BTA III Levy Meeting
So it was just me and Chris Jackins (a long-time activist) and Kelly Anthony from Stand for Children (they do seem to attend a lot of meetings - don't see much of CPPS folks) and about 15 staff at the first levy meeting. Peter Maier attended for an hour and then left for the Special Ed PTSA meeting.
Staff gave their rather dry presentation about levy rates, what the money is being spent on, etc. Kathy Johnson did say something quite funny which was that the "Board can change the list right up to the final vote." Do you know what staff would say if that happened? Yeah, when that happens, pigs will fly.
Then they invited questions and comments. Between Chris and I, we asked about 30 questions. Interestingly, they seemed to have answers for my questions (which leads me to believe a few staff are reading this blog - hey kids!) and didn't have as clear answers for Chris'. Kelly asked just a few questions and made a request that the presentation be friendlier.
Here's what I can tell you about where the BTA III levy is going so far. Let me just say that I found many answers have to be either untruthful or implausible; they just don't make sense.
What they said:
Staff gave a very different presentation to the Board. I pointed this out and they seemed puzzled but they knew it was true. There is virtually no mention of the maintenance backlog in the handouts and it was lightly brushed over in the presentation. Kathy Johnson said they were "managing" the backlog across the levies and general fund. If you didn't know better, you might think they had it under control. They don't.
What I said:
Why is the presentation different? Why is there no mention of the almost half-billion dollars in backlogged maintenance that this levy is not even really going to make a dent into? Their answer to the first was to basically shrug but Fred Stephen, head of Facilities, said yes, we do have a huge backlog. (Fred actually seems glad that I am pressing this issue of backlogged maintenance which leads me to believe that pressure on the Board might help.)
What they said:
In the handout they mentioned 4 levels of support from the levy they could ask for: $210M, $240M, $270M and $300M but they only handed out sheets for the $240M and $270M. Turns out that seems to be what the majority of the Board is leaning towards.
What I said:
Great, so why don't you just say that? It's confusing to read there are 4 and only get sheets detailing 2 of them.
So what else did I ask?
Question:
Won't the reopened buildings have to be the first projects in line if the BTA III passes? Meaning, doesn't the district need to get them online as soon as possible to solve the north end capacity problem?
Answer:
We have to wait until the SAP is rolled out and see.
Question:
Wait a minute. The district knows it has enrollment problems in the north end, is allotting money towards it in the BTA levy to reopen closed schools but nothing is going to be done until the SAP rolls out?
Answer:
Yes, we have to wait and see.
Oh, north end, it looks like y'all have to squeeze together for a couple of years because it seems the district isn't going to do anything (not even apply for the all-important city permits they need?) until the new SAP rolls out.
Question:
What happens if a project is on this list and then that school appears on BEX IV for a remodel/renovation?
Answer:
The money stays with the school because it is likely a project that will coalise with the BEX project.
Which led me to this question:
How do you explain putting in tennis courts/softball field at Denny under BTA II and library work at Sealth under BTA II only to tear it out once you decided Denny and Sealth would co-join?
Answer:
Oh, we didn't do a "premium" job on those items at Denny because we knew we were doing the BEX project. And, that they didn't think much of the work done at Sealth under BTA II had been taken out.
This was probably the most bullshit answer in the bunch. When I asked about documentation, I was told to file a public disclosure request for the documents which they claim will prove that they wanted to co-join Denny and Sealth more than 6 years ago. This I have to see (and yes, I already asked for it). I don't believe that there was a plan more than 6 years ago to co-join them.
Question:
Did you ask the community/parents in and around Cleveland if they thought a STEM program there would bring students back?
Answer: (from Michael Tolley, high school director)
No. Cleveland had already started down the road with the academies anyway and parents indicated they wanted a focus at both RBHS and Cleveland. (I didn't ask but the academies really didn't work out.) Then I asked, "Given you have already built a new building at Cleveland, poured more money in via SE Initiative and now are allotted - in two separate line items in the BTA - over $2.7M, when will it end? How can you justify this continued support when so many other schools have terrible backlogged maintenance?" Stone-cold silence.
