Email Circulating:URGENT Meta Valley Location

[Arch]

lacy said:

archwinsome said:

I'll answer this one from my own perspective. There is a difference between SUPPORTING it and BEING HAPPY WITH IT.

SUPPORTING IT means you do not work AGAINST IT. If that is what is chosen, you roll with it and make the best of it even if it was NOT YOUR FIRST CHOICE.

One can be UNHAPPY WITH 248th and state WHY they are unhappy with it. If it's chosen, I will SUPPORT it.

Will you support BB if it is chosen, even if you are and remain UNHAPPY with it?

Gosh, I guess I could spell in all capital letters too.

At this point, my concern is the district using the tax dollars they have wisely and in the best interest of the district.

GOT IT??

I never knew you were so concerned about my happiness. Thank you.

Don't worry. I'm not. Just being honest. I am concerned only that you seem to circle back around and accuse people of being against one site while you yourself are so against the other. I emphasized key words and phrases to show you a very large difference between your side and the 'other' side. One will accept and support is, and has stated such. You have yet to say you would accept or support it at the BB site. You don't have to, and that's fine. You are certainly allowed to feel that way. What it does show to me, however, is that you might still work 'against' it in a pro active manner due to the way you continually dodge the direct question and never answer it.

[momof3]

archwinsome said:

lacy said:

I don't want BB *WITHIN* cost unless I know exactly how they would do that without that affecting the ultimate outcome of the school and without that taking money away from things that could benefit the other schools.

Just because they might be able to "get er done" doesn't mean that would ultimately be in the best interest of the district if they could have spent the money more wisely, benefiting the district as a whole.

If you are that concerned with HOW they spend the money WITHIN what the public authorized by a vote, then perhaps you need to put yourself on the inside of the workings of the district to enact that change. It was pointed out time and time again that they can not take money from the referendum to distribute to other schools. It is for land acquisition and construction for the 3rd high school.

The failed '05 ref had some wiggle room. The wording was different, so all the money did not have to be spent on the 3rd hs - some could be spent on improvements. That failed, so the SB put forth a very restrictive ref that passed.

And that is spilled milk. Unfortunately.

[lacy]

gatormom said:

lacy said:

Gosh, I guess I could spell in all capital letters too.

At this point, my concern is the district using the tax dollars they have wisely and in the best interest of the district.

GOT IT??

I never knew you were so concerned about my happiness. Thank you.

Okay, that means you do not support BB right? You have me confused because I believe I am asking a yes or no question and I am getting everything but yes or no.

You are trying to pigeon hole me and I am not playing your little game.

I am telling you how I feel about the situation - you can't change that or fabricate something that suits your agenda.

I am thinking about the here and now. Right now, at this point in time, I want the district to do their due diligence that they owe the taxpayers and children of this district and to spend our money wisely.

[Arch]

lacy said:

archwinsome said:

If you are that concerned with HOW they spend the money WITHIN what the public authorized by a vote, then perhaps you need to put yourself on the inside of the workings of the district to enact that change. It was pointed out time and time again that they can not take money from the referendum to distribute to other schools. It is for land acquisition and construction for the 3rd high school.

But earlier newspaper articles indicated they had other sources of revenue to cover the gap at BB.

How else could those sources be spent? Could they be spent in a way to benefit the ENTIRE (there are those caps again!) district?

If so, they should not be thrown away on land when other alternatives exist.

The question is can they spend it on land or are they forbidden? If they can and do and the cost is over, I will be UNHAPPY with that, but I will still SUPPORT the decision. Again, a very key difference.

[lacy]

archwinsome said:

lacy said:

Gosh, I guess I could spell in all capital letters too.

At this point, my concern is the district using the tax dollars they have wisely and in the best interest of the district.

GOT IT??

I never knew you were so concerned about my happiness. Thank you.

