Boundaries with MS-North

[Arch]

eagledad said:

archwinsome said:

IMO, the SB should be thinking about opening up a school that was approved.

Wasting time w/ image to appease adults who are at times acting like angry spoiled children talking about retribution if they don't get their way is a waste of time and resources that should be directed towards helping the kids of the district.

Demote me or ban me for telling it how I feel, I really don't care at this point.

That's a fine opinion Arch, but it's an opinion I do not share. To blindly pursue a pre-selected path with no community involvement is to repeat the failures of the first failed referendum (not to mention a likely violation of the open meetings act). If they go that way and have problems later, don't say I didn't tell you so.

I don't understand why forming an advisory committee, or discussing this at a SB meeting or two is a waste of time. Are we talking about some colossal investment of time and resources to do this? The fact is we screwed up a 2009 opening (and '10 is probably sliding by if we blindly change sites), so I don't see time as the factor n making this type of decision.

One could say the same about the US Constitution, Congress and our law making processes, by the way. It's just wasting time w/image to appease adults. We might as well just elect a king and let them make the laws.

Our lawmaking body is an elected representation and so is the SB. Congress doesn't stop and ask you your opinion every time there is a vote for legislation. You can submit it via several methods (just like with the school board) but when it comes time to do the vote, the general public is NOT part of the process. You are more than free to vote however you want as a result of their decision (by electing someone else or even voting against an operating referendum that will be needed for more things than just the HS in a location you might not like or in a location you do like with boundaries you don't like). As a fellow citizen, I don't have to respect your reasonings for how you vote nor do you have to respect mine, but I respect your right to vote your conscious whether that means 'sticking it' to some entity or not. Decisions made in anger are often not the best ones. But please, do what you feel is best. I don't happen to feel that voting to compound already dumb mistakes is the right or the best thing to do.

[gatordog]

I am coming to believe that if we want the SB to have more flexibility in negotiating land, either to stay at BB somehow, or to have funds to move forward with a more premium-location (read that as central or southern) site:
we must tell them, cut costs now (ex: delete athletic facilities IF YOU MUST) and we will support getting you more funds later.

But even on this board, that was a tough sell. I can see it being a tough sell for the broad public as well. "I funded $125 mil and you cant deliver a complete HS for us?..." If we here cant reach broad consensus to go this route, the chance of this flying with general public seems pretty slim.

Instead of complaining about not knowing the negotiating details, here is an active (with wallets open and putting our money where our mouth is) way to give the SB more ability to perhaps deliver greater long-term benefit.

Does anybody have better ideas? Just opening the door to let us listen doesnt necessarily help negotiations (and possibly could hurt them).

[EagleDad]

archwinsome said:

Our lawmaking body is an elected representation and so is the SB. Congress doesn't stop and ask you your opinion every time there is a vote for legislation. You can submit it via several methods (just like with the school board) but when it comes time to do the vote, the general public is NOT part of the process. You are more than free to vote however you want as a result of their decision (by electing someone else or even voting against an operating referendum that will be needed for more things than just the HS in a location you might not like or in a location you do like with boundaries you don't like). As a fellow citizen, I don't have to respect your reasonings for how you vote nor do you have to respect mine, but I respect your right to vote your conscious whether that means 'sticking it' to some entity or not. Decisions made in anger are often not the best ones. But please, do what you feel is best. I don't happen to feel that voting to compound already dumb mistakes is the right or the best thing to do.

Congress also don't dissapear into a closed room and announce the laws they pass after they are done and it is too late.

All I'm insisting on is lay out the options clearly, solicit feedback, and have the guts to make the decision in public.

This is what I voted these representatives in for. Anything else is, well cowardly and not sharing information.

[momof3]

momto4 said:

One of the SB members made it clear at a recent meeting that it is his belief that the public elected the SB to make decisions and they should make those decisions, they don't need any input from us!

mt4 I am so with you on that point. It's as if they have a script entitled "HOW TO ANGER THE VOTING PUBLIC" and are reading from it at every meeting. How hard is it to think that and then be smart enough to keep your mouth shut?

Why go out of your way to make people mad? It doesn't make any sense.

[bob]

Congress also don't dissapear into a closed room and announce the laws they pass after they are done and it is too late.

Congess does do that. Most bills are are already determined before they go to the floor for vote. There is also the whole black box budget that is never revealed on how that money is spent.

[doctorwho]

gatordog said:

rew said:

Gatordog, I put in your numbers for Option 2 and I am getting enrollments of WV 2904, MV 2562 and NV 4130.

I think the north MV needs more kids...

(the achievement scores bite with this boundary option, they widen the gap for WV)

Your spread was for 9596 total HS enrollment. I instead did two cases, on either extreme of this enrollment number. First, for current ES situation. Then, for full build-out projections.

For current ES situation (9134 total):
WV 2762, MV 2616 and NV 3757

For full projection (10,167 total):
WV 3209, MV 2678 and NV 4280

Our numbers both check remarkably closely. Interpolating btw my two extremes match nicely to your model.