Look, I don't want to give up on Cleveland. I think that the decision to make Cleveland a STEM school and then deciding to make it an option school, may seal its fate (that and a not good reputation). Kids who do not want to go to Cleveland (for any and all reasons) will then be funneled to RBHS or Sealth. (I'm just saying those schools because they are in the south end but if students get Open Choice seats, they could go anywhere.) How will STEM succeed where the academies didn't? (Interestingly, one translator - there were 6 - shook my hand and said thank you for asking the questions. He said he just took his kids to school and hoped it was alright. He asked me why they would put more money into Cleveland if it was a state-of-the-art building and I told him that was a mystery to me as well but that's what they want to do.)
Question:
How come the numbers of schools named per line item doesn't match what is written as the number of schools in the handouts? (There were several errors at the Board presentation, two of which got fixed but I'll be darned if there weren't two more.)
Answer:
"We'll take that count under advicement." They can do whatever they want but a 1st grader can count a list and get the right number (this is a list of 15 schools or less). Kathy Johnson seemed to shrug this off but I pointed out if they can't get a simple count done on a presentation, what does that say about the management of the program?
Chris asked several questions about money coming in because of defaulted mortgages, losses on investments, etc. He also got them to state that the Meng report in 2002 was commissioned by OSPI and not the district (even though the district has used Meng before). So this firm, Meng, did facilities sweeps at least 3 times (maybe 4) in the last 7 years and yet, the new management guy says no one took notes (or was directed to) on internals like boilers, noting their age, make, condition. So he says we need ANOTHER facilities analysis. Great, that's money we have.
Chris also asked about the athletic fields. Now here is one place (and it may be the only place) where basic maintenance is automatic. Kathy said they automatically replaced the tracks and fields because they wear out after 10 years. Not that they have but that's what they say will happen and they HAVE to replace them. I didn't get to ask what other systems are on automatic replacement.
Also, there was going to be a 2% law ( 2% from a district's General Fund for basic maintenance) from OSPI but it failed. I'll have to look into this because if the Board won't do this on their own, maybe the state can make them.
I can't go to Thursday's meeting (although I would love to go and ask my Denny/Sealth question there) so if you go, let us know how that one goes.
Staff gave their rather dry presentation about levy rates, what the money is being spent on, etc. Kathy Johnson did say something quite funny which was that the "Board can change the list right up to the final vote." Do you know what staff would say if that happened? Yeah, when that happens, pigs will fly.
Then they invited questions and comments. Between Chris and I, we asked about 30 questions. Interestingly, they seemed to have answers for my questions (which leads me to believe a few staff are reading this blog - hey kids!) and didn't have as clear answers for Chris'. Kelly asked just a few questions and made a request that the presentation be friendlier.
Here's what I can tell you about where the BTA III levy is going so far. Let me just say that I found many answers have to be either untruthful or implausible; they just don't make sense.
What they said:
Staff gave a very different presentation to the Board. I pointed this out and they seemed puzzled but they knew it was true. There is virtually no mention of the maintenance backlog in the handouts and it was lightly brushed over in the presentation. Kathy Johnson said they were "managing" the backlog across the levies and general fund. If you didn't know better, you might think they had it under control. They don't.
What I said:
Why is the presentation different? Why is there no mention of the almost half-billion dollars in backlogged maintenance that this levy is not even really going to make a dent into? Their answer to the first was to basically shrug but Fred Stephen, head of Facilities, said yes, we do have a huge backlog. (Fred actually seems glad that I am pressing this issue of backlogged maintenance which leads me to believe that pressure on the Board might help.)
What they said:
In the handout they mentioned 4 levels of support from the levy they could ask for: $210M, $240M, $270M and $300M but they only handed out sheets for the $240M and $270M. Turns out that seems to be what the majority of the Board is leaning towards.
What I said:
Great, so why don't you just say that? It's confusing to read there are 4 and only get sheets detailing 2 of them.
So what else did I ask?
Question:
Won't the reopened buildings have to be the first projects in line if the BTA III passes? Meaning, doesn't the district need to get them online as soon as possible to solve the north end capacity problem?
Answer:
We have to wait until the SAP is rolled out and see.
