks about this question, but the question does have an answer: Stop reviewing when the expected costs of one more review exceed the expected benefits. And by costs and benefits, I mean the sum of everything we consider important – not just money, but also time, effects on student achievement, and so forth.
In our present situation, we can expect the costs of the CAC review to be small. We don't know exactly what those costs will be, but even if we are pessimistic in our assumptions, it will take, say, $1 million and no more than a few weeks. Likewise, we don't know exactly what the benefits of the CAC review will be, but even if we are pessimistic and expect only a few percent improvement over the existing plans, the CAC's benefits will handily exceed the costs. So doing this review does make sense.
But what about doing the next review? Will that make sense, too? Only time will tell. But our prior knowledge of reviews gives us guidance. Iterated reviews have rapidly diminishing returns. Unless the CAC review yields massive wins, on the order of tens of millions of dollars in savings and many months in schedule reductions, it would be hard to expect a second review to prove worthwhile. So a second review, I would wager, is unlikely.
So, if you are worried that the CAC will lead to incessant reviewing and indefinite delays, you can rest easy. That scenario isn't going to play out.
Cheers,
Tom
Tom,
I feel that if the board wants professional expertise for overview, then they should hire professionals who would be liable for their decisions. Tasking a group of "volunteer" experts does not seem to be the right way to do this. What are our consulting architects hired to do?
Finally, Kristen summed it up that at some point you have to end review and start building.
In response to Mike's comments about a high quality education versus a less than perfect building...I don't think a single person touring our current high school would deny that the building is literally falling down. I guess we can only hope that potential home-buyers will skip the tour...I agree, excellent teachers are essential. However, a safe environment for Mt. Lebanon's children to learn in is also paramount. This is part of that "delay" isue. Do we wait until a child is seriously injured or worse before we wake and recognize that our children need and deserve better? Should we really have these kids housed in a building that is only held up to fire and other safety codes enforced in 1928? As most of you know, buildings are only required to uphold the safety codes that were in place at the time that building was erected, and yes, portions were built that long ago!! And that's just safety codes! What about the fact that the building is physically falling down? So when exactly will one of the old glass panels in Center Court fall? Hopefully not during school hours! What about the windowless classroom in the basement? Hopefully all of the students housed in that room (including any disabled kids) would somehow be able to get out in time to escape a fire. Windowless rooms?!?!? Come on! Is this a high school or a prison?? NO child or teacher should have to endure and RISK these conditions. Procrastinate all you like...try to keep your tax dollars in your own pockets all you like... but this town needs better - for our kids to thrive, for our TOWN to thrive. The accusatory comments about "my kids" rather than "all kids" are ridiculous and unfair. I'm sure those accusers would not appreciate a comment about "MY money rather than $$ for our town". However, it seems that the same selfishness that others are accused of, can be said of those who want to keep their money in their pockets rather than give it away in taxes. If this process is really going to be a "community partnership" with its DAC and CAC, and XYZ-AC, then that same "community" needs to be willing to step up to the plate and GIVE what the town, OUR town needs to be successful. In this case, yes, it means money. Get used to it. You can’t get anything for free. It's about priorities and commitment. I am committed to both my kids AND my community. Yes, I want my kids to have the best education they can. Yes, I want my house to have the highest value it can. Yes, I realize that will mean effort and money will be required. Money well spent. Let’s get on with it. I resent anyone who is disingenuous about a rationale for delay. Is it really about delay in order to “get things right”, or is it about derailing this thing yet again to keep tax dollars in pockets? Wake up and smell the leaky pipes.
Tom,
I can only hope that you are correct that the infinite review process will eventually cease. However, in the meantime, I think we need to consider not only cost in $$, but cost in other things as well - children's safety and well-being (or lack of it), and slipping home values as potential buyers pass us by when they take a look at the facilities we can offer. So what do we say to those people? Ignore that flood in the hallway, that peeling lead paint, that windowless makeshift classroom. Trust us - our teachers are top notch! Will that really fly??