I see your point that for better enrollment balance, one may need to tweak a few more students into MV. However, one could also say for growth WV is still within capacity. (The WV numbers are driven alot by growth in Aswood developemnt. Now its this tricky issue of which growth model to believe.)

You make a key point on achievement gap check. I did not at all look at that.

I have all the models I used to suppl yinfor for the referendum, and have updated with the last ISAT scores as well as Fall 2007 attendance for each ES


here is what option 2 as you laid it out leaves us:

MV 3793 90.1
WV 4355 90.7
NV 5097 96.7
13245

there are 13245 kids spread across the 21 MS's -- ( I did not attempt to split Peterson as those are reported as one number right now- if you want to estimate what % was Wheatland - tell me and I can recalc.

BUT - this still leaves MV woefully short -- as I have been saying all along- unless it is built at a 2500 student HS, and not 3000. So once again another ES would have to move - likely from WV to MV -- just who would that be ?

also the achievement gap is now one of the highest in any configuration for 2007

BB North North MACOM GD MV 2
Site w/ Watts

MV 90.9 89.5 91.9 92.9 90.1
WV 90.1 90.9 89.2 88.3 90.7
NV 94.0 93.7 93.5 93.4 96.7

GAP 3.1 4.2 4.3 5.1 6.6

it doesn't want to format correctly so let me try this:
low to high gap

BB site ( current boundaries ) % pass ISAT
MV = 90.9 WV = 90.1 NV = 94.0 GAP 3.1
Northern site ( rew boundaries )
MV = 89.5 WV = 90.0 NV = 93.7 GAP 4.2
Northern Site ( rew boundaries 2 - incl MW)
MV = 91.9 WV = 89.2 NV = 93.5 GAP 4.3
MACOM
MV = 92.9 WV = 88.3 NV = 93.4 GAP 5.1
Gatordog option 2 - northern site
MV = 90.1 WV = 90.7 NV = 96.7 GAP = 6.6

[EagleDad]

bob said:

Congress also don't dissapear into a closed room and announce the laws they pass after they are done and it is too late.

Congess does do that. Most bills are are already determined before they go to the floor for vote. There is also the whole black box budget that is never revealed on how that money is spent.

No they don't bob, the content of the bills are known and distrubuted ahead of time, and the discussion and vote are held in public (C-Span too . If you don't like how your elected officials conduct themselves you can vote them out.

I'm 100% fine with the SB doing all of the negotiation and determining the options in private (I've never debated that). I do insist that they bring these options (their "bills" if you like) forward for public discussion and a public vote.

Please don't confuse my use of the term "public" on this. I'm not saying that the public gets to vote on this, but I want to see the SB debate the options (with all the fact) and I want to see them vote on it. Basically I have a right to see that my elected representatives are serving me as I entrusted them too, so that if they are not I can take action on it.

My biggest fear is that they decide to do it in an executive session and 5 of them don't show up - Stephens, Glawe, Vickers, Bradshaw, etc.) so the decision gets made by one or two or a subset of the entire board.

I also want to see Daeschner's leadership and input on this (again in public). We're paying him 300K per year and giving him a nice fat 2nd retirement package so I want to see what were getting for it.

[bob]

eagledad said:

bob said:

Congess does do that. Most bills are are already determined before they go to the floor for vote. There is also the whole black box budget that is never revealed on how that money is spent.

No they don't bob, the content of the bills are known and distrubuted ahead of time, and the discussion and vote are held in public (C-Span too . If you don't like how your elected officials conduct themselves you can vote them out.

I'm 100% fine with the SB doing all of the negotiation and determining the options in private (I've never debated that). I do insist that they bring these options (their "bills" if you like) forward for public discussion and a public vote.

Please don't confuse my use of the term "public" on this. I'm not saying that the public gets to vote on this, but I want to see the SB debate the options (with all the fact) and I want to see them vote on it. Basically I have a right to see that my elected representatives are serving me as I entrusted them too, so that if they are not I can take action on it.

My biggest fear is that they decide to do it in an executive session and 5 of them don't show up - Stephens, Glawe, Vickers, Bradshaw, etc.) so the decision gets made by one or two or a subset of the entire board.

I also want to see Daeschner's leadership and input on this (again in public). We're paying him 300K per year and giving him a nice fat 2nd retirement package so I want to see what were getting for it.

They still need a quorum to vote so 2 people can't make this decision.

I know for sure they can't talk boundary changes behind in executive session.

The United States Senate has the authority for meeting in closed session, as described in the Standing Rules of the Senate.

The Continental Congress and Constitutional Convention met in secret. The Senate met in secret until 1794. The Senate’s executive sessions (such as nominations and treaties) were not opened until 1929.

Standing Senate Rules XXI, XXIX, and XXXI cover secret sessions for legislative and executive business (nominations and treaties). Rule XXIX calls for Senate consideration of treaties to be conducted in secret unless a majority votes to lift the “injunction of secrecy,” which it usually does. Rule XXXI mandates that all nominations be considered in open session unless the Senate votes to do so in secret. Rule XXI calls for the Senate to close its doors once a motion is made and seconded. The motion is not debatable, and its disposition is made behind closed doors. All of a chamber’s normal rules of debate apply during secret sessions, except during impeachment deliberations in the Senate.

