Letter from Robert Kennedy (7/15/98)

Jay:

It is generally conceded that:

• We need more classroom space and,
• Utilities need some major overhaul, major maintenance, and renovation.

Bond #1 vote was roughly 53% FOR, 47% Against.

On last page of handout: What projects or bond packages would voters approve.

• For $4M repairs: (.53 x .86) + (.47 x .54) = 71%
• For $5M classrooms: (.53 x .89) + (.47 x .38) = 65%
• For $10M combined repairs and classrooms: (.53 x .77) + (.47 X .29) = 55%

• Repairs only would pass by a comfortable margin.
• Classrooms only would fail by a slight margin.
• A combined bond for both won't make it.

On page 2 of the handout, the single biggest reason for voting NO is "too expensive". Most people realize we need both repairs and space. The problem is cost.

Solution:
Cut back on repairs and limit new space to labs and classrooms only. Such items as a faculty and staff dining room and lounge can in no way be considered maintenance. Previous repair numbers seemed lower for various reasons. Work proposed could be considered with an eye to future expansion: extra conductors, heavier wire, larger pipes, blanked off duct work, etc.

Accreditation:
I think the Committee was snookered and sold a bill of goods by our own people into recommending a wish list. A good part of the public is not fooled, even though this bogeyman keeps being resurrected.

Credibility plays a large part in this.

As an aside, I noticed at the public hearing on June 23 that the same old undercurrents are still there, IN PARTICULAR THAT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE BOARD IS NOT TO THE PUBLIC. Much more of this kind of talk and it will be difficult to get anything passed

Jay, I thought I had sent this on 7/1. Cannot find the copy anywhere, so maybe I didn't. Anyway here's a re-do and my sentiments have not changed..

Let me know if you think it would do any good to send this in whole or part to the board.

Regarding the Community Advisory Committee being rather large, unwieldy, and perhaps that a consensus cannot be reached, there is a simple solution: Come up with two or three alternatives, much as was done with Social Security studies. Remember, this is an advisory group. If this is done, ALL ALTERNATIVES WILL HAVE TO BE MADE KNOWN TO THE PUBLIC.

I do not think a mere cosmetic rehash of the previous proposals will fly.

Thanks, let's hear from you.

Bob

Last update on 29-Mar-99 at 9:31 PM.

http://www.orol.org/schools/orhs/orgs/cac/kennedy_980715.html

This page is edited by David K. Taylor. Please send questions or comments to editor@orol.org.