Well, I wanted to stay out of this, but Kristen Linfante made this statement:
"Should we really have these kids housed in a building that is only held up to fire and other safety codes enforced in 1928? As most of you know, buildings are only required to uphold the safety codes that were in place at the time that building was erected, and yes, portions were built that long ago!!"
The factual statement -- that "buildings are only required to uphold the safety codes that were in place at the time that building was erected" -- sounds only partially true to me.
When it comes to residential properties, neither the Municipality nor the County nor the Commonwealth are going to come back and check to see whether an old house meets modern safety standards.
When it comes to public buildings, and especially when it comes to public schools, I have always assumed that different rules apply. Federal law on access for the disabled, for example, obviously applies to older buildings as well as to new ones. Current state fire safety rules must apply to older buildings, despite what KL wrote above; how could the building obtain an occupancy permit otherwise?
But is my general assumption about new rules applying to older public buildings true or not true? Is a school district permitted to operate school buildings that are known to be dangerous to students and staff under contemporary health and safety standards?
I found this link, which seems to be helpful but not conclusive.
I'd love to hear from folks who work in or have specific knowledge of (chapter and verse) school law, public administration, public safety, and building construction and renovation for public authorities.
I'm happy to spend the money that's needed to renovate a facility that is obviously in need of renovation. Having contributed thousands and thousands of dollars over the years to Mt. Lebanon's treasury and to that of the School District (these are separate, of course), like any citizen and taxpayer I want to be sure that the money is spent wisely.
Mike,
When I discovered the state that the high school was in I becasme very concerned about safety and I did my own research months ago to find out about building code,etc. I called the Allegheny Health Dept., the Mt. Lebanon Bldg. Dept, and the Mt. Lebanon Fire Dept. Each and every office explained to me that every building or structure is only held to the codes that were inforced at the time of construction. That is why, for example, only newer portions of the high school have sprinkler systems, etc. Shocking, I know. Safety concerns are real. Not until the high school is renovated will anyone be required to make any updates to the safety codes at that school. Once it IS renovated, the entire school will, by law, be updated to current standards. A priority in my mind.
I can supply you with those contact numbers if you'd like to check for yourself. Admittedly, I am not a lawyer. Since this is not my expertise, I felt it was necessary to go to the source(s) and get the facts. Just a concerned citizen...
Kristen,
Thanks for jumping right back in to this thread.
And I should thank you for taking time both to invest in this issue and to write here. Even though we disagree on some things, we share a strong interest in the community and its schools.
I'll wait to get input from folks who have expertise on the front lines of the code issue, because it's not a question that can be asked or answered in general terms. It has technical dimensions that even a highly motivated and well-educated layperson may not understand -- and I count myself as one who knows enough to anticipate those technical dimensions but not one who knows enough to understand them. I'm a lawyer, and I have a lot of experience with building and construction law - but not with PA building and construction law.
I do know from my own experience that contemporary accessibility codes apply to all public buildings, regardless of when they were built. I would be very, very surprised if older public buildings were not subject to some species of modern fire code, even if they are not subject to all fire code rules that apply to new construction.
In the case of Mt. Lebanon's schools, one relevant question would be the date of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy that is now in effect with respect to each building. It is likely, I think, that each building would have have met codes in effect as of the date of its Certificate.
Kristen,
Have you read Dirk Taylor's report on the high school? As someone who has had 15[1] years of experience in doing general contracting for the school district, working in the high school building itself, when he says that the structure of the building is sound, how can you argue with him?
As his report indicates, the problems are with the systems of the building (architectural, electrical, mechanical, plumbing, and communication, as he puts it) - not the building itself.
You are correct in your statement that you can't get anything for free. I think the better question is, can we get something sufficient for cheap?
If we're talking about spending $100 million or more, why not use that money judiciously - frugally, but wisely, to remedy the systems issues and spend the rest on education? Why demolish a perfectly serviceable structure?
To answer the question as to what effect building renovation has on student performance, I took a look at the state DOE website. They have published SAT scores going back to 1999. There are also PSSA scores, state "report cards", and other data.