For Senate impeachment proceedings, Rules XX and XXIV of the Senate Rules for Impeachment Trials govern secret deliberations. The Senate has interpreted these rules to require closed deliberations during impeachment trials.

The proceedings of a secret session are not published unless the Senate votes, during the meeting or at a later time, to release them. Then, those portions released are printed in the Congressional Record. If the Senate does not approve release of a secret session transcript, the transcript is stored in the Office of Senate Security and ultimately sent to the National Archives and Records Administration. The proceedings remain sealed until the Senate votes to remove the injunction of secrecy.

These sessions have been held 54 times since 1929. The following is a full list of those sessions, along with their dates and the reasons they were called:
Reason Date(s)
The Plame affair and the Bush administration's role in pre-Iraq War intelligence (during debate on Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1995) November 1, 2005 (2:25pm-4:43pm)[1]
Impeachment of President Bill Clinton (final deliberation on verdict) February 9, 10, 11, 12, 1999[2]
Impeachment of President Bill Clinton (debate on motion to subpoena witnesses) January 26, 1999 (4:29pm-8:01pm)[3]
Impeachment of President Bill Clinton (debate on motion to dismiss articles of impeachment) January 25, 1999 (5:50pm-9:51pm)[4]
Chemical Weapons Convention April 24, 1997
Most favored nation status for People's Republic of China February 25, 1992
Impeachment trial of Judge Walter Nixon November 2, 1989
Impeachment trial of Judge Alcee Hastings March 16 & October 19, 1989
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty March 29, 1988
Impeachment trial of Judge Harry E. Claiborne October 7 (two sessions), 8 & 9, 1986
Defense Authorization Bill, ASAT June 12, 1984
Soviet Union arms control compliance February 1, 1984
U.S. support of the Contras in Nicaragua April 26, 1983
Nominations of Richard Burt and Richard McCormack February 16, 1983
United States/Soviet Union defense capabilities May 4, 1982
Armed Forces personnel management February 1, 1980
Selective Service System September 21, 1979
Aircraft sales to Egypt, Israel, and Saudi Arabia May 15, 1978
Torrijos-Carter Treaties on the Panama Canal February 21 & 22, 1978
Neutron bomb funding July 1, 1977
Defense Appropriations - Angola December 17 & 18, 1975
Intelligence Activities, alleged assassination plots involving foreign leaders November 20, 1975
Defense Appropriations June 4, 1975
Maneuverable reentry vehicle June 10, 1974
Trident submarine September 25, 1973
National Security Study May 2 (two sessions) & 4, 1972
U.S. involvement in Laos June 7, 1971
Legislative Agenda for 91st Congress December 18, 1970
Legislative Agenda for 91st Congress September 10, 1970
Defense Appropriations December 15, 1969
Defense Appropriations July 17, 1969
Defense Appropriations October 2, 1968
Committee on Intelligence Operations & Security Agency oversight July 14, 1966
Nike-Zeus production April 11, 1963
War front reports October 7 & 8, 1943
Naval battleships and aircraft carriers June 26, 1942
Impeachment of Judge Halsted L. Ritter April 15 & 16, 1936
William McCracken contempt proceedings February 13 & 14, 1934
Investigation of ocean and air mail contracts involving William McCracken and others February 10, 1934
Impeachment of Judge Harold Louderback May 24, 1933

[macy]

They can only discuss in executive session, right? Isn't it required that a vote be taken out of session?

Eagledad is right... They'd better all be in attendance when this is decided.

[bob]

macy said:

They can only discuss in executive session, right? Isn't it required that a vote be taken out of session?

Eagledad is right... They'd better all be in attendance when this is decided.

I believe the vote has to be taken publicly.

[EagleDad]

You are correct bob, there have been 54 secret session of congress since 1929 in matters of treaty and impeachment. So you're right (by half of a third of a hair off a flea's heiny )

Feel better?

[bob]

;D

[gatordog]

doctorwho said:

-- ( I did not attempt to split Peterson as those are reported as one number right now- if you want to estimate what % was Wheatland - tell me and I can recalc.

BUT - this still leaves MV woefully short --

First, thanks for achieve gap analysis. An important consideration.

My split for Peterson was of the 444 current ES attendance, 350 came from old Wheatland area. I assumed Wheatland was at its advertised capacity. Then I projected the 350 into NV, and the 94 left over into WV.

So I project bulk of current PETER enrollment goes to NV, not WV. This makes more room at WV. This may well explain your assessment that still more students needed to go north.

For full growth, I projected 600 additional ES students from Ashwood park into Peterson and into WV. So total peak enrollement at PET in future is 950 (seems conservatively high)

[casey]

I wouldn't expect 600 ES students from Ashwood any time soon. As far as I know there's less than 100 now (including Ashwood Creek/Park that's according a friend of mine at Peterson). As everyone already knows, Ashwood is a long way from build-out.

[jenrik2714]

Use Wheatland and Peterson for this all day kindergarten program that the SB proposed