It's been a week since the election and the results are impressive. I'm not talking about who won and who lost, but how the election was ran. Here are some of my observations from a ring side seat.
Soon after the last election, the entire elections office staff had to be replaced. Mike Benton submitted his resignation and the Elections Committee had the good sense to hold him to it. After an interim director was picked from outside the office, the rest of the staff left in a huff. Vona was left with a broken system and no staff to help fix it. She started recruiting and also reached out for help. She created a citizens advisory committee (which I am on) to bring fresh perspective to the problems, and asked for help from anyone that would listen.
The staff she recruited is small (the elections office is only 4 permanent positions) but very energetic and dedicated. In addition to Vona, Vannessa, Jamie, and Rudy have all done outstanding work. They have put in long hours. They learned the job while preparing for what turned out to be a complex election with a very large turn out. The made sure that there were enough trained election judges and clerks. They planned the equipment distribution and pick up, and took steps to make sure everything needed at the polling places was there. They made a good plan and followed it.
I was in the elections office as a poll watcher, an observer asked by one of the candidates to watch the election process for problems. They were prepared. They had extra people there to help. From the time the polls opened until after they closed, there was a steady stream of calls. Additional phone numbers for poll workers, and extra cell phones kept waiting time to a minimum. There were very few calls about equipment problems, mostly because of the prior testing and attention to detail that had happened in preparation for the election. In the end, all ballots and sensitive election machinery was back in the Edd B Keyes building by 9:30, and the final tally was out before 10:30, a local record.
No longer can the national (and international) press point fingers at San Angelo and Tom Green County as a bad example. We can proudly point to this election as an example of how it should be done.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Open Letter to SAISD
Bond election results are in, not much to be said there. Board President Layman, S-T Sunday; “maybe we are not in step with the community and we need to find out what objections they had”. Good start, now let's see if you mean it.
STEER belatedly formed an S-PAC, hard to say how much impact we had. In retrospect, given the actual margin, our effort might have been so much flatulence in a hurricane. This issue was obviously the driver in the high turnout and the lopsided defeat. We like to think our networking and few ads might have padded the margin, but in all honesty, we could have caught up on our reading and ignored the issue, this bond was doomed from the start.
STEER agreed fundamentally that SAISD needs money, lots of it, for renovation, repair, some new construction. We might hope to shave a bit of money here and there, but that was never our primary issue. Obviously, another bond will be coming, we genuinely hope it will be one we can support. On that line, I offer some advice. If you recall my comment walking away from the podium at the ethics training session, “I'm cheaper than they (Huckabee) are”.
Trust: The Board has made this a two-edged sword and managed to find itself on the wrong side of both edges. The public obviously does not trust you, but more importantly, you obviously do not trust the voters. The decision to edit the cablecast version of the March 26 meeting was possibly illegal, definitely contrary to the spirit of 551.022 Government Code. Nothing in law requires a video record, but if you make one, it becomes “public record” and is not to be tampered with. When Terry Bader failed to get a second to look into the matter, then resigned to make it a newsworthy matter, the Board made the classic mistake of making the “cover-up” a bigger issue than the original bad call. When the Board alienated the Task Force in the Crockett decision, it lost that cloak of “public input”. To be honest, Bader, Paschal, and Barbour probably killed this bond before STEER spent a dime on ads. Using the same company with which we contract for new school architecture to do an evaluation of existing facilities creates an unavoidable $8 million conflict of interest. I make no allegation of wrongful conduct against Huckabee, SAISD hired them, but that evaluation should have been done by a company at some remove from fiscal benefit. At the March 3 meeting during the Crockett debate, the new location for Crockett was referred to several times as “the Albert property”, a term never again used in public. There is an abiding suspicion that that decision had been made in advance of the Task Force's recommendations to take an inconvenient property off Jack Albert's hands. If you can put that issue away, please do, many voters believe it.
Community: Schools are more than interchangeable cogs in an educational machine and here dollars and cents need not be the primary concern. Especially at the elementary level, schools are an integral part of the their community. A local school encourages parent involvement, something we all agree is already too low. As I write, precinct breakdowns are not yet available, but I doubt you got many votes from the Holiman precincts. Holiman may have a small student count, but it is growing and many of the home buyers in Paulann bought there because of the walking distance school. Closing Holiman puts nails in the coffin of one of the only bright spots in northeast Angelo's economy. Ditto the above for the Crockett precincts. See below on attendance lines.
Maintenance: Here we start at the top management, the people who in 2001 RIF'ed the department by 50 %, with predictably bad results. The Central tour was a damning indictment of whatever passes for maintenance and included items which had to be glaringly apparent even before that reduction in force. Time and again we were shown the sort of problems homeowners deal with without calling in the bulldozers, but which had obviously been ignored for years. Green plumbing, flaked paint and rust, uneven sidewalks, etc. these things do not happen overnight. Matters not if the problem here was budgetary or management, I am telling you, the most outspoken tourist in my tour group in favor of the bond during Van Hoozer's tour in a parking lot post-tour discussion told us he inclined to vote “no” just to get your attention on maintenance.
Open Process: This goes beyond the issues I mentioned in the trust section. Board continues to treat “workshops” as less than fully public sessions. By law, if four of you meet at a steakhouse, it is a quorum and you best have an official recorder along and publish a 72 hour advance notice of the dinner. There is a widely held belief that options available were never seriously considered due to an axiomatic decision by the Board that any long range plan had to result in a single 5A football team. All options have to be on the table when we are discussing 9 figure bonds, especially when this is the first of three bonds proposed long term. Angelo's growth is lopsided toward southwest, why does the Board hold that attendance zones should be carved in stone? Well, except when changes are convenient as in Holiman, Bradford, and San Jacinto. Then the same Board treats actual bricks and mortar buildings as disposable. Suggestions have been gaining support for either equalizing Lakeview and Central or moving to three 4A high schools with a new facility out where the people are actually moving in, but these ideas seem to get short shrift in long term planning. The SAISD response that 4A schools could not offer the curriculum available in a 5A school is irrelevant in a district of our size. If each 4A school specialized in a magnet school way we could allow high school students to attend the school best suited to their career plans and offer possibly more courses, district wide, than a single 5A school.