From that data [2, 3, 4] I compiled this spreadsheet, listing all districts in the state by rank of combined average SAT score. As you can see, Mt. Lebanon and USC both consistently number in the top 15 schools in the state.
What stands out, for me, in looking at this data, is:
1. Despite spanning the time period before through well after USC's school renovation, there was no apparent correlation of the renovation timing to SAT scores or state ranking changes. In fact, although USC was ranked 4th in the state in the 98-99 year, starting in the 99-00 school year (the year of the renovation [5]) their rank fell relative to Mt. Lebanon over the next 3-4 years.
2. Mt. Lebanon has consistently placed in the top 10 schools in PA for SAT scores throughout the covered period, in the very same building we're using today.
Taking all that into consideration, and assuming we as a community still want to renovate the building, I ask the following. Given the previously cited national average per sq.ft. cost of $110 for renovation, why spend $220 - especially in the current economy? What more are we getting for the doubled cost? If we're willing to spend so much, and bear the associated tax burden, why spend it all on a building instead of mostly on the students and teachers in the building?
---------
Sources:
1 Excerpt from Taylor report, published on Blog Lebo
2 PA DOE SAT Scores - 2001-2009
3 PA DOE SAT Scores - 2001-2002, older site. Some data overlaps report years above, but both are included in my spreadsheet.
4 PA DOE SAT Scores - 1998-2001, older site (SAT scores for earlier years not available)
5 Wikipedia article on USC high school - renovation dates
The link in my previous post to the spreadsheet I created is not working. Please use this one:
Compiled SAT scores from PA DOE - 1998-2009
Kristen,
Let's talk about the safety, well-being, and home-value issues that you raised. All are important, and we ought to include them in the analysis that guides our CAC decision. It's just that when we give these issues consideration, they don't affect the decision.
Here's why. Let's assume, pessimistically, that the CAC review completely halts the ongoing planning effort and that the construction phase of the project is delayed by, again pessimistically, a full 12 weeks. That means our students will be exposed to the current conditions of our high school for another 12 weeks and that our homeowners will feel the related effects on their real-estate valuations for another 12 weeks. How much harm does that 12-week exposure represent?
Very little.
First, let's consider safety. How dangerous is the current high school? Can we measure it? Yes. The high school has been run-down for a long time. Therefore, if the current conditions are dangerous, the building has been dangerous for years, and thus we would expect to find a history of building-related accidents. But there is no such history. I searched Google News for articles relating to accidents or injuries at Mt. Lebanon High School, which we would expect to be widely reported, and I could find nothing, only reports of sports-related injuries. So, if years of exposure to the current conditions have produced no harm, how much harm can we expect from 12 more weeks of exposure? Further, even if we imagine that some kind of harm occurs, for it to affect our decision about the CAC, we would have to believe that the harm would have been prevented by the renovations, had they gone forward earlier. In other words, the safety cost of the CAC review isn't the expected harm that would occur during our pessimistic 12-week delay, which is already small, but the portion of that harm that would also have been prevented by not having had the review, an even smaller value.
To look at it from the opposite direction, if our high school is so dangerous that it's negligent to expose our students to it for just 12 weeks, why does any parent willingly send their children into the building for the years it takes to receive an education? That parents do send their children into the high school indicates that they consider multi-year exposure to the current conditions an acceptable risk. Why then would 12-week exposure be too much to bear?
What about student well-being? A similar analysis applies. Students are exposed to the current conditions for years and yet graduate among the top in the nation. How much more well could their being be? If we imagine, then, that the renovated high school delivers some well-being improvement, it can't be large because we are already at the top of the well-being spectrum. Thus denying students that small improvement for a few weeks represents a tiny, tiny cost.
What about real-estate valuations? Again, we're talking about a 12-week period. How much can ill feelings about our high school drive down home valuations over 12 weeks? Not enough to be measurable, let alone a significant factor in our decision.
Okay, let's add it up. We considered the effects of the CAC decision on student safety, student well-being, and real-estate valuations. The evidence we have before us argues that the CAC decision will have no meaningful effect on any of these concerns. Therefore, those concerns should have little influence over our decision.
The CAC still makes sense.
