Support 2008 School Bond

The Committee to Rebuild Wakefield supports a strong and consistent Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for the schools. Therefore we support the proposed funding in 2008 for the final phase of Yorktown High School, design at Wakefield and capital needs at the Career Center. We encourage all community members to educate themselves on the bond and hopefully vote for it on November 4!

This link provides information on all four of the Arlington County 2008 Bond Referenda.

Milestone Reached, Roadblock Not Addressed

The School Board took long-awaited action on Thursday, 10/2/08, to approve the conceptual design for Wakefield High School. This is a positive step forward for the project.

What does it mean?
The high-level, conceptual design phase is complete. This phase addressed issues such as the scale and relationships among the components of the project. The project can now move to schematic design, where the architects will explore alternative designs and define significant levels of detail for those designs. The community can expect to see illustrations to help visualize the project and learn more specifics about the site features and functions.

Why is it important?
The conceptual design process became protracted and problematic. It hit roadblocks over issues inappropriate for this early phase such as sidewalk setbacks and exterior design elements. While these issues are significant, they were not appropriate for the concept phase. This was reinforced by the County architectural consultant, Roger Lewis, at the County-School Board joint work session last month. (Read about the County-School Boards’ joint work session)

Significant Progress Points
1. A Common Understanding - The Wakefield project was at risk of stalling before it started. Committees were struggling over details that could not be fully addressed in the concept phase. These issues morphed into turf wars. With community vigilance and hard work by the APS staff, the School Board was able to bring the focus back to the high-level concept. It was the right move. All School and County parties can tackle specific concerns from a central starting point.

2. Accountability and Timelines – Bill O’Connor of APS staff heads up the Wakefield project. He brings much building experience – both in a School Board and Municipal environment – to the table. At the School Board meeting, Mr. O’Connor demonstrated a clear commitment to specific deliverables and milestones for Schematic Design and beyond. He also ensured a commitment to open communication among Boards, Committees and the Community. These are all issues our Community has been pushing for since last Spring. (See new project timelines)

3. Executive Sponsorship – To move ahead effectively the reconstruction project requires strong support and leadership from the School Board. The concept design was approved 5-0.

Two School Board members demonstrated strong support. Libby Garvey and Abby Raphael are focusing on accountability, budget and milestones that can address project risk and demonstrate clear, forward progress.

Unaddressed Issue
The outstanding issue remains the 2-committee process. The architect is still in the position of presenting to two committees who represent the Schools and the County. The architect takes feedback and direction from both committees. This is where the roadblocks arose the conceptual design got off track. (Read about the dueling committee process that hampered the project throughout 2008).

While the intent to engage County feedback on issues like zoning earlier in the project is reasonable and hopefully will help avoid late-term delays and cost overruns, it hasn’t worked. The architects literally bounced back and forth between committees, and received conflicting and inconsistent direction.

This basic issue of decision making must be addressed.

So who should be in charge? The Schools own and manages the project – that is public record. The County controls permits and issues bonds. Obviously coordination and collaboration are necessary.

Possible Solution
The PFRC process in new to APS projects. It's been a rocky start, and it will be a part of the project moving forward. The County Board and staff must take the time to clearly define the Operating Guidelines of its committee, the PFRC. The draft guidelines from September 2007 have not been revisited within the year timeline the draft itself specifies. Nor do the guidelines effectively address how, when and where the PFRC engages in an APS project. Wakefield has been the guinea pig of this process, which has been painful. But there is learning to be had and applied moving ahead -- if the County takes the time to do it. The goal needs to be a functional, sustainable school building that supports the needs of the school and the community delivered in a timely fashion without wasting resources. The PFRC process needs to be better aligned to support that goal.

We encourage Community members to communicate with the County Manager’s office and the County Board, encouraging them to provide more clear direction for the PFRC.

Timeline: Conceptual Design Approval, or lack thereof

The Superintendent of Schools recommended the School Board take action on a conceptual design this Summer. Here is is a recap of a time line and where things stand:

8/5: The County Board asked School Board to delay its scheduled 8/12 vote to approve Wakefield's conceptual design. The stated intent by Mr. Tejada, County Board chair, was to address several outstanding County issues, including a lack of "civic presence" in the exterior design and the location of the bus loop.

8/6-8/12: Rebuild Wakefield group meets with individual School Board members on the issue. We ask for vote in spite of Mr. Tejada's request. At a minimum we insist this not be an open-ended delay. If a work session is necessary, re-schedule the vote for Oct. The School Board ultimately agreed to a mid-Sept work session and rescheduled the action for Oct.

8/19: County Board holds it's own work session to prepare. For the last year, the project has been languishing without adequate "civic presence." The county's architectural consultant adds a new buzzword to the project. Richard Lewis recommended the County strive for "civic charisma" with the Wakefield design.

9/7: Community members, including some of us, met with County Board member, Chris Zimmerman, to discuss the County perspectives on the design delays. Mr. Zimmerman expressed that design should move forward in Oct. We are waiting to see the results and the tone of the 9/12 work session.

