Posts
At the March 18th meeting, the school board voted 6-1 to approve the process of renovating the New Paltz Middle School.
Board member Steve Greenfield noted that the resolution explicitly affirms the social contract with the community to keep the school at its current location. This vote clearly demonstrates that the board is formally committed to renovating the Middle School.
The only dissenting vote was Rod Dressel who still thinks it's a mistake to renovate and that the district should be building a new school at a new site.
Showing posts with label Steve Greenfield. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Steve Greenfield. Show all posts
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Friday, January 30, 2009
A 6 Man Board (We Need a Mom!)
Laura Walls resigned from the school board this week to take a job with Eliot Auerbach in the Ulster County comptroller's office. Laura was also the board vice president so that position is also now vacant.
The current board now consists of six men: David Dukler (President), Rod Dressel, Steve Greenfield, Don Kerr, Patrick Rausch, and Edgar Rodriquez.
These six men can:
* Leave the seat vacant until the May elections
* Appoint someone to the open seat now
* Authorize a special election for the seat
As far as the VP seat, these six men can:
* Leave it open
* Vote for a new VP
Any actions will be taken in executive session, I believe even the Superintendent will not be present.
It is too close to May to hold a special election. Given the prevalence of 4-3 votes on this board (Laura being in the "4" group), my suspicion is the board will appoint someone. Is it even possible these six men could find someone that they all could, well at least four of them, agree on?
And what about the VP slot? I suspect they may just let that one go till May, maybe even July.
The Dressel and Kerr seats are up this year, and if they decide they want to stick around, they will need to run in May to keep their positions. Laura's term also would have been up, so that means we have three school board seats to fill in May. Will they appoint someone just to fill the slot till May, someone that may not even choose to run this Spring? Will that be a prerequisite to appease all parties?
Only three (I think) of these six men have school-age children attending New Paltz schools. Only one has elementary school age kids (again, I think). In my opinion, we need a New Paltz mom! (Or two, or three... but good golly I'll take at least one at this point.)
(This post is also at New Paltz Gadfly)
The current board now consists of six men: David Dukler (President), Rod Dressel, Steve Greenfield, Don Kerr, Patrick Rausch, and Edgar Rodriquez.
These six men can:
* Leave the seat vacant until the May elections
* Appoint someone to the open seat now
* Authorize a special election for the seat
As far as the VP seat, these six men can:
* Leave it open
* Vote for a new VP
Any actions will be taken in executive session, I believe even the Superintendent will not be present.
It is too close to May to hold a special election. Given the prevalence of 4-3 votes on this board (Laura being in the "4" group), my suspicion is the board will appoint someone. Is it even possible these six men could find someone that they all could, well at least four of them, agree on?
And what about the VP slot? I suspect they may just let that one go till May, maybe even July.
The Dressel and Kerr seats are up this year, and if they decide they want to stick around, they will need to run in May to keep their positions. Laura's term also would have been up, so that means we have three school board seats to fill in May. Will they appoint someone just to fill the slot till May, someone that may not even choose to run this Spring? Will that be a prerequisite to appease all parties?
Only three (I think) of these six men have school-age children attending New Paltz schools. Only one has elementary school age kids (again, I think). In my opinion, we need a New Paltz mom! (Or two, or three... but good golly I'll take at least one at this point.)
(This post is also at New Paltz Gadfly)
Friday, December 26, 2008
Important info for Middle School supporters
I sent the following letter to the New Paltz Times. It exceeds their word limit, so I'm abridging it for the newspaper. I am publishing it here in its entirety. Please distribute. Thanks.
It is unfortunate that the New Paltz Times article this week did not mention why I am opposed to hiring a long-term facilities planner at this time. And I say "at this time" because I have been clear that this is a necessary endeavor, but that now is an especially poor -- and improper -- time to do so.
There are a few reasons. One is the poor timing. We are not prepared to get a good value for our dollar because we haven't done two pieces of critical work without which a long-range facilities plan cannot be usefully created. One is to determine the actual demographic and enrollment trends. The last time this was paid for two years ago, enrollment was predicted to decline, but it's been growing -- significantly -- ever since. We have to hit the pause button on paid consulting until we examine this matter thoroughly. We also do not have the new long-term comprehensive performance plan from the Superintendent. Without this, even with accurate demographics, a planner cannot even pretend to provide useful facilities advice, because much of that advice is derived directly from application of the comprehensive plan. In other words, by moving forward now, all we'll get is another expensive document that gives us very little to apply to our decision-making process, and no return of equivalent (or perhaps any) value to the taxpayer, as has happened so many times already.
