Thank you for inviting so many district residents to participate in this process. This committee began meeting June 25 in response to the School Board’s charge (attached). We have held four meetings to date in which we have developed this initial list of observations to guide the committee to the final report. It should be noted that this is a large committee (approximately 31 members) that represents the diverse nature and opinions of our school district. It should be noted that the starting opinions of the committee members closely reflected the breakdown of the survey results (i.e., too much, correct amount, too little).

In the four meetings there had been free, open, and long discussions concerning the history of the project, its cost, scope, needs and wants, and academics versus frills. We have tried to stay focused or return to the focus of the charge even though some would choose a new direction. It is also important to remember that over fifty percent of the voters supported bond I and that the nature of any ensuing project should build on this support.

The following is an outline presentation for our preliminary report.

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
   

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 Board
   

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
     
8. Reexamine selection of architect and construction manager
   

We will continue to meet and refine our report into a final format guided by further discussion and fact finding by the committee, and in response to school board input following this preliminary report.

Respectfully submitted,

Jay Flanders	Martha T. Gooze
Co-chair	Co-chair

Last update on 30-Mar-99 at 10:58 PM.

http://www.orol.org/schools/orhs/orgs/cac/report_980715.html

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