Question:
Wait a minute. The district knows it has enrollment problems in the north end, is allotting money towards it in the BTA levy to reopen closed schools but nothing is going to be done until the SAP rolls out?
Answer:
Yes, we have to wait and see.
Oh, north end, it looks like y'all have to squeeze together for a couple of years because it seems the district isn't going to do anything (not even apply for the all-important city permits they need?) until the new SAP rolls out.
Question:
What happens if a project is on this list and then that school appears on BEX IV for a remodel/renovation?
Answer:
The money stays with the school because it is likely a project that will coalise with the BEX project.
Which led me to this question:
How do you explain putting in tennis courts/softball field at Denny under BTA II and library work at Sealth under BTA II only to tear it out once you decided Denny and Sealth would co-join?
Answer:
Oh, we didn't do a "premium" job on those items at Denny because we knew we were doing the BEX project. And, that they didn't think much of the work done at Sealth under BTA II had been taken out.
This was probably the most bullshit answer in the bunch. When I asked about documentation, I was told to file a public disclosure request for the documents which they claim will prove that they wanted to co-join Denny and Sealth more than 6 years ago. This I have to see (and yes, I already asked for it). I don't believe that there was a plan more than 6 years ago to co-join them.
Question:
Did you ask the community/parents in and around Cleveland if they thought a STEM program there would bring students back?
Answer: (from Michael Tolley, high school director)
No. Cleveland had already started down the road with the academies anyway and parents indicated they wanted a focus at both RBHS and Cleveland. (I didn't ask but the academies really didn't work out.) Then I asked, "Given you have already built a new building at Cleveland, poured more money in via SE Initiative and now are allotted - in two separate line items in the BTA - over $2.7M, when will it end? How can you justify this continued support when so many other schools have terrible backlogged maintenance?" Stone-cold silence.
Look, I don't want to give up on Cleveland. I think that the decision to make Cleveland a STEM school and then deciding to make it an option school, may seal its fate (that and a not good reputation). Kids who do not want to go to Cleveland (for any and all reasons) will then be funneled to RBHS or Sealth. (I'm just saying those schools because they are in the south end but if students get Open Choice seats, they could go anywhere.) How will STEM succeed where the academies didn't? (Interestingly, one translator - there were 6 - shook my hand and said thank you for asking the questions. He said he just took his kids to school and hoped it was alright. He asked me why they would put more money into Cleveland if it was a state-of-the-art building and I told him that was a mystery to me as well but that's what they want to do.)
Question:
How come the numbers of schools named per line item doesn't match what is written as the number of schools in the handouts? (There were several errors at the Board presentation, two of which got fixed but I'll be darned if there weren't two more.)
Answer:
"We'll take that count under advicement." They can do whatever they want but a 1st grader can count a list and get the right number (this is a list of 15 schools or less). Kathy Johnson seemed to shrug this off but I pointed out if they can't get a simple count done on a presentation, what does that say about the management of the program?
Chris asked several questions about money coming in because of defaulted mortgages, losses on investments, etc. He also got them to state that the Meng report in 2002 was commissioned by OSPI and not the district (even though the district has used Meng before). So this firm, Meng, did facilities sweeps at least 3 times (maybe 4) in the last 7 years and yet, the new management guy says no one took notes (or was directed to) on internals like boilers, noting their age, make, condition. So he says we need ANOTHER facilities analysis. Great, that's money we have.
Chris also asked about the athletic fields. Now here is one place (and it may be the only place) where basic maintenance is automatic. Kathy said they automatically replaced the tracks and fields because they wear out after 10 years. Not that they have but that's what they say will happen and they HAVE to replace them. I didn't get to ask what other systems are on automatic replacement.
Also, there was going to be a 2% law ( 2% from a district's General Fund for basic maintenance) from OSPI but it failed. I'll have to look into this because if the Board won't do this on their own, maybe the state can make them.
I can't go to Thursday's meeting (although I would love to go and ask my Denny/Sealth question there) so if you go, let us know how that one goes.
