Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

'Man in Glenshire'

Maverick

I wanted to separate my opinion about some of the comments you made from the intent of your posting. Again, I agree with you 100% that everyone should get involved in the boundary decision process. It is your community and your schools.

However, the comments and hearsay made about the insignificant man in Glenshire are inappropriate. It makes no difference if the comment was directed to me or Bob Harding who also lives in Glenshire, no person is insignificant. No one is insignificant! Everyone has worth!

To me personally, the boundary decision only impacts my youngest of three sons, and only for three years. In fact, I kind of like the idea of my youngest attending the same building where he older two brothers earned 4 points and participating on the same track where both excelled.

Maverick, I also think it was inappropriate your reference to the booster groups. We have three outstanding booster organizations at the high school ?– academic, music and athletic. And, I am proud to say that I have in a small way helped the success of the athletic boosters. However, my contributions pale in comparison to people like Jackie Bailey who has devoted nearly 40 hours a week to booster activities after her children had already graduated. I am proud of the fact that the athletic boosters significantly backed Issue 14 to provide more academic and other opportunities for all of our students. Many outside of Pickerington were surprised to learn of the boosters?’ avid support, figuring the boosters would oppose dividing Pickerington?’s athletic talent pool.

I am also pleased of the current strategic planning to incorporate cooperation among boosters groups when the division does occur. I am pleased that our athletic boosters are discussing a model of cooperation like Lakota rather than simply following the separate and rival organizations that exist in Hilliard and Dublin. And, all officials of our boosters know full well the roles of existing officers may change when the boundaries are finalized.

I will be not only a firm advocate of splitting the district equally but also advocating equal facilities. Our current stadium is in desperate need of renovation. It is used by more of the community than the fire station and library combined. I am proud of my role in helping to bring a $1.2 million contribution ?– the largest in the history of PLSD and one of the largest in all of Central Ohio ?– to assist with the renovation efforts. I will be advocating as much of the renovation be done prior to August 2003 to help bring a comparable facility to the musicians, athletes and citizens that regularly use that facility.

Again, I hope everyone attends the meeting this evening at 7 p.m. at the Pickerington Junior to hear the five subgroups?’ recommendations on boundaries. See you all there!

How about this?

Has anyone considered contacting the Administration and Board of the PLSD and demand overall community involvement in the decision of the boundaries? We could make this simple. There are 5 Board members. Divide the PLSD into 4 quadrants and have the residents coordinate their analysis of the 3 proposals presented in an interim report through a Board member representing each of the quadrants. The fifth, hopefully the President or Vice President will serve as a tiebreaker.

Selecting boundaries is more than the parents striving to get their kids into one or the other of the schools are. There are transportation issues and costs, and certainly many other factors weighing on a decision that this committee may not be considering. Only the Board knows the big picture. Could it be that there might be avoidable costs, perhaps in transportation or other issues that would make the desire to have 2 division 1 schools unrealistic at this time?

The Board elected to reexamine the issue of school names because the initial selection was causing division in the community. Numerous officials stated that there was no intent to divide the community by dividing the high school. Isn?’t this boundary decision much bigger than school names? Isn?’t the risk of dividing the community much, much higher by the decision at hand?

Why isn?’t more consideration being given to the senior class most affected by the boundary decision? They are pleading their case in letters to the editors of the local press. Wouldn?’t it help them, as they are an important consideration, to be able to participate through this community involvement plan?

But my most important question is this. Why are we not considering establishing new boundaries for ALL schools? At this critical juncture in the development of Pickerington, we know a new elementary school will be built at the Villages at Sycamore Creek soon. We know that the Villages will effectively fill the school completely. We know that another elementary will be needed to support the growth adjacent to the Villages, for example the rest of the Hill Road area development and the Diley development. We know Diley Middle School will be getting at least 2 portables next year and we know Harmon will be at building capacity next year.