Unifying SAISD: When I wrote a column in S-T supporting the '96 bond, one thing I deeply hoped for was that it might heal the treatment of the Lakeview area as a “red-headed step-child”, particularly by placing Lamar on the same proposition with the new Lincoln. Then comes the Lakeview fire, and Board's decision to take $2 million of that insurance money and spend it elsewhere. Now the new Central, far closer to Bobcat stadium than Lakeview, and you propose to spend as much on athletic facilities there as was spent on all of Lakeview rebuilding to prevent travel by Central students. BTW, my $15 million estimate on Central athletics was my guess. Two direct questions asking for that figure were answered by claiming “it is difficult to separate athletics from academics”, a response that gets hoots of laughter from anyone I've shown it to. Jeff Bright finally allowed I might be a little high, but in the right range. Lakeview was two generations ago, are we ever going to treat the adopted child as a full family member?
STEER belatedly formed an S-PAC, hard to say how much impact we had. In retrospect, given the actual margin, our effort might have been so much flatulence in a hurricane. This issue was obviously the driver in the high turnout and the lopsided defeat. We like to think our networking and few ads might have padded the margin, but in all honesty, we could have caught up on our reading and ignored the issue, this bond was doomed from the start.
STEER agreed fundamentally that SAISD needs money, lots of it, for renovation, repair, some new construction. We might hope to shave a bit of money here and there, but that was never our primary issue. Obviously, another bond will be coming, we genuinely hope it will be one we can support. On that line, I offer some advice. If you recall my comment walking away from the podium at the ethics training session, “I'm cheaper than they (Huckabee) are”.
Trust: The Board has made this a two-edged sword and managed to find itself on the wrong side of both edges. The public obviously does not trust you, but more importantly, you obviously do not trust the voters. The decision to edit the cablecast version of the March 26 meeting was possibly illegal, definitely contrary to the spirit of 551.022 Government Code. Nothing in law requires a video record, but if you make one, it becomes “public record” and is not to be tampered with. When Terry Bader failed to get a second to look into the matter, then resigned to make it a newsworthy matter, the Board made the classic mistake of making the “cover-up” a bigger issue than the original bad call. When the Board alienated the Task Force in the Crockett decision, it lost that cloak of “public input”. To be honest, Bader, Paschal, and Barbour probably killed this bond before STEER spent a dime on ads. Using the same company with which we contract for new school architecture to do an evaluation of existing facilities creates an unavoidable $8 million conflict of interest. I make no allegation of wrongful conduct against Huckabee, SAISD hired them, but that evaluation should have been done by a company at some remove from fiscal benefit. At the March 3 meeting during the Crockett debate, the new location for Crockett was referred to several times as “the Albert property”, a term never again used in public. There is an abiding suspicion that that decision had been made in advance of the Task Force's recommendations to take an inconvenient property off Jack Albert's hands. If you can put that issue away, please do, many voters believe it.
Community: Schools are more than interchangeable cogs in an educational machine and here dollars and cents need not be the primary concern. Especially at the elementary level, schools are an integral part of the their community. A local school encourages parent involvement, something we all agree is already too low. As I write, precinct breakdowns are not yet available, but I doubt you got many votes from the Holiman precincts. Holiman may have a small student count, but it is growing and many of the home buyers in Paulann bought there because of the walking distance school. Closing Holiman puts nails in the coffin of one of the only bright spots in northeast Angelo's economy. Ditto the above for the Crockett precincts. See below on attendance lines.
Maintenance: Here we start at the top management, the people who in 2001 RIF'ed the department by 50 %, with predictably bad results. The Central tour was a damning indictment of whatever passes for maintenance and included items which had to be glaringly apparent even before that reduction in force. Time and again we were shown the sort of problems homeowners deal with without calling in the bulldozers, but which had obviously been ignored for years. Green plumbing, flaked paint and rust, uneven sidewalks, etc. these things do not happen overnight. Matters not if the problem here was budgetary or management, I am telling you, the most outspoken tourist in my tour group in favor of the bond during Van Hoozer's tour in a parking lot post-tour discussion told us he inclined to vote “no” just to get your attention on maintenance.
Open Process: This goes beyond the issues I mentioned in the trust section. Board continues to treat “workshops” as less than fully public sessions. By law, if four of you meet at a steakhouse, it is a quorum and you best have an official recorder along and publish a 72 hour advance notice of the dinner. There is a widely held belief that options available were never seriously considered due to an axiomatic decision by the Board that any long range plan had to result in a single 5A football team. All options have to be on the table when we are discussing 9 figure bonds, especially when this is the first of three bonds proposed long term. Angelo's growth is lopsided toward southwest, why does the Board hold that attendance zones should be carved in stone? Well, except when changes are convenient as in Holiman, Bradford, and San Jacinto. Then the same Board treats actual bricks and mortar buildings as disposable. Suggestions have been gaining support for either equalizing Lakeview and Central or moving to three 4A high schools with a new facility out where the people are actually moving in, but these ideas seem to get short shrift in long term planning. The SAISD response that 4A schools could not offer the curriculum available in a 5A school is irrelevant in a district of our size. If each 4A school specialized in a magnet school way we could allow high school students to attend the school best suited to their career plans and offer possibly more courses, district wide, than a single 5A school.
Unifying SAISD: When I wrote a column in S-T supporting the '96 bond, one thing I deeply hoped for was that it might heal the treatment of the Lakeview area as a “red-headed step-child”, particularly by placing Lamar on the same proposition with the new Lincoln. Then comes the Lakeview fire, and Board's decision to take $2 million of that insurance money and spend it elsewhere. Now the new Central, far closer to Bobcat stadium than Lakeview, and you propose to spend as much on athletic facilities there as was spent on all of Lakeview rebuilding to prevent travel by Central students. BTW, my $15 million estimate on Central athletics was my guess. Two direct questions asking for that figure were answered by claiming “it is difficult to separate athletics from academics”, a response that gets hoots of laughter from anyone I've shown it to. Jeff Bright finally allowed I might be a little high, but in the right range. Lakeview was two generations ago, are we ever going to treat the adopted child as a full family member?
