Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

In an earlier posting it was suggested that I read the FRC report posted on this web site, I did and it was eye opening.

Below I have cut and pasted page four which is part of the introduction of the FRC report of 2005. After reading this page, I began to write the rest of the report off as a snow job commonly used in bureaucratic organizations to try and dazzle the public with Bull Crap. I am aware that this committee was made up of some citizens trying their best to serve their community however it appears by this page the School Board and the School Administration used them. C?’mon school board this isn?’t rocket science. For the FRC to cop out in their report and accept everything feed to them without question is unforgivable in my mind. When you set the conditions so narrow up front then the conclusions and findings can almost be predicted. When one third of the commission is School staff then that is not an advisory commission. It is an advocacy commission.

If I could it would take my vote back of May 2nd and vote against this bond issue.

I am disgusted with the performance of the board for accepting this report.

ASSUMPTIONS USED IN PREPARING THIS REPORT

The members of this committee believe that we can provide a critical eye and a fresh look at the facility needs of the Pickerington Local School District. The members have come to the table with a variety of educational and professional backgrounds that bring value to the planning process. We are also viewing our responsibility from differing perspectives driven by student status, geographic location within the district, age and other personal motivations.

The Committee Accepts the Factual Information Provided by the Experts Although we are collectively proud of our backgrounds, we recognize that we do not have the practical experience and may not have the technical expertise of others. To make up for this deficiency, the Facilities Review Committee is relying upon selected expert professionals to provide a knowledge base and a foundation for this report.

We do not question the expertise of the PLSD consultants. The building assessments made by Resource International, Inc. are unchallenged. The student enrollment estimates developed by DeJong Inc. are accepted as a logical possibility of future conditions. Representatives of the architect, Steed/ Hammond/ Paul, have been a loyal source of creative thought and inspiration. When called upon, Turner Construction officials have offered pertinent insight to the construction process.

The Committee Accepts Certain Doctrines Established by the Board of Education The Facilities Review Committee has accepted the educational mission statement of the Pickerington Local School District as a starting point in its deliberations. No attempt was made to alter, reinterpret or change the philosophical goals and objectives of the district.

The committee has assumed that the concept of neighborhood schools is to be employed whenever possible for the elementary education of the district?’s students. The proximity of schools to local neighborhoods reassures our youngest students and makes the facilities readily accessible by parents. Neighborhood schools foster a sense of pride by residents and helps establish student identities.

The FRC has assumed that the educational program will continue without alteration.



By Power Walker

Assumptions

What assumptions should the FRC have started with? A group needs to start on some common ground, otherwise you have chaos.

So let's have it, Power Walker. How would you have instructed the 2005 Facilities Review Commission?

Stop throwing stones. Do something helpful.

All in the Board Resolution

Anonymous; I have sat in on a number of committees and commissions over the years. Those commissions and committees, whether they be an official government or an elected body or a social club all are given a scope of study or an agenda with certain goals to accomplish. The only section of the report that, I see, regarding this is under the heading of The Committee?’s Understanding of its Charge.

They do indicate that the School Board passed a resolution creating the commission and the initial goal was to review the facility requirements to be proposed on the May 2005 ballot issue. Most of that was based on the 1997 Facilities report. In addition they seem to wonder in the future on the five and ten year plan and with no clear agenda or goals to accomplish.

In their final report they talked about this report being useful to the public so if that be true then they must not get into areas that the general public could not understand and written where the general public could digest the material for future reference. However the report was filled with contradictions and it was very hard of me, a person not similar with the schools, to read and understand.


With that said; If I were on the school board and I was wanting to form a commission or committee to do a five or ten year plan then that should have clearly been put forth to the commission at it formation and it should have been written into the commission report to show that they address all of the school board goals and at least discussed each agenda item listed by the school board. Clearly the Commission, by their own admission, seemed to be filled with a lot of talent and I assumed dedicated people and from all areas and demographics groups of the district.

I have an acquaintance that was on the 1997 Facilities Commission and I believe they did do a more in depth report. That is his opinion not mine because I don?’t recall every seeing the report.

One of the issues facing the school board was the issue of trust and some other complaints put forth by Any Mouse. It seems to me that an in depth study of the school district and its future would have been very appropriate goal of this FRC. Many of the people that you talk with in the community have concern about how the board plans for the future and how they spend the funds they currently have.

So my recommendation to the board would be to clearly state in your resolution the goals and the agenda items you plan to address or investigate in forming this commission. I would try to explore all options in the commission that pertain to your agenda. I would not allow school administration (teachers principals or others closely associated with the school front office) to be a voting member of the commission. Clearly the staff and the experts would play a part in the commission?’s work but only with their presentations. I would set the commission up to have one school board member on the commission and the rest would be members of the community. I would point out in the board resolution the points of study and on each point I would ask the chairmen of the commission to indicate the vote of the commission. The commission would take testimony from staff and experts and members of the general public. The Chairman of the Commission would report directly to the School Board President. Clearly trying cover every thing this morning I know I have left some issues out . Let me think on this at work today and maybe tomorrow I can provide more comment.




By Power Wlaker

Well, not really.

Powerwalker,

Your point is well taken except that we were specifically charged with looking only at facilities requirements, nothing else. By the way, I was on the committee. The whole process got really complicated in a big hurry.

Specifically, and this still is not understood by the community, using the projection data, particularly the DeJong reports, is mandated by the state BOE. If you want any kind of state funding, those are the rules. No options. The same goes for class sizes, special needs areas, common area, and to some extent lot and school size. You can ignore them if you like but you have to pay for all by yourself. I'm actually a bit worried a Democrat administration would make these things mandatory and take away our local taxing power to make it happen. The governor would simply say this is what you have to have and these are your new taxes. That's legal by the way, the US Supreme Court has said so. (They could also decide since we are a rich district, we could have a surcharge levied against us to support Canal Winchester or Groveport Madison, think about that nightmare sometime).

A second point is we were tasked with maximizing our eligibility for state construction funding and that can be up to half of what we levy. In our projected $70 million plus program, the state was willing to pick up $35 million of the tab. And contrary to what people think, this funding is not on the budget and exists in a separate account solely for school construction. However, a local district has to follow the rules to qualify and part of that is qualifying within a specified timeline. Think of it this way, if the last bond issue had passed for two new elementary schools, Ohio would have written us a check big enough to build a new middle school.

There's also a lot of confusion about building funds and operating funds. Basically, you can't mingle the two ever. Most of the committee would have liked to include projected ops funding points in our schedule but was seen as making things too complicated and beyond the scope of our charter. By the way, state law prohibits spending money on non school related matters like pollsters or campaign advisors.

The school board has adopted the plan as of last September, see the minutes, but they have the right and authority to change or modify it as needs must. They are concerned about the politics and timing of all this. They are also more than a little gun shy.

Finally, the report must not have been too bad. The State of Ohio rep is now using our report as model for the reports of other districts.




By Any Mouse