Based on last week's Facilities Committee Meeting, It was expected
that the following motion was going to be voted on tonight:
|The Administration & Facilities
Co-Chair Committee is recommending Option 1,to
rebuild Cedarbrook Middle School with a new 20,000
That simple motion was canceled. Direct action on issuing contracts to
start the rebuilding of Cedarbrook Middle School was not voted on in this
meeting. The following resolution was substituted in place of the
|The Facilities Committee recommends that
the administration be authorized to finalize the
district-wide facility study and–
conditioned upon the results of that study—
prepare for Plancon justification for the
rebuilding of the Cedarbrook Middle
While this motion ends with the phrase
"prepare for Plancon justification for the
rebuilding of the Cedarbrook Middle School"
that outcome is subordinate to ("conditioned upon")
a district-wide facility study.
Facilities Chair Bill England stated,
"One of the reasons we are
sitting here after months is having too many things floating around
out there. We've gone from just a couple proposals to way too many
proposals to looking at the sale of this building (ed note: the
administration building). What's been lost in all of that is the
pressing need to be able to make progress on a commitment that we made
before that school was evacuated, and am going to continue to say that
I support seeing this program through and it is not about going back
through 8 different options and going back through all that again. I
mean we've done that. We can roll the tape and see that was discussed
Yet a few moments earlier, Board member Stacy Hawkins asked the
"I do want to start off with a question that is a point of
clarification that this feasibility study is in fact going to
undertake a study of all of the options that were on the table prior
to the proposed vote on a single option. And that the study will not
weight any of those options more than any other in considering which
is the recommended option."
To which Dr. Bavi answered that yes, the study would
consider all the options.
All this is rather confusing to your podmaster who was wondering if
these two board members were attending the same meeting. Our listeners
can "roll the tape"
and see that the single decision to rebuild Cedarbrook is now back to
where it was in December. Regardless, the new motion passed 5 to 4 in
a rare contested board vote.
If that were not enough, a motion was made to amend the resolution
with the statement, "and other district buildings as deemed
appropriate and justified by the study." which, it appears to your
podmaster, would open the construction can of worms wide open and
further move a decision which is the responsibility of elected board
members into the hands of an unelected architectural firm.
Fortunately, this amendment failed in a 4 to 5 vote.
Even so, it seems that the architectural firm who performs the study
will be driving the agenda. So it is rather confusing to this listener
that there were no questions regarding potential conflict of interest
with this firm, namely:
- Is the architectural firm that performs the study barred from bidding on work that will be the result of the study ?
- If not barred– and since "professional services" run as a percentage of 25% of the cost of the job– what assurance do we have that the study won't be skewed to the most expensive option ?
School district policies 818 and 818AR do not address conflicts of
interest issues with providers of contracted services. Hopefully it
will all be resolved before the present temporary facility leases