Comments
Ah, the South End, always the South End. This Board wastes millions on dead-end initiatives that all start with a big flashy bangs, then fizzle and dwindle as the cash burns. The parents and kids down South want what they perceive the kids in the Central and North End have, and it ain't gonna stop being a problem until they get it.
But it's the HOW the district keeps getting wrong, because the district, and especially this Board, keep throwing expensive bones around the South End, instead of addressing the deeper social and institutional problems that come with lower incomes, higher crime rates, more immigrants, etc., etc. The schools need to serve the population that walks through the door, and not try to turn every South End kid into a cookie-cutter replica of a college bound jock from Roosevelt who comes from an affluent family.
This Board won't open schools in the North End because they fear South End parents will cry racism, etc., because the North has historically gotten better treatment. That produces nothing but reactionary policies cooked up in the insular think tank of JSE as the next magic bullet for the South End.
How about actually talking with parents in the South End. Call them on the phone if they can't make PTA meetings. But stop patronizing them and/or taking them for granted because they supposedly "don't show up" or "don't vote." The communities in the South End need people who care about them and are willing to do the hard work to get and keep the schools strong and safe. The "if you build it, they will come" magnet-carrot approach simply has not worked, yet Board after Board keeps trying it.
And the kids aren't all drifting North, either. Many drift South, to Renton and Kent.
Outreach and recruiting, along with genuine care, concern, and commitment, will go farther than umpteen millions spent on flashy new magnet-carrot initiatives. The Board needs to get this message.
The issue is that the district has not been - for decades as I now realize - keeping up with basic maintenance. You can go back to the PT or TImes archives and find superintendent after superintendent, Board member after Board member, lamenting the backlog.
And now we are at nearly half a billion dollars.
So much of that "basic" maintenance has now grown into "major" maintenance which is part of what BTA handles. So really, we are paying more now for repairs put off in the past. So the new projects are not "new" in the sense of remodeling but just plain old repairs.
But what adds insult to injury is that instead of being able to throw big sums of money at the backlog via BTA, some BTA is going to repair CLOSED buildings that we now have to reopen. BTA is going to try to prop up a failing high school - Cleveland - a road we went down with AAA.
I sense, really, that staff is frustrated. That many of them really want someone to take the reins and get this thing in check. As I said previously, the new maintenance manager is a smart guy who I believe can get is done. But it takes money.
The Board will have to tell the Superintendent that we HAVE to redirect more money to basic maintenance or we will never get out from under this.
Where does that political courage come from for Board members? It comes from us putting political pressure on them.
I'm really confused. I was under the impression that the SAP (at least in the North End, Queen Anne Magnolia, etc..)couldn't really be "rolled out" until more buildings were opened? I don't see how it is possible to quarantee a seat at the "neighborhood" elementary or comprehensive middle school in the regions suffering from overcrowding, without opening new buildings.
I keep hearing over and over from Board members that "portables aren't a solution," but it sure sounds like we are headed in that direction.
I was also under the impression that whatever buildings that are slated to be re-opened would be incorporated into the SAP boundaries which are to be revealed in Oct and approved in Nov?
Wouldn't it make sense to have a pre-determined time table/prioritization of what buildings need to be opened when, in order to address current capacity and inticipated capacity needs, and incorporate this into the design and implementation of the SAP? I thought this was part of the Capacity Management "evaluation" that was begun this summer?
Are they planning to do the opposite, which would be to roll out the assignment plan and wait until maybe the Oct 1 2010 numbers come in to see where they need more capacity (as if it isn't obvious NOW), then start the permit process and construction to get the buildings up to code? Wow! They will be a good 3-5 years behind in any meaningful capacity management!
I certainly hope that is not what they have planned.
If there are buildings that need to be opened in order to make the SAP work, then they need to file for the necessary permits as soon as possible! The day after the SAP boundary plan vote would be the perfect time to file the necessary permits!
Are they honestly talking about waiting until sometime in 2010 or later to even file for the permits necesary to begin construction? Unbelievable!
Thanks for the heads up on this, and perhaps the remaining BTA III meetings will be better attended:
Sept 24, 6:30-8PM, Madison MS
Sept 28, 6:30-8 PM, Eckstein MS
Here's the likely reason; they don't want to give this levy a reason to fail. If you say, outloud, "we are terrifically backlogged, we have to reopen closed buildings AND do it before we tackle some of the backlog", well, how does that sound to voters?