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Bond Grand Finale
As the campaign on the school bond wraps up, it is appropriate that I post a final note. It is no secret that I have moved from looking at the bond to outright opposition, including formally filing as Treasurer of the STEER Pac on the issues. Early voting has ended with much higher than expected numbers, the newspaper editorially has "gone dark" on the election, nothing remains but actual election day this Saturday.
I started looking at this being dubious of the amount dedicated to the new Central. On this end, I find the amount perhaps excessive, but much lower on the list of reasons to vote "NO". STEER holds that SAISD does need money for improvements, but not this bond. We are confident that if this bond fails another will be proposed, one we hope will be so modified as to deserve support. Our students will not graduate spelling cat with a "K" if the May 12 bond fails. STEER hopes defeating this bond will improve city-wide education in the long term. The following is a list of primary reasons we want a complete review of the bond.
Planning: The planning was poor, both in design and potential conflict. The three year effort by the Task Force was essentially flushed when the Board ignored parts of the Task Force recommendations at the same meeting it passed ballot language which amounted to very few restrictions on design or payment. Only in the last days of the "educational" effort on the joint Huckabee/SAISD were we shown even rough sketches of the new schools. The same firm contracted to do the architecture for new schools was given the job of evaluating existing schools, which study is available. At a standard 6% architectural fee, Huckabee has about 8 million reasons to skew any subjective measure towards demolition and new construction. We do not accuse Huckabee of anything unethical, SAISD hired them for both jobs, but the mindset is questionable.
Maintenance: Many of the highlighted items of decay are things a homeowner or retail shop would have dealt with years ago. Flaked paint, underlying rust, structural rust, uneven sidewalk segments, green plumbing, all are the sort of problems which have been evident for years and the sort of thing the average homeowner deals with all the time without calling in the bulldozers. STEER does not blame the maintenance staff, which SAISD reduced by 50% beginning in 2001. Until we have guarantees of better maintenance in the future, pouring more money down an existing rathole does not strike us as a good investment.
Trust: The Board wraps this bond in the work of the Task Force. First, that "citizens' group" was originally 70 members with 25 at most being public appointees, the balance being SAISD Admin personell. That division was evident as deliberations progressed. As mentioned earlier, the public members largely rose up in revolt after the March 3rd meeting. Then, the same meeting when Huckabee gave its ethical standards presentation, the channel 4 cable-cast of that meeting was edited on the direct authority of the new superintendent. This is no minor item; former Board President Terry Bader was unable to get a necessary second for his request to review that editing and thought it so serious he resigned just to make that a public issue.
Options Closed: Despite the obvious lopsided growth in San Angelo, the board refuses to consider any plan involving changes in attendance zones (well, except when it suits them as in Holiman, Bradford, and San Jacinto) for high schools. There is a deep suspicion, supported by some responses on the Huckabee website, that no option was ever considered that did not keep Central as a sole 5A football team. Considering an early promise that "none of the money would be used for athletics, except for basic needs", the list of athletic "basic needs" at the new Central amounts to about $15 million, or the total amount spent rebuilding all of Lakeview. It took two weeks and three inquiries to get anyone in admin to discuss that figure. Twice, I was blown off with blatherskite about the difficulty of separating athletic costs from academic, which I translated as "we are really embarrassed by this number". This bond is seen as exacerbating, rather than addressing the Lakeview/old Angelo division in SAISD.
We need an open facilities review that does not regard existing buildings as disposable while treating attendance lines as carved-in-stone.
Early voting was exceptionally strong. We predicted early on that a large turnout favored defeat of the bond. If you have not voted, please do. In this case, a "NO" vote on this bond is actually a vote FOR better education in the long run.
I started looking at this being dubious of the amount dedicated to the new Central. On this end, I find the amount perhaps excessive, but much lower on the list of reasons to vote "NO". STEER holds that SAISD does need money for improvements, but not this bond. We are confident that if this bond fails another will be proposed, one we hope will be so modified as to deserve support. Our students will not graduate spelling cat with a "K" if the May 12 bond fails. STEER hopes defeating this bond will improve city-wide education in the long term. The following is a list of primary reasons we want a complete review of the bond.
Planning: The planning was poor, both in design and potential conflict. The three year effort by the Task Force was essentially flushed when the Board ignored parts of the Task Force recommendations at the same meeting it passed ballot language which amounted to very few restrictions on design or payment. Only in the last days of the "educational" effort on the joint Huckabee/SAISD were we shown even rough sketches of the new schools. The same firm contracted to do the architecture for new schools was given the job of evaluating existing schools, which study is available. At a standard 6% architectural fee, Huckabee has about 8 million reasons to skew any subjective measure towards demolition and new construction. We do not accuse Huckabee of anything unethical, SAISD hired them for both jobs, but the mindset is questionable.
Maintenance: Many of the highlighted items of decay are things a homeowner or retail shop would have dealt with years ago. Flaked paint, underlying rust, structural rust, uneven sidewalk segments, green plumbing, all are the sort of problems which have been evident for years and the sort of thing the average homeowner deals with all the time without calling in the bulldozers. STEER does not blame the maintenance staff, which SAISD reduced by 50% beginning in 2001. Until we have guarantees of better maintenance in the future, pouring more money down an existing rathole does not strike us as a good investment.
Trust: The Board wraps this bond in the work of the Task Force. First, that "citizens' group" was originally 70 members with 25 at most being public appointees, the balance being SAISD Admin personell. That division was evident as deliberations progressed. As mentioned earlier, the public members largely rose up in revolt after the March 3rd meeting. Then, the same meeting when Huckabee gave its ethical standards presentation, the channel 4 cable-cast of that meeting was edited on the direct authority of the new superintendent. This is no minor item; former Board President Terry Bader was unable to get a necessary second for his request to review that editing and thought it so serious he resigned just to make that a public issue.