Don't worry. I'm not. Just being honest. I am concerned only that you seem to circle back around and accuse people of being against one site while you yourself are so against the other. I emphasized key words and phrases to show you a very large difference between your side and the 'other' side. One will accept and support is, and has stated such. You have yet to say you would accept or support it at the BB site. You don't have to, and that's fine. You are certainly allowed to feel that way. What it does show to me, however, is that you might still work 'against' it in a pro active manner due to the way you continually dodge the direct question and never answer it.

I have no plans - nor have I ever "worked against something in a pro active manner" that the district has undertaken.

HOPE THAT HELPS!

[Arch]

lacy said:

I am thinking about the here and now. Right now, at this point in time, I want the district to do their due diligence that they owe the taxpayers and children of this district and to spend our money wisely.

*THAT* we agree one completely. I may be unhappy with a decision they make, but I also know I had my chance (and gave it consideration) to throw my hat into the ring for an appointed position after Mr. Rodman stepped down. I thought long and hard and ultimately decided no. I'm not up for 'that' level of responsibility and commitment. So, I give leeway and respect to those that actually are and will respect the decision they ultimately arrive at.

[gatormom]

lacy said:

gatormom said:

Okay, that means you do not support BB right? You have me confused because I believe I am asking a yes or no question and I am getting everything but yes or no.

You are trying to pigeon hole me and I am not playing your little game.

I am telling you how I feel about the situation - you can't change that or fabricate something that suits your agenda.

I am thinking about the here and now. Right now, at this point in time, I want the district to do their due diligence that they owe the taxpayers and children of this district and to spend our money wisely.

I absolutely agree with you and I have complete confidence that that is exactly what is happening. I am not playing a game. All I am saying is, if in fact after due diligence is carried out, will you support BB if that is what is chosen? Doesn't mean you have to be happy about it just support it. And if you chose not to answer this, that is fine too. You wanted to know my motives, I explained and now just trying to understand your motives, if there are any.

[Arch]

lacy said:

archwinsome said:

Don't worry. I'm not. Just being honest. I am concerned only that you seem to circle back around and accuse people of being against one site while you yourself are so against the other. I emphasized key words and phrases to show you a very large difference between your side and the 'other' side. One will accept and support is, and has stated such. You have yet to say you would accept or support it at the BB site. You don't have to, and that's fine. You are certainly allowed to feel that way. What it does show to me, however, is that you might still work 'against' it in a pro active manner due to the way you continually dodge the direct question and never answer it.

I have no plans - nor have I ever "worked against something in a pro active manner" that the district has undertaken.

HOPE THAT HELPS!

The semantics are nice. I have no plans to crash a car either, but schtuff happens that I can't forsee right now. I'll state that I *WILL NOT* work against 248th if that is what the SB decides to use.

[momof3]

soon2bwvhs said:

Macom, the confirmed 100% owner of the site is delivering a proposal to the board on Monday!

OK I just re-read the original email again. Macom is delivering a proposal to the board tonight. So we're all supposed to show up and cheer? It's this showing up part that I don't get. How will my presence change the content of the proposal?

How can people be claiming that the board is not considering Macom if this part of the email is true? Sounds like the big cheese is coming himself to discuss the property with the board.

Are people going to show up with signs that say "Hey School Board - listen harder!"?

[bob]

lacy said:

archwinsome said:

If you are that concerned with HOW they spend the money WITHIN what the public authorized by a vote, then perhaps you need to put yourself on the inside of the workings of the district to enact that change. It was pointed out time and time again that they can not take money from the referendum to distribute to other schools. It is for land acquisition and construction for the 3rd high school.

But earlier newspaper articles indicated they had other sources of revenue to cover the gap at BB.

How else could those sources be spent? Could they be spent in a way to benefit the ENTIRE (there are those caps again!) district?

If so, they should not be thrown away on land when other alternatives exist.

We covered all that in another thread.

The interest earned must be spent on the referendum and the cash land donations must be spent for that reason.

You can't take money from the referendum and get AC for the grade schools or raises for teachers or new IT equipment.

[doctorwho]

bob said:

lacy said:

But earlier newspaper articles indicated they had other sources of revenue to cover the gap at BB.

