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

The Arlington Connection Gets 2010 Issue Right

Since the July 22 County Board meeting, the Rebuild Wakefield Committee has been fielding responses from our active citizens group and the County Board. Thanks again to everyone who reacted so quickly last week to the County Board's vote. It is clear the County Board will continue to spin their message that their vote was a "win" for Wakefield since it does not alter the construction timeline.

We are pleased the construction timelines have not changed. However,we want to reiterate to our community that the County Board did make a significant change to the CIP: They delayed the 2010 bond referendum into 2012. Based on typical timelines and the painfully slow design process currently underway, the 2010 bond was extremely important to the staging and momentum of the Wakefield project. Without it, there is a real risk of construction timeline delays resulting from the process. We feel it is important for concerned citizens to be aware of the competing messages from the County Board and why we worked so closely with the School Board to move the bond into 2010. If you have any questions on this, feel free to email us or post a comment to thelog (note: the blog is now accepting anonymous posts. This function was turned off; we apologize).

Also, please watch for updates this week on the current challenges Wakefield is experiencing with the conceptual design process. We may need help yet again! In the meantime, read The Arlington Connection article that seems to capture the 2010 issue fairly well.