Options Closed: Despite the obvious lopsided growth in San Angelo, the board refuses to consider any plan involving changes in attendance zones (well, except when it suits them as in Holiman, Bradford, and San Jacinto) for high schools. There is a deep suspicion, supported by some responses on the Huckabee website, that no option was ever considered that did not keep Central as a sole 5A football team. Considering an early promise that "none of the money would be used for athletics, except for basic needs", the list of athletic "basic needs" at the new Central amounts to about $15 million, or the total amount spent rebuilding all of Lakeview. It took two weeks and three inquiries to get anyone in admin to discuss that figure. Twice, I was blown off with blatherskite about the difficulty of separating athletic costs from academic, which I translated as "we are really embarrassed by this number". This bond is seen as exacerbating, rather than addressing the Lakeview/old Angelo division in SAISD.
We need an open facilities review that does not regard existing buildings as disposable while treating attendance lines as carved-in-stone.
Early voting was exceptionally strong. We predicted early on that a large turnout favored defeat of the bond. If you have not voted, please do. In this case, a "NO" vote on this bond is actually a vote FOR better education in the long run.
Open Thread on the School Bond
Please share your thoughts on the school bond and related issues here. All comments are welcome.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Report from the Last Bond Election
This Standard Times report from the last bond election is interesting for comparison.
Proposition 1 proposes far-reaching improvements
Staff report
If little things add up, then that certainly holds true for bigger things - like 100 new classrooms, a new 800-seat auditorium and dozens of other significant improvements recommended to San Angelo school patrons under Proposition 1.
A Standard-Times review of the numbers shows that the $23.9 million proposal on Saturday's school bond issue ballot is far-reaching. The price tag, it appears, in large part results from efforts to simultaneously address issues on all of the district's more than two dozen campuses.
The detailed proposition - termed ``the essentials'' by district officials - stands in sharp contrast to the simplicity of the second ballot question facing voters Saturday. Prop 1 consumes eight pages of a financial report; Prop 2 requires barely a page to lay out its proposal to spend about the same amount of money for a new elementary, new junior high and 19 multipurpose buildings.
In analyzing Prop 1, the newspaper took the district's campus-by-campus listing of proposed improvements and analyzed it in a different way - bundling all new classroom construction into one category, general remodeling into another, fine arts and vocational improvements into yet another, and so on.
The result is seven groupings of expenses that are perhaps easier to digest for voters still making up their minds about the merits of the proposition.
In a nutshell, voters who study the Prop 1 numbers in this light will find the proposal offers these budgeted items:
·CLASSROOMS: $12.1 million districtwide for new classrooms.
·REMODELING: $3.3 million for major remodeling of campuses.
·ADMINISTRATION: $600,000 for improvements to administrative facilities at 18 separate campuses.
·ATHLETICS: $1.4 million for improvements in athletic facilities, including upgrades to Central High's swimming, tennis and gymnastics facilities, and substantial improvements at Glenn, Lincoln and the district's two high school stadiums.
·_ROTC: $75,000 to purchase the former National Guard armory for use by Central's rapidly expanding ROTC program.
·_FINE ARTS AND VOCATIONAL: $4.7 million for band, choral, dramatic arts and vocational skills facilities, including a projected $3.6 million for a new 800-seat auditorium at Lake View High and substantial improvements to the Central auditorium and theater.
·_OTHER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS: $1.8 million for other capital improvements and contingencies, depending on whether one or both propositions are approved.
CLASSROOMS
More than $12 million would be spent on new classrooms, libraries, computer labs, science labs and major remodeling of Lake View High ($520,000), McGill Elementary ($100,000) and Crockett Elementary ($200,000).
The new classrooms, intended both to add space and to replace many of the older portable classrooms that dot the district's campuses, are projected to cost about $80,000 each, on average, to build and fully equip to the needs of today's students. The price tag for 100 is about $8 million alone.
Ten campuses would receive classroom additions that are budgeted starting at nearly a half-million dollars each and going up:
·Glenn Junior High, $2,150,000 (two projects, including library).
·Lake View High, $1,600,000 (in addition to the $520,000 major remodeling and a $3.6 million combined auditorium and classroom addition).
·San Jacinto Elementary, $1,218,000.
·Reagan Elementary, $1,155,000.
·McGill Elementary and Fannin Elementary, $1,008,000 each.
·Santa Rita Elementary, $790,000.
·Central High, $506,200 (includes completing classroom project in PWC building and enclosure of Bacon porch).
·Glenmore Elementary and Austin Elementary, $480,000 each.
Some examples from the library projects: Alta Loma Elementary would get a new library and computer room, Central High's library would be expanded and remodeled, Lake View High's library would be remodeled, the library at Austin Elementary would be expanded, Glenmore Elementary would have two classrooms remodeled into a library, Holiman Elementary would get a new library and the library at Sam Houston elementary would be remodeled.
REMODELING
More than $3 million would be funneled into upgrades of basic facilities on the district's campuses. The money would be spent for such things as restroom additions and improvements, floor tile and carpeting, window repairs and replacements, additional parking, covered walkways, drinking fountains, lighting, electrical improvements, heating and air conditioning, marker boards, teacher storage cabinets, shelving, ceiling repairs and expanded cafeterias.
Other items include work to correct a drainage problem at Bonham Elementary, a new intercom system for Central High, remodeling to meet health and safety codes, and repairs to doors, door frames and walls throughout the campuses.
Some other specific examples: carpet or new floor tile at Blackshear Elementary and new carpet at Glenn Junior High and Lake View High (among others), parking improvements and a new traffic circle at Bowie Elementary, new window treatments at Bradford Elementary, Lee Junior High and Central High (among others), an enlarged and updated kitchen at Crockett Elementary, cafeteria additions at Edison and Lincoln junior highs, an upgrade of the electrical wiring at Glenmore, Austin and Santa Rita elementaries (among others), and teacher cabinets and shelving in all classrooms at Lake View High.
At Central High, more than $200,000 is budgeted to improve fire safety by reworking corridor walls, adding doors on classrooms and revamping heating, venting and air conditioning. At Lake View High, a new fire sprinkler system is budgeted for an estimated $180,000.
ADMINISTRATION
At least 18 campuses would receive shares of the nearly $600,000 budgeted for improvements to administrative offices.
