The Plot Thickens
Say what?
As you might recall, when I expressed my concerns over the BEX III list, some said we should just get the money and then talk to the Board because after all they have the power to change the list. Or do they?
Hopping over to my favorite city blog in West Seattle, I see that the West Seattle community is a very feisty bunch. Apparently they had a meeting recently for the Westwood Neighborhood Council and Steve Sundquist said the board was trying to get a legal opinion on whether they (the board) have the legal right to cancel/change the Denny/Sealth project. Steve also said, per the Facilities rhetoric, that time is crucial because of ever-rising construction costs. (I did look this up recently and Seattle falls in the middle of the country for school construction costs. Because of the mortgage crisis, construction costs are likely to go down rather than up.)
Interesting. I would think that the Board would, because they vote the projects, the budgets and hire the superintendent, have the power to change or veto a project. Apparently, many of you thought that too as I recall from the myriad of posts.
The "my way or the highway" stance of district staff seems to not work for West Seattle. They feel hoodwinked by the dual nature of the project and the lack of information. I. with all my research, never found that it was going to create a dual school. So who knew that before the bond was voted on? The principals? Facilities? The Board?
As you might recall, when I expressed my concerns over the BEX III list, some said we should just get the money and then talk to the Board because after all they have the power to change the list. Or do they?
Hopping over to my favorite city blog in West Seattle, I see that the West Seattle community is a very feisty bunch. Apparently they had a meeting recently for the Westwood Neighborhood Council and Steve Sundquist said the board was trying to get a legal opinion on whether they (the board) have the legal right to cancel/change the Denny/Sealth project. Steve also said, per the Facilities rhetoric, that time is crucial because of ever-rising construction costs. (I did look this up recently and Seattle falls in the middle of the country for school construction costs. Because of the mortgage crisis, construction costs are likely to go down rather than up.)
Interesting. I would think that the Board would, because they vote the projects, the budgets and hire the superintendent, have the power to change or veto a project. Apparently, many of you thought that too as I recall from the myriad of posts.
The "my way or the highway" stance of district staff seems to not work for West Seattle. They feel hoodwinked by the dual nature of the project and the lack of information. I. with all my research, never found that it was going to create a dual school. So who knew that before the bond was voted on? The principals? Facilities? The Board?
Comments
Here's what I think is the relevant portion (emphasis mine):
If the District shall determine that it has become imprac¬ticable to accomplish any of such improvements or portions thereof by reason of changed conditions or needs, incom¬patible development, costs substantially in excess of those estimated, or acquisition by a superior governmental authority, the District shall not be required to accomplish such improvement and may apply levy proceeds as set forth in this section. If any or all of the improvements have been completed, or their completion duly provided for, or their com¬pletion found to be impractical, the District may apply the levy proceeds or any portion thereof to other portions of the improvements or to other capital purposes of the District, as the District in its discretion shall determine. Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution to the contrary, levy proceeds may only be used to support the construction, modernization or remodeling of school facilities.
Where are the academics in all of this? Where is the leadership in all of this? I hear MG-J was at the Sealth meeting, said nothing, and left early. (It has been her M.O. to arrive tardy and leave early to most meetings at which it's just the plebes- staff and faculty.) Also stunning was that the new COO finally comes on the scene of BEX and does the same short stay and silence gig.
How can we blame facilities? They only take direction from the Board, COO, and Supt. They are given marching orders and are supposed to carry them out. They don't have the power to change things.
Any community outreach or communication on this is about 18 months too late. It doesn't make any sense to outreach or do communication about what is a done deal. Any engagement done now only does more to make the district look like the leadership makes the decision, hands it down to staff to implement, and then hides in the background while things get hot.
Jill's right. The "we're discussing legal" is a total cop out. The district always changes the projects and the language Jill found was pretty clear anyway. How long will it take for "legal" to issue an opinion?
Time for us to get off the staff and facilities folks and ask the leadership to dazzle us with their ability.
I do hope that Steve can make a difference in this situation.
I actually did talk to Peter Maier in January and he never mentioned a co-joined program.
Actually, you should blame Facilities. The only upper level person who likely had anything to do with this was Mark Green. Raj probably didn't, Fred Stephens, the head of Facilities, doesn't even come from a background in overseeing this kind of work (and has said so) and the Board as well doesn't ask very hard questions. For some reason, Facilities gets an expert label that no other department does and most staff take what they say at face value.
I don't care if I'm dazzled by leadership; I'd just like to not have this kind of issue come up over and over again.
It's still a leadership problem, Melissa. It is the district's leadership that is responsible for this large expenditure of public funds. If it's not being managed correctly and Mr. Stephens lacks experience, where is the oversight? Again, Mr. Stephens can only carry out the direction given from those above him. What kind of Board and CEO (Supt) pays so little attention to such an expensive and important endeavor???
Now, the District knows they screwed up because of the lack of community input, and they don't want to look bad after the voters approved the BEX levy.
Denny deserves to have a beautiful, new school...just not on the same campus with Sealth.
They should have the $125 million and Sealth will wait for the next BEX levy.
If you look at the video of the School Board meeting from Dec. 5, you will see that parents, students and staff had very compelling reasons to be upset with this impractical project.
...What kind of Board and CEO (Supt) pays so little attention to such an expensive and important endeavor???
Let me think a micro second.
It would be the SPS again.
This keeps happening repeatedly in so many different areas.
The structure of decision making in this district needs substantial improvement.
I went to both the Denny and Sealth websites to see what information was available to parents. I couldn't find anything at Denny. Sealth had, in their PTSA newsletter in April, some information about the projects. It is very upbeat but you can hear some concern in statements like:
"In many ways, this {planning the layout of the buildings} is more
fun for the Denny people, because they are planning a whole new building, while Sealth is
primarily getting new heating and electrical, which are HUGE needs at Sealth."
"The biggest issue, combining Sealth and Denny onto one campus, is the trickiest to deal with. The Denny staff seem to be all in favor of it, where many of the Sealth
staff see us losing space, including parking, and are unsure what we are gaining to
offset that. The Sealth staff is also concerned about keeping the student populations separated. The timeline for this has also been frustrating for many."
"The principals of Denny and Sealth firmly believe this project will work for all of us and enhance the education of the students of SW Seattle. The question of what facilities might possibly be combined or shared is what the committee tackles next."
And then there's one of Facilities favorite lines which I can see they passed on:
"But, and this is a BIG BUT, because construction costs are skyrocketing, and they are currently increasing 24% per year, Sealth will lose millions of dollars for our project because of the delay. Increasing construction costs are figured into the allotted money, although at the optimistic rate of 1% per month."
Construction costs are not going up 24% a year. Seattle falls right into the middle for school construction costs and we now have a downturn in building overall nationally. I'm not buying that figure. Also, since the Board voted to allow Facilities to lump each project's 15% contingency fee into one pot that they have ready access to and have already (we just passed the bond measure in Feb) been dipping into the overall $20M contingency fund, I suspect projects at the end of the timeline will have very little to work with should problems arise with their projects. Given that Denny/Sealth is a large and complicated project that could happen.