Two posters on the Oaklawn thread have asked that I start threads on two different topics. The first asks when I will have a new post on the 4-3 vote on the facilities plan. The answer, maybe after the election, maybe never. I must say I am frustrated at the end result of almost 2 years (some would argue 10 years) of discussions but if the board majority changes, this won't be the plan anyway (and there probably won't be a "plan" for another 2 years). So I'm leaving that alone until we know just who is on the board.
The other poster asked for a thread about the School board election, and as you can see from the Title of this thread, I will post on that one.
As the title of this thread implies, The Northwestern's Endorsement captures my feelings exactly.
Schneider is quick to point his finger at the board majority for allowing our buildings to fall into "disrepair". However, he served as Chair of the Facilities and Finance Committee for a number of years and not once did he show any leadership in getting our buildings repaired. He served 6 years on the board and how many resolutions did he bring forth to "fix" our facilities? None... It is so easy to point the finger and vote "no" repeatedly but where was the leadership from the chair pointing out the need to fix our buildings? Instead he preferred to "grandstand" and give taxpayers an approximate $15 tax savings, rather than using the money to fix our buildings. As the Northwestern asked "what does he stand for"?
McDermott in an effort to compromise brought forward a plan he could support... where was Schneider's plan? If he were to be in the majority, who can tell me what his plan will look like? I doubt anyone can since he has never said what he would or would not support. He talks a lot about wants and needs but your need may be my want and vice versa. I especially liked the Northwesterns line: "But ask Schneider how to move forward or what specific things should be tackled, and he invariably withers,". That doesn't sound like leadership to me. Over and over I have heard him say "I defer to the experts" yet he never does. To defer means "to yield respectfully in judgment or opinion" that is not what Schneider does... he invariably votes "no" on those things he "defers to experts". What it seems to me is he just doesn't want to be bothered with thinking about an answer.
As far as Monte, the Northwestern is right in stating that she would be a divisive factor on the board.
Her stand on things seems to waffle as well... her opening statement at every forum talks about "if we meet the needs of our most challenged students, we will meet the needs of all of our students." I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. So, why does she feel the need to post this "I don't think Special Needs is the number one priority, though certainly in the top ten."
Then here are just some of her "thoughts" on a "Plan":
March 17 (Oshkonversation) -- The plan I had been working on would cost about $30 million to include the deferred maintenance, a renovated or replacement Oaklawn, and a few other things we have put off too long like permanent homes for some of our special needs programs. (How is this so different from McDermott's plan?)
Yet of McDermott's plan she said on March 21st on her blog: "However, there is far more to the plan I do not like. My personal views aside, no one I have spoken to or who has contacted me would be willing to support this plan. I believe that if there is little to no community support, we are barking up the wrong tree." And "While the amendment may have been well intentioned, I have to consider the timing. At any point in the last two years, McDermott or anyone else on the BOE or in the administration could have turned the focus on Oaklawn. Like other schools, it was the three-headed step-child and had to close." Yet 4 days earlier a replacement Oaklawn was part of HER plan...
On March 14 (Oshkonversation) in response to a question from "tireless" about "Where did this "new Northside School' come from?"
Monte responds: "Tireless, If I remember discussions surrounding the idea of a new school on the northside, the architect on the attendance area team wasn't involved. I don't think there were even the six teams yet (teams were formed sometime in 2007) when that was brought into the equation. I know there were comments about making sure the amount of construction on both sides of town was balanced to be more fair. My understanding is that the new school is to replace Oaklawn in a more favorable location."
Then on her blog on March 21st she writes "When there is community opposition to building a new northside school, suddenly (my emphasis) the new school is a replacement for Oaklawn." Well was it before the six teams were formed (at least 6 months ago, probably closer to a year) or was it suddenly?
