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---