9/12: Joint work session between County and School Boards scheduled at Wakefield, 3:30 PM. We have several community members observing.

10/2: School Board is re-scheduled to vote on the conceptual design, assuming no further delays.

Why resolve design issues? Manage risk.

The School Board and County Board will meet Friday, 9/12, at Wakefield to discuss the stalemate over Conceptual Design.

On September 12, the Community is looking for tangible results from this work session. The County Boards needs to express clear and achievable project requirements that will enable the architects to finalize a mutually agreeable conceptual design. If the County Board is unable to do so, it must recognize this and stop interfering with the independent School Board's project.

A quick background: The School Board was set to take action on this design in early August, 2008. However, the County Board asked for a delay on the vote. The stated intent by Mr. Tejada, County Board chair, was to address several outstanding issues the County has, including the exterior design and the location of the bus loop. The School Board agreed to the delay and rescheduled the action for 10/2/08.

We met with Chris Zimmerman, County Board member, on 9/7/08. Mr. Zimmerman expressed that he felt confident that the Wakefield design issues could be worked out within the next 2 months, enabling the School Board to take action on the design as scheduled for 10/2. He also insisted we have "plenty of time" to complete the design phase since construction will not begin until 2014.

Differing Perspectives
Why do we remain concerned? The County and the Community have conflicting perspectives regarding the implications of this project timeline.

This is where our perspectives diverge. What the County Board and its staff view as "plenty of time," we view as risk. After all, it's been 18 months of committee meetings and architectural reviews and we still have no conceptual design. The County-induced process has demonstrated a basic inability to resolve resolvable issues.

After much nonsense -- and we do mean nonsense -- the Superintendent found a design the two competing committees agreed on. Yet here we are, hoping to define the stumbling block all along -- the thus far intangible "Civic Charisma."

Effective organizations manage and minimize risk. Allowing any one project phase to span an indeterminate time horizon with vague or ill-defined requirements introduces greater risk including:

• Delays to the construction start date
• Increased cost
• Project derailment as competing budget priorities arise
• Lost time by staff and our elected officials on both Boards – time that should be spent, at this point, on other important school and community issues.

This is a long-term construction project. “Milestone” is not a buzzword; it is a risk-management tool. “Conceptual” design requires the same clear direction, goals and progress as any other phase. The work product is obviously not concrete, but the process should still be goal-oriented and well managed. To put it directly, the County Board must use this work session to take ownership of its broken process and enable the School Board to reach its 10/2 milestone to move this project to schematic design.

School Board Must Show Leadership

We have submitted the following letter to Chairman Fendley of the School Board on the Wakefield conceptual design vote:

Date: August 11, 2008
To: Mr. Ed Fendley, APS School Board Chair
Cc: APS School Board: Ms. Sally Baird, Ms. Abby Raphael, Ms. Libby Garvey, Mr. Frank Wilson
From: Beverly Enochs, James Ryan, Michael Dowell, Maki Fife
Re: Wakefield High School Action, 8/12/08 School Board Agenda Item

Thank you for taking the time to meet with us over the last week. We appreciate your candor and, based on our discussions, we are providing you with formal community input.

As we expressed in our meeting, our overriding interest is that the school design process stays on track, so that the bonds can be issued as scheduled and that the school is built as scheduled in the currently approved CIP.

We view failure to approve the Wakefield conceptual design on August 12, 2008 as evidence of the lack of leadership by the School Board during this conceptual design phase. The project requires leadership that delivers tangible results in a defined timeline. Deferring the vote in lieu of ill-defined work sessions does not meet this requirement.

It is apparent from review of BLPC minutes, PFRC summaries and associated school board and county board correspondence that although the BLPC voted to approve the CEF-3 design and the PFRC informally favored the CEF-3 design, the design process is on the verge of stalling. The BLPC and the PFRC have largely accomplished their charters and it is time to move on to the schematic design.

Certainly the new BLPC/PFRC process can be improved. We are confident that it will be in the execution of future capital improvement projects. Like all processes, improvements will be gained only with repeated execution. Process improvements will not be gained by stalling or going backwards on the Wakefield project.

As you acknowledged, there are tensions between the committees. We contest your assertion that these are useful tensions inherent in any creative endeavor. These tensions have resulted from clumsy process design, weak leadership and the elevation by some committee members’ personal agendas over the interests of the community.

To detail these problems: first, the roles and interrelationship of the committees are not clear, nor is the accountability. This result is tension between the school administration and the county administration, as noted in the March 2008 memo from Dr. Smith to Mr. Carlee, the County Manager. It is obvious that this project lacks leadership and guidance. A single committee must guide the design; it is that single committee who should be provided concise direction related to cost, schedule, and regulatory guidance. Review by other committees and commissions should be identified up front, and should occur only at well defined milestones.

Second, the meeting minutes indicate that several committee members have an ongoing concern with the location of the school bus loop, and the “presence” of the school. These issues are not germane to the functioning of the school, and, having been more clearly defined, can be fully addressed in the schematic design phase. The architect can bring such issues to resolution consistent with best design practices.

