Daily Herald: Lawsuit not the answer to boundary c

[Arch]

jb said:

archwinsome said:

Does it have to be paid in full all up front or is there partial payment now and in full when the job is done and it's delivered and opened? That's what we vote on later.. the final amount difference.... and we ALL bust our butts to get out the vote to get it passed.

I'm with ya.

Many people are busy trying to take sides... we don't have time for that.. we need a solution that will work given the now new climate. I see this as a workable possibility given the considerations and claimed altruism from every angle (regardless of whether it is or isn't true)... ok, exception noted to the "no 3rd HS crowd".. they won't get their way with this suggestion.

Need to open a school ASAP. To do that we need land that is not suspect.
Need money to complete it. That's what referendums are for.
Need to eliminate over crowding and convert back a MS to alleviate crowding there too.. This can do that and do it fast if people stop trying to dig their heels in the dirt and just look for a way out of where we are wedged now.

Let go of the emotional "But then So and So gets their way". 3 days ago people's altruistic ways was to open a 3rd HS... so let's do it... let this last emotional point be for spring 2009 at the new boundary war that will happen... or go back to the old ones per the complaint... either way, 2009 elections will give the opportunity for that can of worms to be open once again for those who wanted that fight... but right now, we don't need to have that battle.

[rural]

[quote author=archwinsome board=news thread=1204988239 post=1205001804
Many people are busy trying to take sides... we don't have time for that.. we need a solution that will work given the now new climate. I see this as a workable possibility given the considerations and claimed altruism from every angle (regardless of whether it is or isn't true)... ok, exception noted to the "no 3rd HS crowd".. they won't get their way with this suggestion.

Need to open a school ASAP. To do that we need land that is not suspect.
Need money to complete it. That's what referendums are for.
Need to eliminate over crowding and convert back a MS to alleviate crowding there too.. This can do that and do it fast if people stop trying to dig their heels in the dirt and just look for a way out of where we are wedged now.

Let go of the emotional "But then So and So gets their way". 3 days ago people's altruistic ways was to open a 3rd HS... so let's do it... let this last emotional point be for spring 2009 at the new boundary war that will happen... or go back to the old ones per the complaint... either way, 2009 elections will give the opportunity for that can of worms to be open once again for those who wanted that fight... but right now, we don't need to have that battle.
[/quote]

So what would the referendum be for? How soon could it be voted on?

Would we give voters the choice between two referendum options: paying more in taxes for BB or just staying the course at AME?

[Arch]

rural said:

So what would the referendum be for? How soon could it be voted on?

Would we give voters the choice between two referendum options: paying more in taxes for BB or just staying the course at AME?

There are elections in Spring 2009, right? Get something on the ballot for then. Put this garbage all behind us and push ahead w/out the lawsuit targets that will always exist at the other locations.

"Look, BB... We're Sorry for how this was handled in the past." would be a great place to start.

[fence]

Sushi, I feel like you are missing the entire point.

I do feel that the objective of those trying to push forward is simply to get the school built and unify the district, but there are obvious issues at hand, beyond people acting like spoiled brats and ruining an otherwise perfect plan.

This is not a perfect plan. This is costing the district alot of money, and people have a right to be heard and have their concerns addressed.

People are concerned about the safety of the site. Rather than dismiss these concerns, the SB and community should work together with full disclosure, so we can be assured of the site's safety. IF the site is not safe, it is not just a problem for kids who attend. It will be a problem for the entire district in terms of money, reputation, and basic ethics. St. Charles and their asbestos issue at one HS impacted the entire community for years. No one's concerns should be dismissed or mocked as insincere. Just because my kids won't attend does not mean I don't have a right to be concerned about what a problem like this can do to our district, or to the future health and safety issues of any child, mine or not.

Then there's just the issue of basic PR - in short, a disaster as far as I'm concerned.

There have been sincere people with sincere questions and concerns that deserve to be heard. People are not stupid. They know not everyone can get their way, but working together in an open forum, to address concerns, provide data, discuss issues would have avoided this whole crap storm.

Addressing the need for a fullly disclosed environmental report and discussion would be a good step 1.

Not rushing the school so kids at least have a completed building to attend would be a good step 2.

Step 3 might be reaching out to every new WV parent, creating some excitement for the new possibilities, opening up the building for parents and students to tour, meeting with new attendees to hear their concerns and work through them, getting them involved and excited, having them work together to find a new principal - I don't know, that seems like a better approach than insulting, mocking and shaming anyone who may have concerns and questions. It is just disgraceful that this is how they are choosing to handle such a sensitive issue.