Cheers,
Tom
With all due respect, the following statement made me chuckle when I read it..."As his report indicates, the problems are with the systems of the building (architectural, electrical, mechanical, plumbing, and communication, as he puts it) - not the building itself." Not the building itself? What's left? We're talking architectural (bricks and mortar),electrical (safety?), mechanical (safety?) ,plumbing (safety, sanitary, etc) and communication (?)! If anyone really believes that a quality building is irrelevant to learning, all I can say is I disagree. This point is not worth my time to argue about. We need a school that is SAFE and a school that serves its students and does not act as an impediment. To say our SAT scores are high DESPITE the deplorable conditions at the school seems like a lame point. In my mind the key words are DEPLORABLE CONDITIONS, not "high SAT scores". Many variables affect SAT scores. To directly relate them to the conditions of the school would be irresponsible. I will not comment again about this issue. My stance is that we should not expect the children of this town to endure and RISK the conditions of the current high school.
Matt,
How can you separate the physical plant problems from the building itself? The boilers can't be replaced because no one knows if the pipes in the walls can withstand the new pressure. There are endless examples of crumbling infrastructure in the high school. I don't think there is any disagreement that something needs to be done.
There is no question that deteriorating physical conditions will at some point result in poorer academic performance. The fact that you can't find evidence of that is not a predictor of the future.
The refurbish v. new construction/refurbish combo choice has already been put to rest. The project needs to get started. We are already paying interest on the bonds.
FYI, it is my understanding as well that the buildings only need to meet code of the year in which they were constructed/renovated.
It is time to stop arguing about this project and get on with it. Otherwise, there will be no end to constant revisions and "Let's take another look just to be sure...." It's enough already.
Mike, when you hear back from the people with code expertise, can you please ask them about that puddle labeled "asbestos" in the weight room at the high school? Photos of same were on the High School web site for quite some time (and may still be) and both Kristen and I asked about it at school board meetings and never got a good answer. And yes, it took students at the school bringing it to our attention as opposed to district personnel and/or board members being on top of it and reporting on the remedy for us to demand answers. Hm, maybe this is why MOM should be running things around here and not DAD. Thanks, Elaine Labalme
Kristen,
Thanks for your comments. I can see that you feel strongly about the school's condition. I can also see that you are willing to consider outside evidence with an open mind. Thank you for that. I hope you will take the following evidence in the same spirit.
You wrote, "If anyone really believes that a quality building is irrelevant to learning, all I can say is I disagree."
The degree to which the quality of school buildings affects learning is not something we need wonder about. It has been measured. In 2005, for example, a group of researchers studied those very effects, looking at every school in Wyoming. Here's what they found:
A growing issue in school finance adequacy relates to the condition of school facilities and the role that the condition of those facilities plays in student learning. Using the results of standardized test scores from Wyoming students and a detailed assessment of every school building in the state of Wyoming, it can be concluded that there is essentially no relationship between the quality of school facilities and student performance when other factors known to impact student performance are accounted for. This does not suggest investments in school facilities are not important -- all children are entitled to attend school in safe, clean, and appropriate educational environments. However, policymakers should be aware that investments in facilities by themselves are unlikely to improve student learning. (Emphasis mine; Source: Understanding the Relationship Between Student Achievement and the Quality of Educational Facilities: Evidence From Wyoming, Picus et al., 2005.)
That's the kind of evidence that makes me concerned about overspending on our buildings. If buildings have no meaningful effect on student achievement, why aren't we spending less on buildings (once they are safe and sound) and more on things like teachers, things that do have a meaningful effect?
Don't get me wrong. Like you, I believe that every student deserves a safe, sound environment in which to learn. I also believe, like you, that we should spare no expense at making our high school safe and sound, and that we should move with all reasonable speed.
Once our buildings are safe and sound and fully adequate to the needs of learning, however, I think we should stop pumping our money into bricks and start pumping it into things like teachers, things that do have a meaningful effect on student achievement.