Third, however well intentioned, the PFRC process is not working. Dr. Smith’s letter clearly indicates that the PFRC lacks effective leadership. We cannot continue to blame the current state of affairs on a “new” process. Failing to notify stakeholders of meetings is a serious matter; it shows that politicking has trumped the community interest. The resulting tensions are clearly not part of a natural creative process. Further, we see no evidence in public record indicating that the tensions and politicking will self-resolve through a joint County-School Board work session intended to develop principles and guidelines for civic architecture. The lesson learned is that the PFRC leaders and members require clear definitions and expectations of their specific roles in the design process prior to further participation in School Board projects. The Wakefield project need not wait for such an evaluation and tweaking to occur by the County.

Despite these problems, which have largely been imposed on the committees by a few members and externalities, the result is good for what was intended as a feasibility phase. The School’s staff and many committee members have clearly overcome the obstacles put before them. The CEF-3 conceptual design is a reasonable place from which to move forward into a schematic design. The schematic design phase is more than sufficient to address the three concerns in Barbara Donnellan’s June 24 letter, especially if one considers that Yorktown and Washington-Lee commenced with schematic design.

In light of the County Board’s emphasis on fiscal responsibility, we would expect the School Board to be particularly sensitive to escalating design costs. By proceeding to schematic design, the community can transition to a process that is well understood, that is disciplined, and that will result in a school that meets the community’s needs, is constructed on schedule, and within budget.

As an independently elected school board, we know that you regard the interests of your constituents foremost in any decision, and that your independence exists for expressly that reason. Our community is watching this process closely and is evaluating the performance of our elected School Board based on its ability to show clear and direct leadership that delivers tangible results in a defined timeframe.

Thank you for your support of Wakefield High School.

---end letter---

Superintendent recommends approval, County Board recommends delay

After a protracted and often problematic conceptual design process (more than a year and 13 meetings held by two competing committees), APS Superintendent Dr. Smith has recommended the School Board vote to approve a Wakefield conceptual design. This will enable the project to move to schematic design, where the design details occur.

This vote is currently scheduled for the Tuesday, August 12, 2008 School Board meeting.

In a letter dated Tuesday, August 5, 2008, County Board Chairman, Walter Tejada asked the School Board to “defer” their vote on the Wakefield design. Instead, the County Board is requesting a joint work session to "provide joint leadership" to the competing committees and "agree to a shared vision of how civic buildings are best integrated into the build environment across Arlington."

Note: There are no budgetary or schedule issues raised. Nor are the issues about the functionality as an educational
facility, all credits to APS staff on the issue.

What's our take on this?

First, having read the minutes and meeting summaries from the various BLPC and PFRC meetings, plus correspondence and staff presentations on the design process, our conclusion is that the Superintendent is recommending a solid design that meets the needs of the Wakefield students. It has extensive input and has the support of the majority of committee members who worked on it.

Second, we want to show citizens the most recent course of events:

1) June 24, 2008: The County Manager's office sent memo to APS staff expressing concerns of major issues that need to be addressed prior to moving to schematic design. Upon review, readers will see that the "show stopper" concerns are virtually limited to how the building faces the street and where the bus loop is situated.

2) July 8, 2008: In a memo to the County Board, the County Manager admonishes the School Board for including the Wakefield design funds in the 2008 bond and strongly recommends they reconsider spending those funds.

3) July 22, 2008: County Board changes CIP bond cycles, pushing the 2010 Wakefield construction bond into 2012. Throughout the board meeting, members express their overriding support to see the Wakefield project move ahead with their full support.

3) August 5, 2008: County Board Chairman, Walter Tejada asked the School Board to “Defer” their vote on the Wakefield design.

Here's the issue we see with Mr. Tejada's request. Remember we mentioned the competing committees?

From November 2007 through June 2008, the County-side committee (PFRC), introduced roadblocks into the Wakefield design process. They provided direction directly to the architects -- going so far as to submit a sketch of their liking. We see this as out of scope. Additionally, their charge was to work with the School-side committee (BLPC) during the design process, yet it reached a point where the PFRC became unresponsive to the BLPC. For example, a meeting was cancelled; the PFRC would not respond to re-scheduled. It escalated to the point of a memo in March, 2008, from Dr. Smith to the County Manager, requesting meetings between the committees get put back on track. Important momentum was lost and tensions were now introduced into the project that were pulling the architect in competing directions.

Bottom Line:

The County Board is too late. They could have and should have stepped in back in the Spring with this joint meeting to accelerate the process at that time, not delay it now. To claim now, after a solid design has been voted on and submitted for approval, that clear guidelines need to be defined, is another County delay tactic. This project needs to get its momentum back. The School Board should not delay its vote. The School Board should approve the Superintendent's recommendation.

If the County Board and School Board wish to undertake a joint session as a "post-mortem" to improve future endeavors, we commend that. But don't further delay Wakefield to go backwards.

Citizens blast County Board

Check out this op-ed by Wakefield supports with a lot of history on this issue. The actions of the County over time have fostered a high level of mistrust for the motives of the County Board. Not only is the article itself of interest, but the reader comments at the end. Read Now