District officials said many campuses currently can't accommodate the administrative space required for nurses' offices, on-campus suspension, parent-teacher conference rooms and the like.
Also, they said the improvements would include new space for counselors, storage and teacher workrooms.
ATHLETICS
The $1.4 million budgeted price tag for improvements to athletics facilities includes projects at the junior highs and Central High, as well as improvements to both of the district's stadiums.
At Central, the Gehrig Gym floor would be replaced ($65,000) and the gym air-conditioned. Forty two-tiered lockers would be added in the girls' locker room at Gehrig. The Cottage would be renovated for tennis lockers and offices and public restrooms. Other locker rooms, restrooms and an office would be added for swimming and tennis at the natatorium, which also would receive additional bleachers and fresh paint (total of $218,000). The gymnastics facilities would receive additional bleachers, restrooms and expanded training areas ($185,000). Also, new offices for coaches of girls' sports would be added on the second floor of Didrickson Gym ($60,000).
Other specifics: new locker facilities and public restrooms at the girls' gym at Glenn Junior High ($160,000), new restroom, storage and dressing rooms building for the tennis program at Lake View High ($45,000), replacement of the gym floor, new bleachers and other improvements to the gym at Lincoln Junior High (total of $143,500), repair and resurfacing of four tennis courts at Edison Junior High, new restroom and concession facilities on the north end of San Angelo Stadium ($90,000), four new sections of seating at Lake View Stadium ($160,000) and two new sets of concession and restroom facilities at Lake View Stadium ($150,000).
ROTC
The $75,000 item for purchase of the former National Guard armory adjacent to the Central High campus is intended to meet the demands of the school's rapidly growing ROTC program.
The co-curricular program - meaning it is an extracurricular activity but also can be counted toward graduation credits - is approaching 200 students.
Officials said the building will require little work to meet the needs of the student program.
FINE ARTS AND VOCATIONAL
The single largest item under the umbrella of Prop 1 is the proposed $3.6 million Lake View High auditorium and related art and drama classrooms and facilities.
The project would include the auditorium-theater, projected at 800 seats, and five classrooms.
Other spending would include about $425,000 for improvements to the theater at Central High, including two new classrooms and an area for constructing stage props. Also, a center aisle would be added to the Central theater to meet fire code requirements, and the Central band and choral facilities would be remodeled.
About $300,000 is budgeted for an Edison Junior High mechanics, wood shop, band and orchestra facility. About $240,000 is budgeted for similar facilities at Lee Junior High. A new Glenn Junior High ensemble room would be added, and the Lincoln Junior High art and choir building would be remodeled.
OTHER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
This $1.8 million category is designed to address two scenarios:
In the event that Prop 1 passes and Prop 2 does not, administrators said this would provide needed funds for additional capital improvements to Crockett and Travis elementaries and to Lincoln Junior High.
Joanne Rice, district planner, said the two elementaries would be less crowded if Prop 2 passed and a new elementary were built. Without Prop 2, they will require some additional spending to relieve crowding. Also, if voters do not approve a replacement for Lincoln, then that campus as well may require additional improvements, she said - although she and other district officials maintain that the aging school must be replaced soon.
If both propositions pass, Rice said the district would use the funds in this category for capital improvements currently unspecified. She said this could include replacement of more of the portable buildings in the district.
Friday, May 04, 2007
Different thoughts on the School Bond
One of our readers forward this to me.
Things to think about on the school bond issue.
1. They say Central cannot be secure because it is so spread out well I take a different view of that. Lets look at what has happened in the last few years. Columbine - Virginia Tech - Oklahoma City -------- Who would have a better chance for survival? All of our kids confined into one building, or fewer kids in several separate buildings? And also if Central is not safe for high school kids why would it be safe for jr. high kids?
2. High school age kids are old enough to handle an open campus but I don't think jr. high school age kids should be put in that situation. Jr. high kids have enough problems and temptations without being on an open campus.
3. What ever happened to the 150 acres of land the school already owns out by Lamar elem?
Things to think about on the school bond issue.
1. They say Central cannot be secure because it is so spread out well I take a different view of that. Lets look at what has happened in the last few years. Columbine - Virginia Tech - Oklahoma City -------- Who would have a better chance for survival? All of our kids confined into one building, or fewer kids in several separate buildings? And also if Central is not safe for high school kids why would it be safe for jr. high kids?
2. High school age kids are old enough to handle an open campus but I don't think jr. high school age kids should be put in that situation. Jr. high kids have enough problems and temptations without being on an open campus.
3. What ever happened to the 150 acres of land the school already owns out by Lamar elem?
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Education Committee
- Yesterday papers were filed forming a Specific-purpose PAC related to the bond issue before us on May 12. The committee is named Sensible Taxation for Educational Excellence and Reform, or STEER. The name is appropriate, everyone connected with this PAC so far is in agreement on some basics, namely that SAISD does need a bond and money for construction, renovation, and overdue maintenance; and that this notwithstanding, we cannot support the bond as proposed now. It is too late to modify the ballot measure before us, so we hope to defeat this bond and work for a better measure next election.
-
- This is only partly about money. Some of us hope a re-examination of the bond could save significant money, but we could be persuaded to support a bond in this amount, if that's what it takes to get the best educational result. Unfortunately, this bond is far more about buildings than educational output.
- Our concern lies primarily with the policy dictated by this bond. The Board is draping itself in the mantle of the three year effort of the Facilities Task Force and claiming that assures adequate public representation. Unfortunately, at the same meeting when the Board put the bond on the ballot, they effectively flushed the Task Force's efforts. The disaffection of the public members of the Task Force is so deep that Bob Paschal, a dedicated Task Force member, will take the “con” position at Tuesday's San Angelo Forum, and the Board is having difficulty finding an appropriate speaker to carry its side of the debate.
- There have been options to the proposals in this bond. A few years back, Jack Cowan, editor emeritus at S-T put out the idea that perhaps we should roughly equalize the student bodies of Lakeview and Central, but acknowledged a core objection existed in that they would then have to play one another football. Another idea we have all heard before, and some of us support, was shrinking Central, and putting a new 4A school in the southwest area where much of the growth is. My sources tell me this three 4A model was the initial inclination of the Task Force, but they were told in no uncertain terms the Board would not entertain any work product not resulting in a single 5A high school, and they so modified their deliberations. See “Is the tail wagging the Dog”, this BLOG.