Anyway, residents have tried to reach out to the SB on all of these issues with no success. This lawsuit, however unsettling, is just a result of the SB's disinterest in building trust and open communication with the district. They brought this on themselves with their arrogance, lack of respect for the district, and lack of disclosure. Blaming the problem on residents for being petty and selfish is only diverting from the actual root cause.

sushi said:

slp said:

In fairness to our friends from the May Watts area, this is not true for them. They are truly concerned with the potential long term affects of sending their kids to the AME site and the methodology used in determining whether or not the site is safe or not.

As far as the motivations behind the lawsuit...I think there are many. I don't think it is fair to say that the only motivation has to do with not attending WVHS. That motivation may be true for some, but I certainly don't think it is true for all people backing the lawsuit.

I think most people who are backing the suit are backing it due to the principle of it. "The school board repeatedly said it would do one thing and did another". I understand why people are upset about the breach of that principle.

The next question in my mind becomes, 'What can be done about it? and Will that action result in a better outcome?" It is the answers to those two questions that prevented me from supporting the lawsuit.

I think it will shoot us all in the foot.

But I respect and understand why they felt they had to file it.

I agree with you on all counts, except I do NOT understand why they felt they had to file a lawsuit. It is a knee-jerk reaction of a spoiled child who did not get their way. If anyone believes the SB did not really want BB then you could justify this. There is only one motive here. I go to the school I want and if not, derail the whole project.

[sushi]

archwinsome said:

Oh, about the resolution to not go back to the taxpayers:


"I'd like to make a motion to rescind the resolution from (date) titled "no money askus for moreus".

"Second"

All in favor?


ILMAO!

Call the Roll

Motions carries.

[sushi]

fence said:

Sushi, I feel like you are missing the entire point.

I do feel that the objective of those trying to push forward is simply to get the school built and unify the district, but there are obvious issues at hand, beyond people acting like spoiled brats and ruining an otherwise perfect plan.

This is not a perfect plan. This is costing the district alot of money, and people have a right to be heard and have their concerns addressed.

People are concerned about the safety of the site. Rather than dismiss these concerns, the SB and community should work together with full disclosure, so we can be assured of the site's safety. IF the site is not safe, it is not just a problem for kids who attend. It will be a problem for the entire district in terms of money, reputation, and basic ethics. St. Charles and their asbestos issue at one HS impacted the entire community for years. No one's concerns should be dismissed or mocked as insincere. Just because my kids won't attend does not mean I don't have a right to be concerned about what a problem like this can do to our district, or to the future health and safety issues of any child, mine or not.

Then there's just the issue of basic PR - in short, a disaster as far as I'm concerned.

There have been sincere people with sincere questions and concerns that deserve to be heard. People are not stupid. They know not everyone can get their way, but working together in an open forum, to address concerns, provide data, discuss issues would have avoided this whole crap storm.

Addressing the need for a fullly disclosed environmental report and discussion would be a good step 1.

Not rushing the school so kids at least have a completed building to attend would be a good step 2.

Step 3 might be reaching out to every new WV parent, creating some excitement for the new possibilities, opening up the building for parents and students to tour, meeting with new attendees to hear their concerns and work through them, getting them involved and excited, having them work together to find a new principal - I don't know, that seems like a better approach than insulting, mocking and shaming anyone who may have concerns and questions. It is just disgraceful that this is how they are choosing to handle such a sensitive issue.

Anyway, residents have tried to reach out to the SB on all of these issues with no success. This lawsuit, however unsettling, is just a result of the SB's disinterest in building trust and open communication with the district. They brought this on themselves with their arrogance, lack of respect for the district, and lack of disclosure. Blaming the problem on residents for being petty and selfish is only diverting from the actual root cause.

Every point you make is an excellent point. But (you knew that was coming) I know that this particular lawsuit is using the environmental concerns as a disguise for the true motivation, that is all I am saying.

I have repeatedly stated that the SB should be forthcoming and give the details of the entire process, from BB failure to environmental results. Their silence on the issues make people suspicious. It is our kids in the end who suffer any mistakes made.

[sushi]

I am quotedly challenged.

[d204mom]

archwinsome said:

"Look, BB... We're Sorry for how this was handled in the past." would be a great place to start.

Down on your knees and up to him. Look up to the sky and say it.

I've abandoned my child! I've abandoned my child! I've abandoned my boy!

OK I'm sorry but that picture was just in my head. Ok, not that exact one - actually the milkshake/I am a false prophet... sorry back on topic.

[WeBe204]

sushi said:

I am quotedly challenged.

I gave you a little helping hand

[southsidemom]

archwinsome said:

rural said:

So what would the referendum be for? How soon could it be voted on?

Would we give voters the choice between two referendum options: paying more in taxes for BB or just staying the course at AME?

There are elections in Spring 2009, right? Get something on the ballot for then. Put this garbage all behind us and push ahead w/out the lawsuit targets that will always exist at the other locations.

"Look, BB... We're Sorry for how this was handled in the past." would be a great place to start.

