Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

Thanks for speaking out

Thank you for your support of my work on the board of education. Privately I have received a lot of support and it is greatly appreciated. Sometimes I become very frustrated.
Unfortunately most people that I have talked to fear retaliation if they speak out. This includes staff in all areas of the school and parents who fear retaliation will be taken out on their children via sports or classes. This is not a healthy situation for our school and community.

There are three school board positions up for re-election this fall. They are: Debbie Carlier, Lori Sanders and Gail Oakes (me). Concerned citizens need to come forward now to be considered for election. If people want to see change on the board, there must be a few good people with good ideas come forward. The school district needs vision for the future. We can't look just a year in advance. We need to know where we want to be in one year, five years and ten years. We are becoming a more diverse school district and I believe we need to look at alternative approaches in teaching the children. Some students are auditory learners, others are visual learners and still others need a hands-on approach. But one approach will not reach all the children. We need to provide parents a choice in the education of their children. Pickerington is small enough to cater to all the children yet large enough to provide different approaches.

Our country is lagging behind other countries in math and science. We need to address this. We need to teach all of our children how to read so they can utilize all the resources available to them. With the acccessibility of the internet to them, we need to allow the students to explore and learn all they can. Some people in education believe that teachers will be facilitators, instead of standing in front of the classroom lecturing, they will allow (facilitate) the children to learn through the internet at their own very rapid pace. Right now the students know more about finding information on the internet than the teachers. Some people believe we are holding the students back because our teachers don't understand the computer and internet.

We also need board members who understand that the school district must watch its expenditures. Our current school board does very little as far as expenditures. Our treasurer feels that the wages are 85% of the budget and there is only 15% that can be watched which would make very little difference in the overall budget. Questions have been raised on the number of administrators we have. Could or should this be changed?

But let me caution anyone who might consider being a school board member. If you are a conscientious person, it will take a lot of your time. You will become frustrated and it may take a toll on your family. There is a lot to learn. You need to be diligent and know when to stand firm and when to compromise. I believe that our country is great because we have citizens who come forward and serve.

--Gail Oakes

Thank You

Ms. Oakes,

First of all, let me say Thank You. I mean that sincerely. Also, my thanks go out to Dr. Rigelman. Despite the quintessential 3-2 votes on everything, you haven't given up. Despite Dr. Yocum's apparent lack of comprehension of facts, you haven't given up. Despite the total lack of the elector's regard and overall lack of fiscal responsibility demonstrated by the majority of the Board, you haven't given up. Despite people, like Mr. Maurer's vehement attacks on your characters in his Pickerington for Kids social club, which by the way, he should have called the ''what's in it for me?'' club, you haven't given up. Despite personal attacks, media attacks, probable board-related health problems, you haven't given up.

When most others would have felt that the price was too high to participate in a mockery such as this Board has become, you ask if there is such a thing as a price too high to pay for our children. Thank you for saying no. Thank you for saying that our children's education and their future has no price that cannot be paid.

Below you will find another one of my probably too wordy letters that I wrote on October 6th. People have asked why I won't send my letters to the media so their words can be spread further. Below is an example. I sent it and they wouldn't publish it. Yes, it was signed and all proper, but I suppose it was too controversial or the media supported Dr. Yocum's puppets more than the truth.

I know it's too late to help defeat this levy but we will repeat the whole campaign in the very near future so the words are not truly wasted. Since we are doomed to repeat ourselves every year or so, the words will apply again.


By Soap Box Hero

School Levy Letter Pt. 1

One of the things I remember most about media coverage of the completion and opening of the current Pickerington high school was the self congratulations of the School Board on the fact that the designers and School Board members had the prophetic foresight to make the school expandable due to the exponential growth we were experiencing in the district at the time and for what was projected. Here's a memory jogger: the exponential growth we are experiencing now we also were experiencing then. Enough land was purchased to accommodate expansion and the building was constructed in a such a way to allow expansion. So why has there been no reference to that throughout this most recent of the endless levy campaigns? Am I the only one that remembers? Because that would worry me. Has the Big Three even considered expanding the junior high and high schools? (Please excuse me but from here on out I will have to refer to the School Board as ''the Big Three'' since there is no impartiality evident and for obvious reasons we have all heard and read about ad nauseum.)