- As to policy, the Holiman consolidation is going to be one hot item at least to Holiman families, probably Crockett as well. From what we have seen, Holiman has probably the highest percentage of students who actually walk to and from school, (at least on nice weather days). Many families based their decision to buy homes in Paulann on the Holiman school, and are not remotely happy that SAISD plans to bus those kids halfway across town.
- See “Some Assembly Required”, this BLOG. Mr Turner makes a great point, that schools are more than interchangeable cogs in an educational machine. By the time kids get to high school, it is no great problem in a city our size to go to a school across town if it caters more to one's educational preference. At the elementary level, the local school is an integral part of a thriving neighborhood. Close the school, move the students, and parental involvement, already too low, goes down further. SAISD has done this once, in closing Holiman and moving Crockett out of the community it serves, they propose to compound their mistake. STEER objects more to the policy demonstrated here than to the expense.
- STEER intends to stay in existence after this election, whatever the result. It is plain that SAISD needs someone paying them the sort of oversight attention Conchoinfo has paid to city and county government.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Open Government, Again
We have covered it here and here before, but open government is in the news again. Terry Bader resigned from the school board over the editing of the board meeting recording shown on channel 4. This is disturbing on a number of levels.
Texas has some fairly strong open government laws. They have specific requirements about how meetings must be conducted, what records must and can be kept. There are laws and rules about what must be disclosed to the public and how. They are an attempt to implement a government that is open to public inspection, and where the information is accurate and complete. This is called accountability.
The school district has been recording some sessions of the school board meetings for a number of years. They are then broadcast on channel 4 so that people that didn't make the meeting can see what happened. The implication is that this is a complete and accurate record of what happened at the meeting. The only expected gaps would be those for breaks or executive sessions. Everything else should be a complete and accurate, unedited record.
The government code in section 551.021 states in part that "The minutes and tape recordings of an open meeting are public records". There is an expectation that as public records, they will be accurate, complete, and available. They can't be arbitrarily edited just to avoid an embarrassing dialog. The public has a right to a complete record of what goes on in making policy for them and spending their money, not some sanitized feel good version that some administrator would like it to be. It is especially disturbing when the editing was done to keep information that might be embarrassing on a complicated and controversial bond issue obscured from the public view.
I have heard some comments saying that they should have at least labeled the tape as an edited version. I agree that it should have been labeled as an edited version, but it should not have even been aired. The broadcast on cable is there to give information about the workings of our elected school board officials and our hired administrators. It is a necessary closeup of the decision making process that we expect them to be accountable for. This broadcast shouldn't be a year book picture where you get to look your best. This should be a candid picture with no makeup and all the pimples and blemishes should be clearly visible. Open meetings are there so that citizens actually know how and why decisions are made, especially the tough ones. Any attempt to edit out the blemishes and put forward a false unified happy face is deceptive and violates at least the spirit if not the letter of all the laws relating to open government.
I have been told that the school board and staff have already had their mandatory open government training this year. I hope that next years training will have a better, more lasting affect.
Texas has some fairly strong open government laws. They have specific requirements about how meetings must be conducted, what records must and can be kept. There are laws and rules about what must be disclosed to the public and how. They are an attempt to implement a government that is open to public inspection, and where the information is accurate and complete. This is called accountability.
The school district has been recording some sessions of the school board meetings for a number of years. They are then broadcast on channel 4 so that people that didn't make the meeting can see what happened. The implication is that this is a complete and accurate record of what happened at the meeting. The only expected gaps would be those for breaks or executive sessions. Everything else should be a complete and accurate, unedited record.
The government code in section 551.021 states in part that "The minutes and tape recordings of an open meeting are public records". There is an expectation that as public records, they will be accurate, complete, and available. They can't be arbitrarily edited just to avoid an embarrassing dialog. The public has a right to a complete record of what goes on in making policy for them and spending their money, not some sanitized feel good version that some administrator would like it to be. It is especially disturbing when the editing was done to keep information that might be embarrassing on a complicated and controversial bond issue obscured from the public view.
I have heard some comments saying that they should have at least labeled the tape as an edited version. I agree that it should have been labeled as an edited version, but it should not have even been aired. The broadcast on cable is there to give information about the workings of our elected school board officials and our hired administrators. It is a necessary closeup of the decision making process that we expect them to be accountable for. This broadcast shouldn't be a year book picture where you get to look your best. This should be a candid picture with no makeup and all the pimples and blemishes should be clearly visible. Open meetings are there so that citizens actually know how and why decisions are made, especially the tough ones. Any attempt to edit out the blemishes and put forward a false unified happy face is deceptive and violates at least the spirit if not the letter of all the laws relating to open government.
I have been told that the school board and staff have already had their mandatory open government training this year. I hope that next years training will have a better, more lasting affect.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Queries For Anyone Seeking (Re)election
(Updated and edited after talking to Allie. Webmaster)
Before I cast any vote for for Mayor I would like to ask the candidates to use this forum to address a few issues. So, J.W. and the rest, please jump in...
First, where do you stand on the Siemens gasification deal? What has become of the $400,000 that the city has already invested in this very poorly thought out trash inceneration scheme? Why have we heard nothing more about it after handing Siemens the cash? Why did the city make no public response to the concerns of citizens?
It seems to me this move was more about pleasing some influential factions in Austin than for the good of San Angelo. Why were you not interested in surveying the public before moving ahead with this plan, as you did with the prison scam in the months prior? These two issues are very similar: shady and risky multi million dollar investments in foreign and undesirable industries slated for the same part of town... So why the two totally different responses?
Secondly, some members of the council have claimed the city (and county) has had discussions with Toshiba about building a nuclear power plant in San Angelo. Can you address this as well?
These two possible projects are each more massive in terms of investment and risk than anything our city has ever faced before. It is very much of concern that the public has been totally bypassed in regard to these issues. We need to hear where the city stands.