On top of these practical matters, and where we cross the line into impropriety, is that the Superintendent and majority of Board members in support of moving forward now are going to use money that was appropriated for the Middle School renovation study, in front of the fully assembled public last winter, and approved by the voters in May. Going ahead with the planner means choosing not to move the Middle School study forward -- period, let alone on the "aggressive timetable" that was promised. All we'll get for the $12,000 we've spent to date (of the $60,000 appropriated) is an existing conditions study and an extremely broad cost estimate. Unless additional studies are conducted, that $12,000 is wasted, for two reasons. One is that we already paid a lot of money last year for a much more detailed existing conditions study, the one that led to the public discussion on the future of the Middle School, and then spent more money printing and distributing mailings and public information pamphlets, which included generalized estimates. So all we're getting for the $12,000 spent so far is an update and tweaking of what was previously paid for. The second is that if we don't use the remaining funding to move forward with the additional research the public agreed to finance, such as where to hold classes during construction, or exploration of designs that would suit the Middle School's current and future mission, curriculum, extra-curricular and community needs, then the $12,000 spent so far was nothing more than a make-work project for two consultants as a salve for a temporarily engaged -- and angry -- public. We (and I say "we" because I was not on the Board at the time, and even now that I am, I'm still a taxpayer with kids in school) were promised a full-bore study on an aggressive timetable, a study that was described to us as follows:
There are a few reasons. One is the poor timing. We are not prepared to get a good value for our dollar because we haven't done two pieces of critical work without which a long-range facilities plan cannot be usefully created. One is to determine the actual demographic and enrollment trends. The last time this was paid for two years ago, enrollment was predicted to decline, but it's been growing -- significantly -- ever since. We have to hit the pause button on paid consulting until we examine this matter thoroughly. We also do not have the new long-term comprehensive performance plan from the Superintendent. Without this, even with accurate demographics, a planner cannot even pretend to provide useful facilities advice, because much of that advice is derived directly from application of the comprehensive plan. In other words, by moving forward now, all we'll get is another expensive document that gives us very little to apply to our decision-making process, and no return of equivalent (or perhaps any) value to the taxpayer, as has happened so many times already.
On top of these practical matters, and where we cross the line into impropriety, is that the Superintendent and majority of Board members in support of moving forward now are going to use money that was appropriated for the Middle School renovation study, in front of the fully assembled public last winter, and approved by the voters in May. Going ahead with the planner means choosing not to move the Middle School study forward -- period, let alone on the "aggressive timetable" that was promised. All we'll get for the $12,000 we've spent to date (of the $60,000 appropriated) is an existing conditions study and an extremely broad cost estimate. Unless additional studies are conducted, that $12,000 is wasted, for two reasons. One is that we already paid a lot of money last year for a much more detailed existing conditions study, the one that led to the public discussion on the future of the Middle School, and then spent more money printing and distributing mailings and public information pamphlets, which included generalized estimates. So all we're getting for the $12,000 spent so far is an update and tweaking of what was previously paid for. The second is that if we don't use the remaining funding to move forward with the additional research the public agreed to finance, such as where to hold classes during construction, or exploration of designs that would suit the Middle School's current and future mission, curriculum, extra-curricular and community needs, then the $12,000 spent so far was nothing more than a make-work project for two consultants as a salve for a temporarily engaged -- and angry -- public. We (and I say "we" because I was not on the Board at the time, and even now that I am, I'm still a taxpayer with kids in school) were promised a full-bore study on an aggressive timetable, a study that was described to us as follows:
"Passing the resolution means the Board will move ahead to flesh out the specifics of a plan to renovate and reconstruct portions of the Middle School using the latest “green” and energy-efficient technologies. The Board will engage professional architectural, engineering, and surveying firms to provide detailed plans and costs that will be shared with the community as the discussion moves forward. With community backing, this is a firm step to keep the Middle School located in the village, but the Board remains open-minded as they continue on their fact-finding process. Board President Rod Dressel wants to be certain that the Board has all of the information needed to make a decision before any concrete plans are put in place. To get that information, however, the District needs to make an investment of both human and financial resources. The Board’s vote enables the District to take this important step forward." (http://npcsd.edublogs.org/2008/02/04/a-recap-of-the-boards-decision/)
Note: "firms" is plural, three types of firms are indicated, the phrase "detailed plans" is used, and the need to have "all the information needed to make a decision." We have not even scratched the surface, and the Superintendent and solid majority of the School Board are already moving forward at great speed to cancel the remaining funding and use it for something else.
When I announced my candidacy for School Board, I promised to do all that I could to hold the New Paltz Central School District to its promises regarding the Middle School. I have been doing so. Consider this letter part of that effort. The full board is expected to hold its vote on redirecting the Middle School money to a poorly timed long-term facilities consultant at its next meeting, on January 7th at 7 PM at the High School. I will be voting "no." I hope you will come down to take part in this urgent matter.
Steve Greenfield
New Paltz
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)