In Attendance:

The meeting began at 7:10 p.m. Martie Gooze called the committee’s attention to the report draft deadline of July 15. She then shared comments from Ann Shump who was unable to attend this evening:

The committee should note that previous votes and results of the survey do not support a new high school. Discussing a new school at length would not be a sufficient use of the committee’s time

The process by which the architect and construction manager was chosen was addressed by Gail Kelley, and she noted

• Space and needs committee report had stated need for auditorium

• Neither the board nor architect reviewed this report when creating plans for the school’s renovations

• The board and architect never addressed the auditorium when choosing a construction manager

• It was later learned the architect had never designed an auditorium before

• Other concerns were expressed, such as using Baybutt again and Baybutt going over an agreed upon price and the middle school not meeting needs when completed.

Dr. Carroll made a few points:

• Baybutt is acting as construction manager only, not as a general contractor as well, an evident misconception

• Any money left over from the project does not go into the construction manager’s pocket, but back to the district under the construction management form.

Other rebuttals included:

• There was plenty of opportunity for public input during the selection process at board meetings

• Baybutt has lots of experience building schools

• This was not a decision made lightly or with little information

• The board has learned a great deal since the middle school was built. The board raised 55K for studies and tests to be done so the middle school mistakes would not be repeated

• Architect and construction manager knew a great deal about the building and the site before they began the design

• Taking into consideration all the information possible, the Board chose Baybutt

• Baybutt did a great job with other buildings in the area.

Why was Baybutt chosen as there was so much baggage attached? Some of Baybutt’s strengths were noted: 30 years experience, worked well with school; financially sound; worked with children’s needs; worked well with architect.

The committee was reminded that the Board’s initial concern is to improve the school. It was stated that the Board needs to build more voter trust and voters must be better informed about what the Board is doing, that the information the Board works with is from many tests and studies. More time and effort must be spent getting the information the Board covers out to the public.

It was suggested that maybe the committee should suggest to the Board that they choose a new construction manager. It was voiced that in any project worked on, some people are not going to get what they want and some are not going to agree with the process. Other issues like poor workmanship were voiced.

From here, Gary Whitmarsh suggested the committee move along and take direction toward these four things to be addressed (taken directly from the charge):

• Sense of community support

• Suggest direction

• Identify key issues

• 1999 bond proposal outline

From here the committee made great forward strides. An outline of the first three items listed goes as follows:

I Sense of Community

1. Clarify public information; clarify public perceptions

2. Many small informational gatherings as they generate good questions and facilitate information

3. Single article: non-staged vote to be further discussed

4. Meet accreditation requirements and NEASC standards

5. Meet future enrollment requirements

6. Leadership from the Board, administrators, and committee: direction, credibility, cohesion, image, and unity

Outline for sense of community was voted on with the results 16-0-1. Note: Joe Ford took issue with the wording “single article.”

II Suggested Direction

1. Infrastructure renovation

2. Multi-use and classroom spaces

3. Meet the needs of students: PE, arts education, co-curriculum programs, teaching stations, performance areas

4. Continue Advisory Committee: Community Advisory role to Board; Supportive rapport builders (over time through board vote)

5. New school option - examined by the Baord

Suggested direction was voted on with the result 15-2-0.

It was agreed that these line items could be discussed at length and changes, suggestions or additions could be added at the next meeting.

III Key Issues

1. Cost

2. Code compliance

3. Ecological considerations

4. Advantages and disadvantages of spreading out bond period and tax impacts

5. Utilitarian program

6. Cost efficient design

7. Student achievement and learning environment:

• technologies to the future

• appropriate space for learning

• maintaining and extending school programs and services

1. Reexamine selection of architect and construction manager

Key issues received a vote of 17-0.

Statements that came up during the outline of the stated three issues:

• It was suggested by looking at the survey data given that the district did not receive voter support for either a gym or auditorium, and if they both get tied into the plan it would be shot down again.

• If people understood the school must sometimes hold PE classes on the stage, they would have a better understanding of gymnasium needs.

• Regulation size gym is required for standard education.

• It was noted there may be a need to cut back on things that are not totally education-based; as the common area or the number of toilets added.

• It was stated that more direction and leadership is needed from administration and Board in order to communicate to the voters in the three communities in this district.

• Concern was expressed and generally discussed about fragmenting warrant articles while maintaining voter support.

• Three key words to be added to the report are cost, need, and trust.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.

The next meeting is with the School Board on July 15 at 7:00 p.m., the next committee meeting for 7:00 p.m. on July 21.

Kim Starbranch, Recording Secretary

Last update on 30-Mar-99 at 10:57 PM.

http://www.orol.org/schools/orhs/orgs/cac/minutes_980709.html

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