March 24 --- (Oshkonveration) UWBlade, the best I can do with the information I have is $30 million. That number includes the FCAP, estimating it to be $15 million. The remainder of the money would go to ADA requirements; conservative renovations to add Special Ed rooms; Fixed equipment needs, electrical, plumbing, and HVAC upgrades; and permits and fees identified in the architectual reports. I would look at closing Lincoln and Lakeside to start and converting Green Meadow to a larger school for the Lakeside and Green Meadow areas. (oops, what about a renovated or replacement Oaklawn?)
Feb 1st (Oshkonversation): "I would look at South Park or Tipler for closing... moving other programs like East High and the Rec Dept into one of the buildings...I would also close Lincoln and sell the property to UWO if possible. ...I would recommend selling the Ryf Rd property and do one of two things with Oaklawn. Either way the funds from Ryf Rd would offset some of the referendum (emphasis mine). Oaklawn is two buildings in one. There is a newer section that is in some need of maintenance but by no means dead on its foundation. The other section is a temp section that is well past its life expectancy and was promised to be replaced. There was never the money to do it. Tear down the temp section and build a two story addition to accomodate more northside students. The other option is to sell Oaklawn's property so the city could rezone it as commercial considering the area we are talking about. Then take a look at some of the vacant properties around Vinland. Rebuild Oakwood there to get it away form the other schools, we already have enough on the east side on top of each other. As the north side develops, there would be a new elementary school to cover the neighborhoods while still being within a reasonable distance to everything else. The new Oaklawn being closer to North could open up some mentoring opportunities for the high school students. ...I already gave my opinion of Lakeside closing and adding to Green Meadow. Town of Black Wolf already put in an offer for Right of First Refusal which is further why Lakside closing makes more sense. ...Looking at the proximity of Washington, Webster Stanley, and E. Cook, I would consider possibly closing Washington or reducing the size of Webster Stanley. ...I think we can accomplish most, if not all, of our goals for less than $30 million, deferred maintenance being our first priority." If you close Washington, would you not have to build classrooms somewhere to accomodate them? The north side really doesn't have excess seats. What is the cost of that?
Also on Feb. 1st Oshkonversation: "Libra, One of the problems Oshkosh is facing is a growing population that is crowding/has crowded Oakwood and Traeger. The new plans do not really solve for this as there is little/no room for future growth.
We could turn Oakwood into a small K-8 (smaller than Traeger) and shift the boundary for Traeger north and then expand Green Meadow to absorb most of Lakeside and feed Green Meadow into Traeger." How does that fit into the $30M? Would the "Oakwood K-8 just not have Science Labs, Industrial Tech Lab, Orchestra and Band rooms?
On Jan. 14th on Oshkonversation "Where I disagree is that there is also the factor of mitigating the debt by selling the properties to be closed or reducing staff when numbers of buildings are reduced. ...
Take a look at the real estate market. We cannot count on the revenue of the sales because there is no way to ensure what will sell or for how much." See Feb. 1st post above...
After reading all this, I don't know what exactly Monte's plan would look like or if the $30M figure is accurate. Just like I don't think anyone really knows what Monte will support or not support, should she be elected.
To sum up, the Northwestern is correct in stating that McDermott is the only "leader" running for the school board.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
Mrs. Thiel,
Thank you for posting these examples of Mrs. Monte's waffling. I guess I hadn't really seen so much of it before. But when it's pointed out like this it is alarming to think that I might have voted for her. And I agree completely with the ONW's assessment of Ben Schneider the Second. He has shown no leadership whatsoever except to the naysayers and the doom and gloom crew. He's a panderer and he only responds to those in the community he chooses. If you don't do what is necessary to have his ear, you won't get a response. That's not my idea of a decent elected official, much less a leader.
Let's give the votes where they are most deserved. McDermott for sure and I still think Lemberger is a much better choice than the others.
Mrs Thiel,
I only have a question for you.
With as much as this plan has changed in the last couple of months, are you saying that your ideas have not shifted one bit since this process started?
If that is true, that means you still support the split high school concept AND the K-3 4-8 even though those are both off of the table.
It can hardly be called waffling if a candidate is trying to keep up with the administrations continued change.
