The Committee to Rebuild Wakefield will be speaking at the May 1 School Board meeting. We are hoping to bring other speakers and community members to show unified support. Please use “Comments” at the bottom of this post indicate whether you plan to attend or speak. A little organization goes a long way.
- What: School Board meeting
- When: May 1 (Thursday) 7:30 PM
- Where: 1426 N. Quincy St. (1st floor, Education Center)
Topic: Learn about the Superintendent’s conceptual FY 2009-2014 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Staff will present the proposal to the Board. It’s the first opportunity to witness how the school board handles this very important issue to us.
The meeting also provides an opportunity for citizens to speak. Citizens can register to speak. Many of us have discussed how great it would be for a few of us to speak and for the rest of us to cheer them on loudly.
Register to speak:
Click Here.
7 comments:
I plan to attend and would be happy to speak if we have a shortage. My message would be that Wakefield funding needs to be sooner rather than later.
I don't know which candidates you consider unfriendly to Wakefield, but it is certainly not Reid Goldstein. He has supported Wakefield and other schools in our community for many years, and this is what he says on his website:
I support building new Wakefield and Yorktown HS buildings. The Superintendent recently presented a conceptual CIP that would fund construction of both Yorktown and Wakefield High Schools. It
appears to be a reasonable plan, recognizing the community’s constraints on capital funds, and I support it. The 2006 CIP did not include construction funding for Wakefield, and no such funding would be possible under that plan until 2012 at the soonest.
Although many of us would have liked to see funding for Wakefield, Jefferson and the Career Center sooner, we have known since 2006 that
the first of these projects would not be started until 2013, after the 2012 bond. This plan starts Wakefield construction in 2013 and stretches the funding out over several years, consistent with both
the cash-flow of an extended construction project and the county’s debt limitations. Threats to this plan would be excessive cost growth in either project, or a change in plan to give priority to
building a new fifth high school at the Career Center site (a plan recently presented to the School Board).
If elected as a school board member, I will be careful to ensure projects stay on budget and also to maintain Yorktown, Wakefield and Jefferson as the top priorities. I would support a 2008 schools
bond and CIP consistent with the plan presented by the Superintendent.
Thanks for your comment Mr. Snyder. First we appreciate your engagement on the Wakefield issue. We believe virtually all the candidates are school supporters -- that's why they are in the race.
It does seem our position on Wakefield is in direct conflict with Mr. Goldstein's however. As noted in our previous posts, our position is that the conceptual CIP's large bond referendum for 2012 of $156M is too risky.
We have consulted with the Superintendent directly and feel that our position to smooth the bond and thus move up the construction timing is reasonable. We want to support a candidate who would look at alternatives on this community's behalf. There should be a willingness to look at alternative approaches or a reasonable restructuring of such proposals that are fiscally responsible.
Politics is spirited, that for sure. We respect your position Mr. Synder and again thank you for engaging.
As a Wakefield parent, I am curious as to who are the "concerned citizens" behind this blog. I am always leery about anything anonymously posted on the Web. Could you at least post the names of the leaders of this organization? At present the only names that appear on this blog are school board candidates and thus this has the appearance of being a blatant front for those candidates.
Also, since this group is clearly unhappy with the way Wakefield has been treated in the process so far, I don't understand why you endorse the one candidate who has had 12 years to make sure we get a fair shake. If experience is so important, why don't you look at the experience we've gotten so far?
Henry Dunbar
This "committee" is an ad hoc group of mostly Oakridge parents that has assembled to promote what we perceive as equity and fairness in the Arlington County school board's Capital Improvement plan. We have just recently assembled and do not have any formal structure. I am not aware of any member political associations and want to add that the voting recommendation was obtained by consensus and does not reflect the voting intentions of all involved. Most of us perceive this as a single-issue election and, accordingly, will each vote for the candidate(s) that we perceive to give Wakefield the fairest shake.
Jed Hakken
Mr. Dunbar, you are right! We apologize for the delay in posting our names. As Mr. Hakken noted, we've been getting organized and just putting things in place - an oversight now updated. We are pleased to report, however, that while 7 of us embarked on this effort recently, we've already heard from many community members who want to engage. We hope we can craft these efforts to provide a value service to our community.
I spoke to the Board at the May
1st meeting and presented our petition along with its roughly 250signatures. Thanks to all of those who worked so hard over such a short period of time gathering signatures. Board member Libby Garvey was the only member to directly address us by stating, for the record, that she was interested in exploring options to move-up funding for the Wakefield project.
Addressing the Superintendent's plan in light of debt ratios and cash flow, I learned that there continues to be room to increase debt while remaining beneath the county's arbitrary 10 percent of operating expense budget ceiling and that these bond cycles have little or nothing to do with cash flow. According to the Superintendent, the bonds are not typically floated in the year they are approved nor are they floated in one lump-sum. This begs the question, why the proposed 2010 bond is only for $11 million and a whopping $156 milliion is proposed for 2012? I have two theories and I welcome everyone's thoughts. In my mind, the proposal could either be an attempt to sabotage Wakefield's chances for funding in 2012 (assuming that S. Arlington will remain mute) or it could be an attempt to fund all of the other schools, knowing that there will be such a political outcry for fairness and equity that the county will have to fund this project. Take your pick or add another.
Post a Comment