And you just told everyone you HAD to close schools?
So they will say they aren't doing anything until the SAP rolls out or first numbers but I think they are quietly applying for the permits and going through the buildings, etc.
I think it would be far better to be truthful. The decision to not spend on basic maintenance was made long ago (and yes, could have been changed anywhere along the way but wasn't). You can't change that.
What the Board could do is ask the Superintendent to tell staff that they need to come up with an honest appraisal of our situation. Blame on past superintendents and Boards; I don't care. Just tell the truth, even if it will be hard to do.
I think if the district, with a huge push from the Board, told voters, here's where we are but we have a plan to stem this tide. We ARE going to commit more funds to basic maintenance because a classroom needs to be safe and solid just as much as it needs good teaching. We are going to have better accountability for the capital dollars.
Voters like honesty. As we found out from the BEX vote where people learned, after the fact about Denny/Sealth, voters don't like to feel they were sold a bill of goods.
I have a few things in the works and I'm hoping that this push for honesty will negate needing a petition. It's still early enough to go for the carrot rather than the stick and if we can make that happen, all the better.
The thing that amazes me even more than your incredible commitment, Melissa, is that you still seem to cling to a little bit of hope. In the face of evidence to the contrary, and history, you still believe that there's honesty and logic to be found in this system.
That's exactly how I felt last year when they first proposed closing, then splitting, APP. The facts there were presenting just didn't add up; everything they were saying about capacity and accessibility didn't ring true. And, even though all the discussions had a certain air of inevitability, when the numbers started coming out, especially when Meg Diaz presented her report, I just knew that smarter heads would prevail and that all the ridiculous changes would be postponed until AFTER the new assignment plan.
I was stunned at the time and I remain stunned.
Nothing that's been done over the past year has given me reason to believe that they won't, to quote myself and many others at this point, shoot first and aim later again this time.
If they have specifics in the plan, someone will try to hold them to specifics. If they give confused, conflicting reasons and numbers, and lots of charts, they honestly believe they'll get what they want . . . there's no reason they shouldn't believe that. It doesn't help them to answer your questions directly or clearly.
I will never put my faith or trust in this Superintendent or this Board. I mean, fool me once shame on you; fool me a hundred times and throw in some lies . . . .
I will, however, put some faith in the voters. I have to believe that NO levy will pass as long as there aren't specifics about where this money is going, where previous money has gone, and what this administration's going to do to catch up with maintenance.
stu
Early enough - with SAP due out soon, and this bundled package on hours and D grade averages and levies and construction over-runs and buildings having to be re-opened???
I have to agree with Stu, Melissa... how come you are still optimistic, after all the overwhelming evidence of incompetence, refusal to take advice, refusal to use valid data, cherry picking data to support flawed perspectives and plans, lack of public engagement, lack of respect for constituents, shilly-shallying, dithering, dilly-dallying, outright lying, the left hand apparently not knowing what the right hand is doing, the lack of transparency, the covert agendas, etc, etc?
I think the time for the carrot approach passed quite some time ago in this District, with both this Board and Superintendent... they have shown they cant be trusted...
I have a similar attitude to Stu: mess me around once and I'll put it down to it being a misunderstanding - perhaps its my mistake, I was confused and I didnt get the point of something we discussed; mess me around twice and that might be an accident/coincidence, I'll still give you the benefit of the doubt... mess me around the third time and you're out... cant trust you, cant take anything you say/do at face value and I have to factor that in when I deal with you...
That's how it is with the District now, in my opinion... and we are foolish (and deserve all we give/they dish out) if we keep coming back for more....
Melissa, I am glad for people like yourself who pay attention and read all of the plans that are out there. I tried to read the docs on the Levy pages of the District's website and nearly fell asleep. How do you do it! One thing did jump out at me. JSCEE (District headquarters) already has a backlog. It has only been District headquarters since 2003. sigh
I do have a few ideas in advance of any public statements about the levy. (Yes, this is public but I mean sending out press releases, etc.)