If you survey the voters in the Pickerington School District and ask if they think the schools are overcrowded, I can't imagine there will be a single informed one who would say no. But the question we will be voting on is do we think we need to build new schools to remedy this. I will vote no and encourage others to do so until the Big Three unites with the two apparent taxpayer advocates in the minority of their volatile little assemblage and proves to us they are fiscally responsible with the money they take from us now. Have they explored all options to ease the overcrowding? Have they explored any, or has the architectural and engineering firm and the construction contractor that are preselected, without apparent competition, determined for them that new construction is the only option? Nothing to gain there, right? If they refuse to consider expanding a school that they sold us as expandable should we believe them when they say they won't visit their favorite cash cow again at the earliest available opportunity for more money for something else? If they expand the high school, what do we stand to lose? Some ball fields? What's more important, classrooms or ball fields? There are 2 huge cornfields between the high school and Lockville Road. Plant grass and let the kids play ball there. Dig up the existing ball fields and expand like crazy. Or are sports more important than classrooms? Is the land that the junior high is sitting on contiguous with the land the high school sits on? If so, let's put an educational megalopolis there that will accept the insatiable growth of Pickerington. Maybe that will stimulate the infrastructure growth sorely needed for the 256 and 33 corridors already. Tell Laidlaw to move the buses elsewhere and expand that way. Or let's build a new parking lot for the buses. Certainly we can get an acre or 2 of gravel for less than $77 million. Can we expand the two schools for less that $77 million since we probably already own the land? Has the Big Three asked anyone?


By Soap Box Hero

School Levy Letter Pt. 2

Have you been to Harmon and Diley Middle Schools? There are certainly some questionable design and construction features there. Is anyone questioning them? It's too bad they will have to lose those new ball diamonds in a couple of years to place the portables there. Portables you say? Don't be naive, there will be portables there in three years or so unless we would support a levy to build a third middle school.

Now let's look at who's going to pay for the new schools. Our illustrious Big Three has gambled over $175,000 of our money on a non-refundable deposit on land for the new schools they intend building. I say gambled because if the levy isn't passed, they lose our money. Folks, they don't have a very impressive track record at passing levies on the first try. Since they are electees, shouldn't they have asked or, at the very least, informed the electors that they were placing a $175,000 bet on a single roll of the dice? Would you give your infant $175,000 to parlay on coffee futures in Brazil? Additionally, who provided them the information that the selected site was the best value in the District? The architectural and engineering firm and the construction contractor that are preselected, without apparent competition? Probably. I have spoken to at least two professional contractors who have been in the site preparation business for at least 30 years. They say that the selected location would be a marginal choice at best. There are more desirable locations elsewhere in the District to support new schools and the vehicle traffic, etc. that they generate. Who negotiated the cost per acre of the new land? The architectural and engineering firm and the construction contractor that are preselected, without apparent competition? Probably. Have they considered the ancillary infrastructure improvements that will be necessary to support new schools? Will another levy be required to install traffic lights, turn lanes, drainage improvements, and all else required to support the bus traffic the schools will generate? Will we need to expand the city water and sewer capabilities to support the new schools? Sorry, I am straying from the issue.

Let me rephrase the statement above. Let's look at who is going to pay for the new schools and who is going to use them. Recent articles and letters to the press published show a geographical division in the District. We have the Columbus Pickerington people and the ''real'' Pickerington people. Sort of a native vs. immigrant situation. Get real folks. Because our city fathers didn't have the foresight, excuse me, the experience to keep Columbus out, you want to point fingers at who you want to perceive as immigrants and say anything? Knock it off. 95% of the natives are immigrants, too. Let's not go there. These taxpayers are being asked to dip into their pocket to pay for schools that they can never use. Because of the district lines drawn by our Big Three, these taxpayers' children will attend Tussing, Diley and the existing junior and senior highs. Why would they want to pay for something they can't use? What promises will the Big Three make them to get their votes? Will they say ''Well, if you help us out now, we will cram another levy down everyone's throat as soon as possible to completely renovate your schools to make them as nice as the new ones. Then those other Pickerington people will be made to pay you back''?


By Soap Box Hero