Sounds good Arch. Just one problem. Sorry? Now what SB member is going to say that as it relates to BB?

[slp]

sushi said:

fence said:

Sushi, I feel like you are missing the entire point.

I do feel that the objective of those trying to push forward is simply to get the school built and unify the district, but there are obvious issues at hand, beyond people acting like spoiled brats and ruining an otherwise perfect plan.

This is not a perfect plan. This is costing the district alot of money, and people have a right to be heard and have their concerns addressed.

People are concerned about the safety of the site. Rather than dismiss these concerns, the SB and community should work together with full disclosure, so we can be assured of the site's safety. IF the site is not safe, it is not just a problem for kids who attend. It will be a problem for the entire district in terms of money, reputation, and basic ethics. St. Charles and their asbestos issue at one HS impacted the entire community for years. No one's concerns should be dismissed or mocked as insincere. Just because my kids won't attend does not mean I don't have a right to be concerned about what a problem like this can do to our district, or to the future health and safety issues of any child, mine or not.

Then there's just the issue of basic PR - in short, a disaster as far as I'm concerned.

There have been sincere people with sincere questions and concerns that deserve to be heard. People are not stupid. They know not everyone can get their way, but working together in an open forum, to address concerns, provide data, discuss issues would have avoided this whole crap storm.

Addressing the need for a fullly disclosed environmental report and discussion would be a good step 1.

Not rushing the school so kids at least have a completed building to attend would be a good step 2.

Step 3 might be reaching out to every new WV parent, creating some excitement for the new possibilities, opening up the building for parents and students to tour, meeting with new attendees to hear their concerns and work through them, getting them involved and excited, having them work together to find a new principal - I don't know, that seems like a better approach than insulting, mocking and shaming anyone who may have concerns and questions. It is just disgraceful that this is how they are choosing to handle such a sensitive issue.

Anyway, residents have tried to reach out to the SB on all of these issues with no success. This lawsuit, however unsettling, is just a result of the SB's disinterest in building trust and open communication with the district. They brought this on themselves with their arrogance, lack of respect for the district, and lack of disclosure. Blaming the problem on residents for being petty and selfish is only diverting from the actual root cause.

Every point you make is an excellent point. But (you knew that was coming) I know that this particular lawsuit is using the environmental concerns as a disguise for the true motivation, that is all I am saying.

I have repeatedly stated that the SB should be forthcoming and give the details of the entire process, from BB failure to environmental results. Their silence on the issues make people suspicious. It is our kids in the end who suffer any mistakes made.

sushi, you write, "this particular lawsuit is using the environmental concerns as a disguise for the true motivation".

Again, while I agree that may be true for some, that is not the case for all people supporting the lawsuit from my understanding.

There are many parents that truly are concerned that the property for the 3rd highschool at AME is unsafe for many reasons; EMF's, pipelines, and soil issues. This translates into problems for our entire district if down the road children are injured or ill at this location. This is all of our problem if it is a problem.

There are several prongs to the motivations behind this suit...1)safety issues with AME 2) bait and switch issue with BB 3) those wanting to stay at NV no matter what 4) those thinking that the school board are a bunch of idiots who have proven they cannot make decisions on our behalf and need to be stopped!

No matter what the motivations behind the suit are, I worry that the end result of the suit will be no 3rd highschool. That would not be good for any of us.

[momof156graders]

sushi said:

Snerdly, it is ALL about boundaries. Some of us do have concerns about the environmental issues. This lawsuit is using that concern as a smoke screen.

---

I don't mean this disrespectfully, I am just asking a sincere question. If it were truly all about boundaries with TG, then wouldn't the law suit be pushing for NVHS, not revisiting the BB site which would put them at Metea?

[slp]

momof156graders said:

sushi said:

Snerdly, it is ALL about boundaries. Some of us do have concerns about the environmental issues. This lawsuit is using that concern as a smoke screen.

---

I don't mean this disrespectfully, I am just asking a sincere question. If it were truly all about boundaries with TG, then wouldn't the law suit be pushing for NVHS, not revisiting the BB site which would put them at Metea?

who wants to take this one?

[JB]

slp said:

momof156graders said:

---

I don't mean this disrespectfully, I am just asking a sincere question. If it were truly all about boundaries with TG, then wouldn't the law suit be pushing for NVHS, not revisiting the BB site which would put them at Metea?

who wants to take this one?

If it were all about boundaries, "they" wouldn't have placed any emphasis on the boundaries, "they" would have placed emphasis only on a). BB was chosen b). MWGEN was not. Furthemore, I'm sure "they" would have realized that by adding boundaries to the discussion, they would forfeit any future bridge discussions.

I'm putting quotes around "they" since labeling NSFOC to one or two subdivisions is wrong.

[sushi]

BB was the consolation prize dangled to the "walkers". Some voted yes because they still got a shiny new HS. Some still voted no.