Cheers,
Tom
Tom, The only problem is we currently we do NOT have a building that is safe and sound and fully adequate. Once we do, let's talk. I do find your quote regarding Wyoming schools interesting. My response is perhaps we should scale back the new swimming pool, or tennis courts, or football field - but certainly not the classrooms. It is a school after all; is it not? Just for the record, I am a professional musician - classically trained with two degress from Juilliard. I perform all over the world. I feel passionately about the arts. However, I have never gotten up in front of the board (as others have regarding sports in particular) and insisted or even suggested that they turn the fine arts area into a "Cadillac" because it is essential for our students to have the best of the best. A good, safe facility would be nice. I am not looking for pie in the sky. I am all about "reasonable". I am not looking to thoughtlessly throw away money. Back to my main point -the current physical state of the high school is not acceptable and it needs to change now - The current board leadership has let down this community by not taking this situation more seriously, but rather focusing on their own personal agendas. Not ok in my book. Totally unacceptable. Its time for the "DAD's" to find a new hobby. See you at the polls!
Tom, the population of the entire state of Wyoming is less than half that of Allegheny County. Wyoming has never ranked high in either education or quality of life and has a very homogenous population. I hope the citizens of Mt. Lebanon are not looking at Wyoming as a standard bearer on education or anything else.
I think the school issue is about more than a safe building, it's about creating an environment conducive to learning in the 21st century. Tom, have you talked to any teachers or kids at the high school lately? have you heard about the condition/fitness of their lab equipment? their labs? is a center court that leaks where kids want to meet and exchange ideas? I simply do not buy your argument that a serviceable building is all our kids need.
Tom, you strike me as a reasonable person. Tell me if you still feel the same way after you've reviewed thethirdteacher.com. This is the kind of thinking we need on our high school project and we are fortunate to have OWP/P working as consulting architect with our district. Thanks, Elaine Labalme
Excellent points Elaine. Very well put. Thanks.
It seems to me that anyone who wants to be taken seriously in this conversation -- Board member, staff member, architect, consultant, high school parent, member of the community -- should be willing to explore the empirical evidence that tries to describe the relationship between physical infrastructure and school achievement.
The problem, unfortunately, is that this evidence does not clearly support a decision to move ahead aggressively, or to wait until the economy improves, or to renovate rather than rebuild, or any other option. Instead, the debate is mostly grounded in intuition and conjecture, preconception and anecdote.
The Picus study is a relevant piece of empirical evidence, though it is far from the only study of its type. (It focused on standardized test scores as the measure of student performance, a metric that has clear limitations.) Researchers have been trying to investigate this question for decades, in states throughout the US, and in other countries. Research has been undertaken at a number of different scales, from the individual classroom all the way up to the entire school building.
There is a lot of literature out there. My review of it so far suggests a number of things.
First, much of the American literature is aimed at exploring the costs of school buildings that are in truly deplorable condition, usually those found in very poor districts, both urban and rural. For all of the criticism of the current Mt. Lebanon High School, and for all of the problems that have been documented, it cannot be said that the building itself actively and systematically discourages learning. Evidence of contemporary student success in the current building is overwhelming. Have I been in the building? Many times, and recently, and in many different areas (arts, athletics, labs, cafeterias, public spaces, offices, classrooms). The current building would be the envy of many districts in this country. I do not contend that this is a reason for complacency. I do not contend that it is safe in every detail. I'm only pointing out that the relevant research is not, in the main, aimed at problems like Mt. Lebanon's problems. It is very difficult to come up with a sound *empirical* case that improving Mt. Lebanon's high school *building* would, or would not, improve the Mt. Lebanon high school *education.*
Second, as the Picus article suggests, there is very little quantitative evidence that suggests a link between investment in physical school infrastructure and student achievement. That's "little" evidence, not "none," but the link here is weak at best. And it is not limited to Wyoming. That weakness exists throughout the research, regardless of location.
Third, there is a lot of qualitative evidence that supports the proposition that investment in buildings affects student performance, particularly in that it impacts both teacher and student motivation. This is consistent with common sense: a safe and sound physical environment makes us comfortable and allows us to focus on educational priorities. (Of course, I should note that one of my advisors in college described the "hostile environment" theory of higher education: Go to a school that is so unpleasant that it compels the development of a disciplined mind. My roommate followed this theory. He went to Harvard Law School.)