How else could those sources be spent? Could they be spent in a way to benefit the ENTIRE (there are those caps again!) district?

If so, they should not be thrown away on land when other alternatives exist.

We covered all that in another thread.

The interest earned must be spent on the referendum and the cash land donations must be spent for that reason.

You can't take money from the referendum and get AC for the grade schools or raises for teachers or new IT equipment.

But it says so in the MV proposal e-mail- hence it must be true.

[doctorwho]

lacy said:

gatormom said:

Okay, that means you do not support BB right? You have me confused because I believe I am asking a yes or no question and I am getting everything but yes or no.

You are trying to pigeon hole me and I am not playing your little game.

I am telling you how I feel about the situation - you can't change that or fabricate something that suits your agenda.

I am thinking about the here and now. Right now, at this point in time, I want the district to do their due diligence that they owe the taxpayers and children of this district and to spend our money wisely.

you have your answer GM - the answer is no. If it was yes it would be communicated as yes, like others have done re: the 248th site if that is selected as 'best'. We are supposed to say we'd support MACOM if that is the site chosen because it's for the good of the district -- however if it is determined that BB will work ( or Calvary ) - it will not be supported.

for the record - if MACOM is chosen - I will be unhappy - likely very unhappy - but I would still support the 3rd HS there. Funny how that seems to be concensus from the pro BB people, but not the other way around.

THAT is what the good of the district means - capitalizations or not. Not the good of the district as long as it is what I want.

and before I get accused of twisting anyones words etc. it is a simple yes or no question - if the answer is not yes, it is no.

[lacy]

doctorwho said:

lacy said:

You are trying to pigeon hole me and I am not playing your little game.

I am telling you how I feel about the situation - you can't change that or fabricate something that suits your agenda.

I am thinking about the here and now. Right now, at this point in time, I want the district to do their due diligence that they owe the taxpayers and children of this district and to spend our money wisely.

you have your answer GM - the answer is no. If it was yes it would be communicated as yes, like others have done re: the 248th site if that is selected as 'best'. We are supposed to say we'd support MACOM if that is the site chosen because it's for the good of the district -- however if it is determined that BB will work ( or Calvary ) - it will not be supported.

for the record - if MACOM is chosen - I will be unhappy - likely very unhappy - but I would still support the 3rd HS there. Funny how that seems to be concensus from the pro BB people, but not the other way around.

THAT is what the good of the district means - capitalizations or not. Not the good of the district as long as it is what I want.

and before I get accused of twisting anyones words etc. it is a simple yes or no question - if the answer is not yes, it is no.

I'm sorry you are having so much trouble understanding my position - but I am just focused on the here and now.

You can ask a yes or no question, but you can't force someone to answer in a way that is suitable to you.

You do not rule the world.

[lacy]

bob said:

lacy said:

But earlier newspaper articles indicated they had other sources of revenue to cover the gap at BB.

How else could those sources be spent? Could they be spent in a way to benefit the ENTIRE (there are those caps again!) district?

If so, they should not be thrown away on land when other alternatives exist.

We covered all that in another thread.

The interest earned must be spent on the referendum and the cash land donations must be spent for that reason.

You can't take money from the referendum and get AC for the grade schools or raises for teachers or new IT equipment.

Given how badly off-base you were last night about the referendum committee member that had what is viewed by many to be a conflict of interest, I am questioning whether this is absolutely correct.

Independent verification?

[lacy]

archwinsome said:

lacy said:

I have no plans - nor have I ever "worked against something in a pro active manner" that the district has undertaken.

HOPE THAT HELPS!

The semantics are nice. I have no plans to crash a car either, but schtuff happens that I can't forsee right now. I'll state that I *WILL NOT* work against 248th if that is what the SB decides to use.

I'm trying to fathom what you mean by working against. Do you mean trying to see that the 09 referendum fails? No, I won't work against that.

But I do think it's in jeopardy if the SB goes ahead with BB. Will people support that if they feel the district did not wisely spend their money? I don't know.

Maybe you could ask Momof3. She claims to know how many are on each side of the issues.