Here's a recap on the gasification issue:
Before I cast any vote for for Mayor I would like to ask the candidates to use this forum to address a few issues. So, J.W. and the rest, please jump in...
First, where do you stand on the Siemens gasification deal? What has become of the $400,000 that the city has already invested in this very poorly thought out trash inceneration scheme? Why have we heard nothing more about it after handing Siemens the cash? Why did the city make no public response to the concerns of citizens?
It seems to me this move was more about pleasing some influential factions in Austin than for the good of San Angelo. Why were you not interested in surveying the public before moving ahead with this plan, as you did with the prison scam in the months prior? These two issues are very similar: shady and risky multi million dollar investments in foreign and undesirable industries slated for the same part of town... So why the two totally different responses?
Secondly, some members of the council have claimed the city (and county) has had discussions with Toshiba about building a nuclear power plant in San Angelo. Can you address this as well?
These two possible projects are each more massive in terms of investment and risk than anything our city has ever faced before. It is very much of concern that the public has been totally bypassed in regard to these issues. We need to hear where the city stands.
Here's a recap on the gasification issue:
In the area of economics this project does not add up. The extreme expense and environmental risks involved with this technology have prevented it from becoming established as an energy resource in
A hand out provided at the only public meeting regarding this project declared that “Thermal Gasification Is Not Incineration;” however, the EPA's own data show that gasification units produce more dioxins, furans, nitrogen oxides, the same amount of lead, mercury and cadmium. Some of the chemicals such as carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide, are reduced, but not eliminated. Other countries do classify gasification as incineration.
Supporters of this resurrected technology, such as Michael Williams, Texas Railroad Commissioner who has appeared in the paper touting this technology, and who is a member of the National Coal Council, (an important conflict of interest) has been taking advantage of semantic tricks that have been made possible by the EPA, using terms such as “zero emissions,” and “renewable energy” when referring to gasification. Clean up for these plants always adds hefty operational expenses (which creates a powerful disincentive to invest in adequate safety equipment, backup systems and procedures) and is never fail safe or complete. In addition, whatever toxins they can “remove” from the air, are still produced and must be disposed of or reintroduced into the environment somewhere. Most of the toxins that are diverted from the air will end up in the landfill but should be classified and treated as hazardous waste.
Methane is not toxic... Hydrogen sulfide and cyanide, nitrogen oxide, dioxins, furans, mercury and lead are without doubt produced by gasification and without doubt, top the official list of the most toxic, cancer causing, potentially lethal, substances known to science and man...
This hand out that our city saw as sufficient to inform the public was a 2 page excerpt taken from a 200 page report from and investigation into gasification by Alameda Power and Telecom, the public power agency of the city of
We should ask: who among those supporting this proposal in our community has engaged in any serious inquiry into the risks involved and where are their findings???
City manager Harold Dominguez claimed at the public meeting that he had been to
Some are claiming that burning trash is the solution to reducing the methane building up in the landfill. But as the space opens up, the city plans to charge other towns to bring their trash to the
If we look at the trends in waste management of some of the most progressive areas of the world, such as Japan, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, the EU and some states in America like California, Washington and Colorado, we can conclude that this muli million dollar investment will be obsolete in about 20 years – just about the time the city expects to pay off the debt and start making their money. Many in these areas also conclude that gasification is not a Green Technology but an incineration “make-over,” which is just as hazardous, and counter-productive to real solutions.
If
We need our leaders to recognize how far behind a gasification plant could leave us in the decades to come. This project will put us years behind where we already stand on recycling, not to mention the ramifications of the hazardous waste build up in our community. We do not need to create more problems that will cost us again, in many ways, in the long run. We need leaders to promote “developments” with health, safety, quality of life, economic responsibility, and foresight in mind. All the theoretical cash generating projects should be secondary to this principle.
Here is one of the exclusions, passed by EPA in 2002 that that makes it possible for the industry to claim that this gasification is a “Green,” nonpolluting technology:
The EPA is proposing revisions to the RCRA hazardous waste program to allow a conditional exclusion from the definition of solid waste. This exclusion would be for hazardous oil-bearing secondary materials generated by the petroleum refinery industry when these materials are processed in a gasification system to produce synthesis gas fuel and other non-fuel chemical by-products.
Other loopholes are inherent the air emission standards themselves. In addition, the few records available regarding the testing of emissions on these plants have been done while the facilities were operating with controlled and reduced inputs, and often data collection begins subsequent to the initial start up period when most of the toxins are released.
While it has been said that the residual waste products we will be left with will be “inert” and disposed of in the landfill, this is also a conclusion drawn with the utilization of semantic and logistical tricks. The following is an except taken from a report by the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League on the impacts of waste gasification on the environment and public health:
A national controversy about ash toxicity erupted in 1995 when then-EPA Administrator Carol Browner allowed incinerator operators to mix bottom ash and fly ash together prior to toxicity testing. Fly ash raises the pH of the ash, reducing the reliability of the tests. But citizens who gathered samples of ash from incinerators which had passed the EPA’s tests found very high levels of toxic metals. Gasification units produce both bottom ash and fly ash. The toxicity of gasification combustor ash would be no different than incinerator ash because the source, municipal solid waste, is the same.
Other countries treat bi-products produced from waste gasification as a concentrated hazardous waste, and are recognizing gasification as incineration, an old technology that has already wreaked havoc the world over…
Honest leaders with primary concerns for the health and well being of all should look very critically into EVERY angle of everything they do in the name of the public good. We cannot always rely on the biased “experts” to supply us with the information we need. Especially when looking at extremely costly and risky endeavors that require huge investments of money, time, and intellectual capital.
We have a methane problem at our landfill, just like every other city with a landfill. But responsible solutions do not involve burning trash.
The city of
Around 15 % of Austin Energy’s 665,000,000 GreenChoice kWh subscriptions come from electricity generated from landfill methane gas.
In
The Goddard Space Flight Center landfill gas project is the culmination of a successful public-private partnership between
In
A similar project is utilized in
Why doesn’t the city consider harvesting the methane from both the landfill and the water treatment plant and using this clean burning fuel for something more innovative and less hazardous than burning trash to create a dirty, low energy gas?