Fourth, not all of these studies arise in the same discipline. Some are framed in terms of economic hypotheses; some in terms of political science hypotheses; some in terms of educational theory; and some in terms of architectural design. The answers you get depend on the questions you ask, and on who is doing the asking. Personally, I tend to discount architects' and designers' accounts that link buildings and student performance, because the problem of bias strikes me as overwhelming.
One final thought for the night, which I could not include in the last comment because of space considerations:
A synthesis of some of this research that I found helpful appears here. Warning: It is British! But there is no reason to suppose that the correlations would work differently in England and in Mt. Lebanon.
Elaine,
You raise some interesting points, but for now I'll just comment your observations about Wyoming and the Picus study, which suggest that you're misunderstanding the study's claims. The study isn't claiming that Wyoming is the educational standard to which we should all aspire. Rather, the study is claiming that the researchers found no relationship between student achievement and the quality of school buildings.
You list a few ways in which Wyoming is different from our community, but unless you have reason to believe that those differences would somehow affect the nature of the relationship between student achievement and building quality, there's no reason to believe that Mt. Lebanon buildings will have a greater effect on learning than Wyoming buildings, that effect being none.
In any case, I have read a lot of studies on this topic. (I enjoy statistics, believe it or not, and for fun I like to scrutinize the statistical claims of research papers.) In the Green Schools book, for example, the researchers list 20 such studies, many of which I have examined. The short version is that there is agreement among the studies that, if there is a relationship between student achievement and building quality, it is small. Thus, even if you were inclined to believe that investments in buildings do have some effect on student achievement, you have good reason to believe that the effect is much smaller than, say, the effect of investments in teachers (for which the research provides much support).
Which raises the question, would you rather have (1) a $100-million building or (2) a $50-million building and 20 additional teachers? They both cost about the same. But the research suggests that the second option would provide a higher standard of education.
That's why I'm concerned about overspending on our buildings. I'd rather have less building and more education, not the other way around.
Thanks for your comments.
Cheers,
Tom
With all the talk about delay nobody has shown the Advisory Design Committee was a functional committee during the critical schematic design phase. How can a non-functional committee give a proper project review without meeting and discussing the schematic design of the project?
Most of the members Advisory Design Committee lack training in high school design and project construction management so they were qualified to give input but not to review the architectural plans.
My impression of the process is the ADC function was blocked at the Master Design Committee level. Consider the original opposition to the Rothschild Committee by a member of the MDC. The member objecting backed down at the discussion meeting when Mr. Rothschild pointed out the gap in the ADC review structure. That member was better prepared at the business meeting when she was joined by two other objecting board members and a number of objecting public speakers from her own street.
Mr. Taylor is well versed in high school design and project construction management; he was ignored in spite of his credentials. Mr. Rothschild was also ignored for a period of months. The Board’s credibility and trust level has been damaged because well qualified members of the public have been shut out of the building process in favor of well organized email campaigns orchestrated by well organized groups.
Organized groups have led to serious mistakes in Mt. Lebanon’s past. We paid $1,000,000 plus bond interest to buy an athletic field in Scott Township; that field has not been developed in over 20 years. We heard fund raising promises then and again when the $2,000,000 McNeilly property was purchased with another bond issue several years ago. So here we are with $3,000,000 plus interest tied up in unused property without any fundraising effort to develop those fields.
If we have well organized groups who can get us elected if we sell them our votes on building projects I don’t understand how that translates into your children getting as good an education as my children did. I do understand how drained resources can stave an enterprise of talented resources that can give your children a quality education.
I don’t understand how Building B can be unusable at $25,000,000 and usable at $13,000,000 when Building C built in 1972 must be torn down. Was that on the wish list of a well organized group?
If the well organized groups in our town want to keep the support of the community they need to focus on the judicious use of public money to educate our children instead of trying to shout down and ignore others who are spending more in tax increases than their houses are likely to appreciate.
