<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2180" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Georgia"
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
face=Georgia color=#000000 size=3>
<DIV>The following email was forwarded to me by Keely Mix. She is having
some computer issues this morning, and asked that I forward this to Vision 2020
for her. I appreciate the opportunity to facilitate her request.
Rose Huskey</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Good morning, Visionaries,<BR><BR>It's Election Day and I'm sure many of
you have already voted. If you <BR>haven't, though, here are some things
to consider:<BR><BR>1. The current high school, built in 1938, was
approved by voters during <BR>the Depression. They knew it would be a
sacrifice, but they did it because <BR>the need was great and the time was
right. Surely we can do no less.<BR><BR>2. There is no Plan B.
Over the course of two years, innumerable meetings <BR>(every one of them
public), from 39 different scenarios to eight plans to <BR>three tracks to one
bond issue, this is the plan that makes sense. There <BR>isn't a default
position, not because we on the FPC are stubborn, but <BR>because the
interdependence of each project requires that they be taken as a
<BR>whole. This is that whole; it can't be chopped up.<BR><BR>3.
Some might have you believe that we can go back and re-run this in the <BR>fall
with improvements only to WP and Russell and new science labs for the
<BR>current HS. Don't buy it. The remodel plans are for K-5, not the K-6
that <BR>we have to continue without a four-year high school. K-6
throughout the <BR>elementary schools does nothing to reduce the overcrowding at
Lena and <BR>McDonald, and the price for adding a whole other grade level to WP
and <BR>Russell will inflate beyond the $4.6 and $4 million estimates,
respectively.<BR><BR>4. Wouldn't it be great if we could solve the HS
problem by just spiffing <BR>up the science labs in the current building?
Except that that doesn't solve <BR>parking, inadequate core spaces, outdated
classrooms, lack of expansion <BR>possibilities, athletic and PE facilities,
voc-tech space, etc., nor does it <BR>incorporate our ninth-graders into the
high school. They'll continue to be <BR>sorta-high schoolers with the
academic expectations of a four-year <BR>transcript.<BR><BR>5. The idea
that MSD could use the 1912 Building for science instruction is <BR>not feasible
-- we don't own it, and our rent, plus improvements to the <BR>space if we were
tasked with funding them, would come out of the operating <BR>budget.
Remember, you can't "bond" that sort of thing, and I would be <BR>hard-pressed
to argue with a straight face that that's the best way to spend <BR>taxpayer
money, even if it were a good idea in other respects. It
isn't.<BR><BR>6. Despite reassurance from the architect, site engineers
and city that a <BR>school built on the Trail property won't flood, opponents
continue to <BR>suggest otherwise. I'm not sure what a degree in
veterinary medicine <BR>consists of, but I prefer to get my floodplain
information from those whose <BR>professional degrees require intensive training
in site development.<BR><BR>7. The new high school would be a facility
appropriate to the 21-st century <BR>world of education. It can't be a
"cram-'em-in-like-sardines" cubbyhole, a <BR>sprawling megaplex, a prison
complex, or a Wal-Mart-like, California-style <BR>high school all at the same
time, can it? Reasonable people can disagree <BR>with the plan, but
reasonable people don't just hurl invective in the hope <BR>that something
sticks.<BR><BR>8. The $29 million plan had significant trimming before it
was presented. <BR>The architects are reducing their fees, the number of
parking spaces has <BR>been cut down, the athletic facilities and auditoriums
that many would <BR>expect in a new HS have been postponed, the HVAC and
engineering systems <BR>have been estimated based on solid, reliable, but not
extravagant equipment, <BR>and the site can be purchased at a buy-10-get-40
price -- that's 10 acres AT <BR>MARKET VALUE with the cost rebated back to the
district for the necessary <BR>fencing. By any measure, this is a lean,
efficient bond, a bargain that <BR>scores of districts throughout the state wish
they had the opportunity to <BR>consider.<BR><BR>9. PCRHS, the alternative
high school, needs and deserves a permanent, <BR>district-owned home. It
would have one in the current HS building already <BR>in the district's
inventory. Would anyone seriously prefer that MSD buy or <BR>rent a
facility indefinitely for a vital part of our educational <BR>programming?
Don't these kids deserve the permanency of facility that other <BR>students
get?<BR><BR>10. Finally, the manner in which the opposition has argued has
been, for <BR>the most part, despicable. I need not elaborate further, and
I defy anyone <BR>to suggest that the moral high ground in this debate has been
claimed by the <BR>anti-bond forces. Good people can disagree on this --
I've been clear on <BR>that -- but character is revealed by how they do
so. I'm proud of my <BR>involvement in this forum, this campaign, this
process, and this debate. If <BR>an argument is articulated PRIMARILY
through name-calling, invective, lies, <BR>hysteria, disinformation, willful
ignorance and Hitlerian comparisons and <BR>accusations of anti-religious
bigotry, then perhaps there is a paucity of <BR>legitimate argument to be
had. To those of you voting against the bond and <BR>doing so respectfully
and in an informed manner, publicly or privately, you <BR>have my sincere
respect, and I'm sorry you've been co-opted by those less <BR>able to behave in
a civically responsible manner.<BR><BR>With thanks, determination, and hope for
our community,<BR><BR>keely emerine mix<BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT lang=0 face=Arial color=#000000 size=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF"
PTSIZE="10"><BR></FONT> </DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>