BTW, the new northside school was NEVER a priority until McDermotts "plan". It was always there. If you wouldn't cherry pick statements, it becomes clearer as you read her post.
And also, McDermotts "plan" is still $70+ million! He just broke it up into pieces to make it look smaller. You and the ONW have that part wrong.
I could pick apart a few things that are wrong with what 6:33 AM said, but what's the point? They would just refute it and say we misunderstood probably or were putting words in their mouth. So let's just look at the most obvious and that is their very last comment where they referenced a dollar amount for a referendum project, then say the ONW got that part wrong about McDermott. Oops, 'fraid not, 6:33. go back and read the ONW's editorial. You'll see not one mention of a dollar amount at all. Not a single reference to it. Just goes to show how you Monte supporters can't get it right. Just like your candidate.
I guess leadership is so strong that we now take an 11th hour proposal from a member of the BOE?
We should also blame those in the minority that didn't create the problems for the problems. Who has been the Board President(s) for the past 10 years?
The Board is divisive because of whom? Watch last Board meeting!
I always thought if you offer proposals you were a micro manager. Now, it is expected. I guess with such poor board and super. leadership, contridictory positions are acceptable by those without a conscience.
The comments from 9:06 have to be some of the most desperate sounding remarks we've seen in some time.
As for the proposal, a propposal is better than no proposal -- or just voting no on a proposal too, for that matter. Also, McDermott's proposal was not really much different from that which had been proposed earlier, so don't make it sound like this was something hatched in the 11th hour.
As for leadership, you can blame board presidents all you want but that dog doesn't hunt on any day. Board presidents are but one vote. Look at the collective votes for answers as to why things did or didn't pass. At least past board presidents have offered suggestions. Unlike Benjamin Schneider.
BS has headed up the facilities and finance committee but never once offered any suggestions about anything. All this man is good for is voting no on other people's ideas, pandering, and putting down those people he doesn't like. That's not someone I want representing me.
Um, for at least one (maybe 2) of those 10 years McHugh was president...
Sad how intolerant people are with a board member and candidate (top vote getter) that don't agree with the majority. I predict MM will be top vote getter with TM or BS being two. Referendum will fail in fall or whenever it is and the intolerant people will find someone to blame.
Oh but said candidate and board member are oh so tolerant of the majority PLEASE... I hope the community has enough sense to vote for the only candidate who is both reasonable and willing to compromise.
Tell me the HUGE differences between Monte's plan and McDermott's...
Her's would be $30M and take care of deferred maintenance and either rebuild or replace Oaklawn OR build a bigger Green Meadow OR renovate Oakwood into a K-8 -- can't do all of them so if she plans on doing all of the above, it will be in stages or it will be much more than $30M.
Monte says she will close 2 schools but the only one she consistently mentions is Lincoln... she has mentioned Lakeside, Oaklawn, Washington, South Park or Tipler... you don't know what in the end her plan would be or how much it would cost.
At least McDermott is up front that this will be in stages.
Does anyone remember where the Oaklawn students were moved to before the new north school was proposed and they were closing Oaklawn? I wonder if it's not possible to close both Oaklawn and Lincoln and find room for those students in existing schools with minor additions. Has that been given critical consideration?
A plan has finally been decided on. Why are people still trying to develop something else?
I wonder if we should consider a new Southwest high school. Wouldn't that solve many of the issues we face with the socio-econimic disparity in our high schools?
Anon. 6:33am --- If you look at all the posts from Monte, it is not that her thoughts have changed, it is that she always uses that $30M figure but the components are different each time. If you combine all the posts, how much will it really cost to: expand Green Meadow, rebuild or replace Oaklawn (if on that site you must include the cost to raise the playground above street level so the building no longer floods), remodel Oakwood into a K-8, add rooms for Special Education programs and take care of all the deferred maintenance, HVAC, ADA etc.?