And while I’m on the subject, why don’t some of you appreciate the efforts to use resources wisely?
Or, why not start a serious fundraising effort to pay for some of the goals you lobbied for in your email campaigns?
Happy Election Day Folks!
A couple of the Build It Now advocates on this thread have made comments about how we need to step up NOW and SPEND the money to get this done NOW. That's where I have my own personal disconnect. You see, we don't have the money to spend to do this NOW. Shockingly, we don't even have the ability to legally borrow the amount of money to do this now! Further, even the Build It Now SB Candidates will tell you that our tax base is stagnant, if not declining, so the prospects of increasing what we have to SPEND (at least over the nect few years) is slim at best. Elaine and Kristen, do you borrow well beyond your means in your personal lives? That's of course a rhetorical question, but I doubt it. However, you're essentially asking us to do that as a community.
How many of the Build It Now advocates have sat down with a Commissioner lately to hear him explain the significant increases in costs that they will inevitably be throwing at the feet of the homeowners in the near future? I trust you would find things like streets, public safety and the like equally important on the issue of safety. And they all cost big dollars, which must be generated from the same stagnant or declining tax base. Or do we cut back on those things? See, you can just evaluate huge spends like this in a vaccuum.
On the issue of teachers' opinions, I have spoken to a few on this issue. As you would expect, a number would much prefer that only a portion of $100MM that we seem prepared to commit be sent on the facility and the balance on education itself (and probably their salaries). And none of the teachers that I have spoken with tell the horror stories that have been spun here.
And finally, I would encourage all of the Build It Now advocates to NOT be one issue voters. I became quite concerned the other day when I read something from the Posti/Gardner campaign about their approach to the upcoming teacher negotiations. I would encourage Elaine and Kristen to ask those candidates about this approach and then ask yourselves how the teachers that you have spoken to would feel about their position.
I think I'm starting to agree with Mike in that we can argue our positions till kingdom come and see no movement (Mike has already stated we're just rehashing previous chatter in this thread). Perhaps a better forum for this discussion is at the school board meetings themselves. I believe that fully half of the attendees at the school board meeting last Thursday were from MY street! Mike, I don't think I've ever seen you at a school board meeting (and Tom, I think I did see you sitting right behind me at the last one). If we have this conversation in a vacuum, it's pretty useless and becomes a waste of my time. And I don't buy the line that school board members read this blog so it's working -- some of them may but it's harder to hide from comments that are delivered face-to-face. What can we do to get a MUCH greater turnout of community members at school board meetings where we might actually be able to shape the conversation and create positive outcomes? Mike, can you use your bully pulpit to that end? Any of us who attend these meetings regularly has surely noticed how things happen once the tennis (swimming, shooting) lobbies show up in force and demand things (yep, they get what they want). Thanks, Elaine Labalme
What is hopefully a final note from me on this thread:
Greater attendance at school board meetings may be a good thing in general, though several commenters have noted on this thread, and on numerous threads in the past on this topic and others, that community speakers often are not treated with respect by the Board, and their comments are often ignored.
I have been to school board meetings in the past, though not in recent years. Given how much time I sometimes appear to spend on this blog and certain topics, it may surprise some to disclose that it doesn't rank very high in my overall list of professional, family, volunteer, and evey blogging priorities. My time is mostly spent elsewhere. In years past, I've coached sports and volunteered with the Boy Scouts. Right now, I contribute to the town by helping to run Blog Lebo. Others have done a great job of seizing various bulls by the horns and running with them.
Do School Board members read the blog? I know they do; I hear from them. Do Commissioners read it? Likewise. Municipal employees and School District employees, including teachers? Yes, yes, and yes. Does that make a difference? I can't know.
Signing off now - a waste of my time to rehash this useless banter. I stand committed and firm. I'm off right now to door knock for change on Tuesday. I have seen and heard enough to know who deserves (and does not deserve) my vote. Perhaps when Mr. Silhol grows up and learns how to behave appropriately in a public forum I will reconsider his worthiness to sit on the board.
Breakthrough!
