[Vision2020] debbie, jack, wayne

[keely emerinemix]

Dear Debbie, Jack, Wayne, et al --

I'm sitting here fuming because the long, detailed, passionate reply I just 
wrote to all of you disappeared off my screen in an MSN server glitch and 
now I'm left with only vague memories of arguments and perspectives that I 
had lain out.  I don't have the time to put that much work into it again, 
but I'll try to touch on the main points.

Debbie, I agree with you that the survey results might well have been 
different if the alt school piece were left off of the options.  However, 
the content of the options means that only Option 1, remodeling WP and 
Russell and then trying to find another place for PCRHS, could exist with 
the alternative school element excised from it.  And since most of the 
people who would urge us to drop the alt school piece are those who want 
bond money going only for WP and Russell, I have to assume that there's more 
to that cry than sheer pragmatism.  You appear to understand that the survey 
didn't give us a clear "green light," and I appreciate the tone of your 
comments.  I would remind you and all others that last year I was more than 
a little enthusiastic about putting money into WP and R in the context of a 
larger bond that, in providing a new four-year high school, also alleviated 
congestion in all of our elementaries by moving sixth grade to a middle 
school.  That plan also allowed for staging the kids during construction at 
the former HS building; the option 1 presented now has them attending 
classes for a year on an active construction site, and not with the K-5 the 
bond would have given us, but with a K-6 configuration.  I think I have 
demonstrated that I  can compromise to give the most benefit, as I see it, 
to the most people -- but my support of remodeling those two schools last 
year was because of the reduction in student numbers and the provision of a 
safe staging place during construction.  Lacking those now, I have my 
doubts.  I don't, however, doubt that you have given the issue a lot of 
thought, and I sense from you that you not only want a real, longterm 
solution but also understand how difficult it is to come up with one.  I 
hope we can talk further.

Jack, if you were offended by my comments earlier, please know that they 
were made in the belief that you have amply and ably demonstrated your 
concern for historicity, architecture, and walkable neighborhoods by 
elevating them to a position I think they don't belong -- before 
schoolchildren.  I apologize only if you have displayed an overarching 
interest in meeting the real needs of schoolchildren today and in the future 
in such a way that I have been unable to recognize it.  I'm not sure that 
I'm able to count your professed concern that it's better to pass something, 
pragmatically, rather than try to include the alternative school's needs 
(idealistically?) as evidence of that concern.  I think perhaps the picture 
would have been clearer to me and to others if you had recognized the 
win-win compromise inherent in the last bond, rather than siding with and 
giving legitimacy to the most vitriolic flamethrowers.  And you advocated, 
in my opinion, a most unneighborly approach to facilities building -- 
namely, eminent domain -- that, coupled with your dire predictions of 
student motor-vehicle slaughter on Mt. View and prisonlike conditions at a 
new high school, makes me think that student needs ranked considerably lower 
on your list than you'd like me to believe.  I would love to be proved 
wrong.  I am in no way morally superior to you or to anyone else, but I 
believe that the arguments set forth tend to demonstrate priorities, and I 
think mine are different from yours.  As I am dedicated to strengthening 
public schools, I'm sure you see why we'll have to disagree.

Sunil, thanks for your comments.  It makes sense that you would want to have 
your daughter continue where she is, and I appreciate your having attended 
our public hearing last month.  I hope you can trust that we're doing our 
best, because it really matters to all of us that your daughter and all of 
the kids in her class have the very best we can provide.

Wayne, right before I read your email, I had lunch with a prominent 
progressive activist in Moscow, who told me that the school district needs 
to stop "asking the same damned questions over and over again."  He said 
that after awhile we've begun to lose credibility because rather than 
looking informed, competent, and proactive, we tend to look dithering, 
doddering, and do-nothing (my paraphrase).  Now you say we haven't been out 
there enough soliciting ideas; in the middle, I guess, is the media 
association in Boise's award to the facilities committee last year for 
statewide excellence in public policy openness.  The fact is, during the two 
years I was on the committee, we had numerous forums, hearings, workshops, 
weekly meetings open to the public, a survey, and a flurry of printed 
material, much of which I wrote.  I don't recall whether I saw you at any of 
the forums or not, and that's not the point.  But what generally happens is 
that the same half-dozen people attend, the same people write letters to the 
editor, and yet -- everyone else wants it done differently.  That's really 
the nature of public policy and public service, and I'm neither surprised 
nor bitter.  We considered K-8, K-5/6-8/9-12, new construction, remodeling, 
a combination of new AND remodeled, including sports fields and auditoriums 
and not including sports fields and auditoriums, and we did it all as 
publicly as is possible.  We've been slammed for being too into process and 
raked over the coals for being dismissive of process, and yet a committee of 
18 or so people still managed to whittle options down from innumerable to 8, 
then to 3, then to 1.  At no time was the public left out, and a lot of us 
knocked ourselves out trying to come up with creative ways to interest 
people.  The committee meets next on April 10; I hope that you and many 
others will be there to offer your point of view.

And for those of you who have hung in there 'til now, let me confess to a 
rumor going around town -- that Keely has "strong views" on facilities.  
Yes.  That's true.  But here's what they are:

1.  Let's never, ever forget the PCRHS kids or any other student, and let's 
shoot for the best for each one of them.
2.  Let's not ignore or demonize people who have differing ideas, and let's 
seek out those whose voices aren't often heard.
3.  Let's not marginalize or dismiss our administrators and staff who are on 
the front lines every day, and whose expertise ought to be not just 
considered, but sought out and respected.

There they are -- my strong views on facilities.  Notice that there isn't 
one building- or plan-specific idea there.  True, I vigorously supported 
last year's bond, but it wasn't the only thing that could have worked, and I 
have demonstrated a willingness to consider and embrace other ideas as well. 
  But on those three things, I won't budge.

And I don't think you'd really want me to.

keely

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/