Let?’s make the PLSD lay all the cards on the table. Somewhere they have a plan that shows where the new schools will be needed and most probably when. Let?’s take a look at the whole picture and look to establish boundaries to support the ?“build out?” of Pickerington. Lord knows the City has a build out plan. Let?’s coordinate that with the schools. Let?’s not go through this dog and pony show of boundary committees meeting every couple of years to do the same things with the same people over and over again. Let?’s stop paying those facilitators they hire over and over again $1,000 per hour and cut to the chase. Let?’s make a plan and do it right the first time ---for a change!

Touch?©

In light of the ?“kinder, gentler?” image you now portray, I will acquiesce to your objection. I will be more direct and give you the opportunity to reply. I also warn you that I will terminate interaction with you in these boards should you revert to your pre-resolution form. You've shown yourself to have a Jekyll and Hyde personality and one never knows which you will be from day to day. I've seen you vicious and abusive and will not tolerate that from you. You are now pouring on the syrup very thick and given your past, it makes me suspicious.

Did you, or did you not tell your Civic Association ?“I guarantee our kids will go to the new schools.?”?

Was this or was this not before the third meeting of the boundary committee?

Does the President of an Athletic Boosters organization have to live in the district and geographical boundaries of the particular school in question?

Were you or were you not elected President of the Pickerington Panthers Athletic Booster Club prior to a school boundary decisions being made?

Were you or were you not a participant in the premature presentation of maps with boundary lines drawn on them to the boundary committee? By premature, I mean before the committee had collected all of the requested data.

Do you or do you not understand that if you answered yes to any of the above questions there is the appearance and perception of collusion?

It has been brought out publicly that there was a perception that the school administration, with the input from at least one of the boosters' organizations, had made a decision as to boundaries as soon as the need for a levy was identified and as late as when the property search was narrowed.

I am not and will not refute the value of any of the boosters?’ organizations. I applaud their tireless dedication and significant results. They, however, should register as a PAC. You gave the reasons in your election era postings. They have too much influence in Pickerington to not be registered.


By Maverick

PATA?’s efforts to inform


A previous posting mentions in regard to the Boundary Committee meetings, ?“Maybe PATA webmaster may want to feature this meeting in their pages.?” To this point, for those of you that observe more than discussion postings, a great many PATA members have gone to considerable efforts to assist in keeping this community informed as to these meetings.

Between the holidays, the calendar section of our web site included both of the January scheduled Boundary Committee meetings. Our 5,000 Newsletters include these meetings, as well as many other important community meetings. No other organization in our area went to these lengths of effort in informing our citizens.

Our hats are off to the citizens who have attended (and continue to attend) these important Boundary Committee meetings. The community importance of the decisions made is very far reaching. While some participate in an altruistic manner, others may have different points. Regardless, all have the right to speak their piece and express their concerns.

Some very good points have sprung to light within these discussion page postings and from calls and emails of meeting attendees between many of these meetings. Drawing no conclusions on the boundary issue, the most open process of information input and decision making seems what is best for all. It?’s noteworthy that there is no other forum available to assist these efforts. Additionally, it?’s curious that another poster wants to share ONE of the multiple plans, yet has not offered to share ALL of the plans.

Many of PATA?’s other web site material currently deals with additional community issues. Now that Boundary Committee attendees are cognizant of the incoming load of residential units, this additional material is presented in a manner for those who chose to go beyond the effects and give some attentions to the causes. In the words of another poster, ?“if we don?’t pay attention to our past mistakes we stand a good chance of making the same mistakes.?” To the point, we need more schools because we have more residential units ?– now 5,000+ coming. If you become aware of the vicious circle, you can affect change ?– or ?– continue the circle.

Deals on ?“free?” land that have apartments and condo zoning approval might be a questionable issue? Annexations with contract zoning to place 40 acres of apartments / condos at the back door of these new school sites might be a questionable deal? TIF?’s without alternative choices to promote ?“quality commercial / industrial?” as a broadening tax base might be a questionable deal?

Of course the Co-Chairs of the SVTP are aware of these cause-related matters.

We have provided multiple resources to make you aware of the affects; however, the treadmill must stop and the impacts on the causes are of primary importance.