A landfill gas to energy project costs about $1 million per mega watt, compared to the sketchy prospects of this waste to energy plant, which at best, theoretically translate into a cost of 2.5 – 10 million per megawatt. Some gasification attempts have closed due to their failure to generate sufficient energy. These initial efficiency estimates made by the city for this project will likely be much lower as we factor for the loss of chemical energy associated with materials that have been diverted away during the pre-treatment process, for the energy consumed by the pretreatment process, for the energy required to transport the trash from the landfill, and the for energy wasted in the destruction of recyclable materials lost to the gasification process.
If this technology is so “clean” and “green” then we should be wondering why none of the top 10 “Green” cities in the
If this proposal is everything the proponents say it will be then the burden of proof is upon them. They need to make an attempt to show something substantial before they start building anything. The city has hastily indebted us for $400,000. That was a mistake. But, losing $400,000 is better than losing millions, and our peace of mind, as some other communities have on this technology. In the money department it is usually the corporation that loses the money when these deals go sour. In this case, we have been duped into assuming the financial risk along with the other risks.
It is obvious that this project has a great potential to cause harm in the future, retard our community’s development toward sustainable waste management strategies, and cause another economic disaster for the city. Though it is not always clearly evident, the most crucial battles for freedom and liberty are occurring at the local level across the nation. This is one of those battles.
Candidates?
For more on the issue check out the related links on the Conchoinfo websight.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Maintenance and Decisions
Thursday evening, I took the public tour of the Central campus. During the tour Maintenance problems and other issues were obvious. We walked by a heavy metal I beam that had a hole rusted through it. One member of the tours asked rhetorically "How many times has maintenance walked by that?"
When the Central was opened in the late 1950's, All the I beams were intact and freshly painted. The restrooms were all spotless and fresh smelling. The lighting was modern and the floor and ceiling materials used fire retardant materials for increased student safety. The gymnasium was an innovative design. The campus style layout was seen as having many advantages. The centralized heating and cooling plant was both efficient to operate and forward thinking, allowing the buildings to be used year round.
Fifty years later, rust and corrosion are everywhere. Drains have trouble draining. Asbestos that was used for fire proofing is now recognized as a possible health hazard and makes such simple tasks as installing new light fixtures a challenge. The restrooms in many buildings have an unwelcome distinctive aroma. Most doors and restrooms are too small for wheel chair accessibility. Add it all up, and you get a bond election.
Some problems, such as the problems with asbestos, couldn't have been foreseen when the high school was built. Some, like classroom sizes, are based on changing ideas in education and would require major construction. Most of these problems really have one thing in common: Maintenance, or more accurately the lack there of.
To keep a facility in good condition requires a commitment to maintenance. It has to start before construction, with maintainability a key part of the design process. The tunnels under the campus were joked about in the tour, but they are a key part of the maintainability of the campus. Some of the problems we were shown, such as those in shower rooms and restrooms, showed the original design didn't include maintenance access to in some key areas. This is expensive to add after the fact. Another part of maintainability is material selection. Take floors for example. The cost of routine cleaning and other maintenance will surpass the installation cost very early in the life of a floor. Cleaning and replacing a cheap floor could easily cost several times what a better floor would cost over the life of the floor. The same applies to the rest of the building materials. All of these factor determine the long term or life cycle cost. One common estimate is that the maintenance costs over 30 years will be about 3 times construction costs, not accounting for inflation. That means we should spend on average about $1million per year for maintenance on a new Central if it is built. I expect we should be spending roughly that amount on the the current campus.
So now we come to my real question. How much have we spent and are we spending on facility maintenance per campus? The SAISD 2006-2007 budget book includes just over $11million for plant maintenance and operations. Is that enough, and is it being used wisely? The maintenance problems I saw on the tour of the Central campus indicate otherwise. Is this a case of treating buildings as throw away items? Are we doing maintenance by bond election?
When the Central was opened in the late 1950's, All the I beams were intact and freshly painted. The restrooms were all spotless and fresh smelling. The lighting was modern and the floor and ceiling materials used fire retardant materials for increased student safety. The gymnasium was an innovative design. The campus style layout was seen as having many advantages. The centralized heating and cooling plant was both efficient to operate and forward thinking, allowing the buildings to be used year round.
Fifty years later, rust and corrosion are everywhere. Drains have trouble draining. Asbestos that was used for fire proofing is now recognized as a possible health hazard and makes such simple tasks as installing new light fixtures a challenge. The restrooms in many buildings have an unwelcome distinctive aroma. Most doors and restrooms are too small for wheel chair accessibility. Add it all up, and you get a bond election.
Some problems, such as the problems with asbestos, couldn't have been foreseen when the high school was built. Some, like classroom sizes, are based on changing ideas in education and would require major construction. Most of these problems really have one thing in common: Maintenance, or more accurately the lack there of.
To keep a facility in good condition requires a commitment to maintenance. It has to start before construction, with maintainability a key part of the design process. The tunnels under the campus were joked about in the tour, but they are a key part of the maintainability of the campus. Some of the problems we were shown, such as those in shower rooms and restrooms, showed the original design didn't include maintenance access to in some key areas. This is expensive to add after the fact. Another part of maintainability is material selection. Take floors for example. The cost of routine cleaning and other maintenance will surpass the installation cost very early in the life of a floor. Cleaning and replacing a cheap floor could easily cost several times what a better floor would cost over the life of the floor. The same applies to the rest of the building materials. All of these factor determine the long term or life cycle cost. One common estimate is that the maintenance costs over 30 years will be about 3 times construction costs, not accounting for inflation. That means we should spend on average about $1million per year for maintenance on a new Central if it is built. I expect we should be spending roughly that amount on the the current campus.
So now we come to my real question. How much have we spent and are we spending on facility maintenance per campus? The SAISD 2006-2007 budget book includes just over $11million for plant maintenance and operations. Is that enough, and is it being used wisely? The maintenance problems I saw on the tour of the Central campus indicate otherwise. Is this a case of treating buildings as throw away items? Are we doing maintenance by bond election?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)