You said "BTW, the new northside school was NEVER a priority until McDermotts "plan". It was always there." I don't know what that means... yes, replacing Oaklawn with a new North side school was in the plans after the subject was raised by parents, developers, and realtors, before that, Oaklawn students were slated to go to E. Cook... Anyone who has toured all the schools in the district and has any common sense would tell you that Oaklawn is the school with the highest priorty given its condition. Replacing Oaklawn with a new north side school also gives the "Sunset" attendance area a school closer to their home. Those families were "promised" when Sunset was closed due to mold that they would have a "new" school. The 2001 referendum that would have built a new Sunset failed (and by the way contrary to what Monte says the Oaklawn plans she writes about were part of the 2001 referendum NOT the Jefferson or Traeger referenda --- check out the January 28, 2001 Northwestern ---it is all there, including a picture of Oaklawn two options A & B...
Anon 6:34pm Oaklawn was going to go to E. Cook... Since Sunset has been moved into Read, there is very little, if any "extra" seats in North side elementary schools. If you close Oaklawn and Lincoln you would need to build enough classrooms for approx. 300 students. I guess I wouldn't call that minor additions to any schools...
Teresa:
I think there is more capacity at Merrill and E. Cook. I'm not sure that your numbers are correct, but even if they are I would say that 300/20=15 new clasrooms and those 15 classrooms would most definately be less money than an entirely new school with offices, gym, cafeteria, library, etc.
One could also argue that raising the capacity at existing schools would create more sections and therefore, greater operational efficencies.
Fellow posters,
A plan has been agreed upon but it can be amended and is pliable to some degree.
There is no doubt that Oaklawn is not in need of repair, it needs replacement. There are 214 kids there. Nope, there is not room to absorb that population into Merrill 252/276 or ECook 234/276. One poster is correct, Oaklawn could be replaced by adding onto Merrill and ECook, if there is space. I'm not sure if that would save any money.
I used to be on the bandwagon that thought we were silly to consider replacing an entire school before addressing other problems. Now I think that we need to replace Oaklawn and do the most necessarry repairs, updates, and additions, and hurry up about it. But, keep it to needs and keep it reasonable.
But if you keep changing and amending the plan, you're no further ahead than we've been for the last 2 years.
BTW, just got back from voting. Was proud to cast my vote for McDermott and Lemberger. I just can't believe the people who are so gullible as to be taken in by comments from Monte or willing to put up with more childishness from Schneider.
If the capacities of Merrill and E. Cook are correct, they are both 2 section schools. Is that efficient by Mrs Theils' current standards? If it is, I think she and the majority of the BOE may have changed their once firm position on the matter. Is that considered waffling?
BTW, just got back from voting. Was proud to cast my vote for Schneider and Monte!
No, Anon. 9:18am... I do not think two section schools are most efficient, that is why I supported the K-3 configuration, it would have made most schools at least 3 section schools so no I did not waffle on that. I still think striving for efficiencies in staffing should be a major goal. That is why I would close Lakeside and Green Meadow. We do not need another school of 275 students with 2 sections of each grade. I wouldn't support building a new North side school unless it has at least 3 sections per grade.
So very happy with the election returns tonight. One message we can take away from this is that for all the chest-puffing and chest-thumping from a supposed so many on local blogs who claim they represent the majority of voters, clearly that is not the case. Kudos to T. McDermott and J. Lemberger. Now maybe some things can get accomplished within the district.
I voted Schneider/Monte and I am very disappointed to see the results tonight. I really felt that they were the best option to move this district in a positive direction. I thought they could work to develop a long-range facilities plan that could pass a referendum. I sincerely hope that this new board can develop a plan that will pass a referendum and move the district forward. It will have to be based more so on needs and less on wants. It will have to change.
Congratulations to Mr. McDermott and Mr. Lemberger.
we won! - we got our candidates on the board. we have a mandate! the voters will support anything we do. lets go for it all. lets not hide behind Mcdermott's last minute gimmick for votes. we don't have to anymore. we are in charge- we have 5 votes now! lets go for the full 75 million now! lets bring back K-3 and SAGE for all!
Post a Comment