I'd like to thank Elaine, Kristen, and Nancy for staying in this conversation and for helping me see their concerns. Thanks to their efforts, I now think I have an answer to what at first appeared to be a perplexing riddle: How can we agree on so many things – the high school's obvious problems, the need to remedy those problems sooner rather than later, the desire to offer the best education we can to our students, the desire to make wise use of our educational resources – and yet come to opposite conclusions?
Here's the answer: We are actually trying to solve two different problems that, for unfortunate historical reasons, have been lumped together.
The first problem is the current state of our high school. We agree that our high school has serious problems. We agree that we should be willing to spend whatever it takes to solve those problems and to do it right. We agree that those solutions are best delivered now, rather than later.
The second problem is that of creating the high school that will serve our community for the next 30 years. We agree that this decision is hugely important, that it will commit a large part of our community's total resource pool for the next 30 years to a single course of action. We agree that mistakes made now will be massively expensive and plague our teachers, students, and residents for the foreseeable future. We agree, therefore, that it makes sense to invest enough time and money in planning to get things right.
If we were approaching either or both of these problems separately, I think we would find ready agreement in our solutions. But, because these problems have been lumped into one renovation project, the desire to solve the high school's current problems immediately is in conflict that the desire to make our 30-year plans as good as we reasonably can. It's a dilemma: do we do what is right for now, or for the next 30 years?
And that dilemma, I suspect, is the cause of our divergence. Those of us who see the immediate problems most vividly are understandably inclined to want to stop planning and start building, right now. Those of us who see the long-term implications most vividly are understandably inclined to want to invest the time and effort to get our next 30 years right.
I wish we had had this conversation sooner! Had we realized we were dealing with two problems, we could have pushed for them to be separated. Maybe we could have offered support to something like James Fraasch's plan, which would have allowed us to make immediate repairs to the high school while providing ample time to get our 30-year plans right. Oh well, I guess it's better to see it now than never at all.
Thanks, again, Elaine, Kristen, and Nancy. You have opened my eyes.
Cheers,
Tom
P.S. Elaine, yes, that was me at the school board meeting.
P.P.S. How did you get such a good turnout from Roycroft Ave? Impressive.
The comments on this thread have gotten a little off track from the CAB. I posted my comments on my blog at:
http://lebosbupdate.blogspot.com
Below is an excerpt (full text too long for comments section):
When Board members received their weekly packet, it contained in it all the changes that were requested by each individual Board member. In the end, the President and Superintendent included in the final motion those changes that they thought the majority of the Board would support. For example, the two changes I requested were that, 1) the CAB have access to all previous project documentation (this was not made clear in the original motion) and, 2) that the CAB be able to continue their work if their suggestions were taken under consideration by the Board (the original motion simply said the CAB was disbanded after their December presentation). These changes along with the changes requested by a few other Board members were added to the resolution seen on Thursday night.
Some change requests were not added to the resolution. however, Board members were given the opportunity on Thursday night to get those changes in if they so desired. If you watch the meeting you will see that one of board member Sue Rose's recommendations did not make the resolution that was shown to the public. She requested at the meeting that her change be added to the motion. It did not get the votes required to become a part of the final motion. That process is good board leadership (setting expectations as was done at the Oct 19th meeting so that all Board members may be aware of changes that might be requested) and good board membership (following board procedure to get your requests heard and considered by the board). You can read the final motion at the District website here.
There are some things that I have disagreed with the Board president about in the past, however, in the case, he got it absolutely right.
My hope for the CAB is that the group will do what its purpose in the resolution says it should do:
1) Review the design according to the design criteria established by the Dejong group
2) Make recommendations to the Board that will save money (I am not talking about changing paint schemes here)
3) Determine if there was anything overlooked by the process that has been followed by the Board thus far that could potentially be costing us money
Contrary to what was said by some members of the public at the meeting, there is not a single board member who wants to start this group in order to delay the progress of the high school project. Accusations like that are just absurd. There is community buy-in on a high school project. This is something I have learned since I first got on the Board. We simply need to make sure we are collectively buying-in to the right project.
Post a Comment
<< Home