Residents Concerned about 5th Ave School Still Have Questions
Decatur Metro | January 7, 2010Residents who signed a letter to the City School of Decatur administration say they are perplexed.
In what has become a public volley of lengthy letters, the latest response from the group of Decatur residents who first submitted concerns about the size of the 5th Avenue school site say they are still waiting for a response “on the substance of our letter”. Letter drafters Lisa Coronado Mauldin and Don Calder wrote in their response…
Our letter never identified or promoted the Beacon Hill site as an alternative to Glennwood’s or Fifth Avenue’s, but Dr. Edwards expounded on all the reasons why she and her experts believed Beacon Hill was a bad idea.
At its core, our letter stands for the following: In light of newly-identified/acknowledged site limitations, CSD should pause for a fully informed, transparent and inclusive review of whether a new 4/5 Academy at Fifth Avenue represents a substantial and lasting improvement over Glennwood. Glennwood is experiencing considerable strain due to overcrowding. CSD is executing a plan to spend $8 million (plus interest) building its largest elementary school, in effect, on its smallest site.
Dr. Edwards’ Christmas Day letter did spend considerable time elaborating on problems redeveloping the old Beacon Hill school site, which were discussed in length on this website, but not specifically referenced in the letter. In direct relation to the size of 5th Avenue’s acreage, Edwards had this to say…
We are not even at the design stage and already people are being told that there will not be enough classrooms, play areas and so on. The size of Fifth Avenue has become a bone of contention. First, let me say that we never gave any committee member erroneous information. I have had a survey done and know the size of the property-it was not pointed out to me by community members. We gave the survey information to the builders to review; we used it to secure the financing.
Assistant Superintendent Thomas Van Soloen reiterated this message in an email to me yesterday.
New south construction and the other two companies had accurate information.
So here, in my humble opinion, is the REAL bone of contention. When 5th Avenue was added to the mix as the final of 13 options to the reconfiguration committee, one of the stated positives of the site was it sat on a “big lot” (see page 14 of this pdf). Between the time when the reconfiguration committee was accepting public input from the community and when bids went out to contractors, CSD did a survey and discovered that the site was smaller than first described. For better or for worse, the public input process happened prior to this revelation.
So, here’s the $64,000 question. Does taking the acreage item on the 5th Avenue “pros” and moving it to the “cons” tip the scales enough to return to the drawing board and reconsider all 13 options again? If you’ve taken the time to click over to that PDF, you can see there are a lot of other positives stated for 5th Avenue.
According to the Assistant Superintendent, CSD is OK with 5th Avenue’s actual site size. However, the reasons behind this satisfaction remain unstated, so one must assume that all the other 5th Avenue positives stated by the Reconfiguration Committee still apply, along with the now added reality that the process to build 5th Avenue is already in motion.
However, residents want specifics. Hopefully these two parties can meet in the coming days, outside of the public spotlight, and talk through their concerns, as suggested by the residents’ latest letter. At this stage of the game, that seems the best chance for any resolution.
Residents’ full letter in response to the Superintendent can be read below.
Dear Dr. Edwards and CSD Board of Education:
We are writing in response to the written statement of Dr. Edwards dated December 25, 2009. It appeared Dr. Edwards composed her statement under difficult personal circumstances, and we were sorry to learn of them. We found the statement itself a bit perplexing, however. Although Dr. Edwards referred to receiving our letter, which requested a response by December 24, her statement did not respond to the substance of our letter. Our letter never identified or promoted the Beacon Hill site as an alternative to Glennwood’s or Fifth Avenue’s, but Dr. Edwards expounded on all the reasons why she and her experts believed Beacon Hill was a bad idea. We would appreciate a substantive response to the terms of the letter we submitted.
A copy of our original letter is enclosed, and it has been revised only to include names of all supporters who asked to be added (more than 150, and counting). At its core, our letter stands for the following: In light of newly-identified/acknowledged site limitations, CSD should pause for a fully informed, transparent and inclusive review of whether a new 4/5 Academy at Fifth Avenue represents a substantial and lasting improvement over Glennwood. Glennwood is experiencing considerable strain due to overcrowding. CSD is executing a plan to spend $8 million (plus interest) building its largest elementary school, in effect, on its smallest site. The community should be engaged meaningfully – and to a much larger degree – before construction begins. In our view, community engagement is not an impediment to CSD’s goals; the community is CSD’s partner and payor.
We were encouraged by two responses to our letter. First, Dr. Edwards’s statement indicated that she has directed CSD’s architects/designers to discuss the new 4/5 Academy’s programming needs with school leadership teams (SLTs) of Glennwood and all K-3 elementary schools. Second, valuable suggestions emerged from a community blog, including: (a) CSD should ask the City to incorporate an adjacent pocket park (+/- 0.3 acres) into Fifth Avenue’s lot(s), thereby allowing CSD to exercise ownership/control over the park space as a potential playground; and (b) CSD should ensure any new classrooms meet minimum square-footage and plumbing requirements, in case the new 4/5 Academy must be redeployed in the future as a K-3 elementary school. These positive developments signal what could be gained by even greater and broader community participation in CSD’s plans for a new 4/5 Academy.
In order to avoid further confusion regarding our original letter, we request an opportunity to meet with Dr. Edwards at her earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
Lisa Coronado Mauldin & Don Calder
Latest from Decaturish
Ohhhh, boy. Here we go again.
Have we our rumandlimes & cupcakes & frozen yogurt at the ready, my dear?
OK on the rum&limes, gotta stock up on the fro-yo and cupcakes (I had a red velvet one for lunch–mmmmm). We’re gonna need ‘em!
The more this group continues to agitate for essentially a “do-over” review of the reconfiguration committee’s final 13 options, the more reasonable Dr. Edwards’ position becomes.
Actually, the more this group perserverates, the more reasonable ANY position becomes.
Oh my God people give it a rest learn how to accept things when things do not go your way. What are you teaching the children, stomp and scream until you get what you want?
I can guarantee you that very few children read this blog.
How can you guarantee that or maybe they hear their parents talking about it on the telephone, with their friends or other ways? Whether children read it or not we still must teach them that tantrums are never good.
How can I guarantee that I don’t know the minute-to-minute actions of people I don’t personally know? Hmm…that’s sorta hard.
But seriously, I feel like we’re exaggerating the stance of the opposition in order to make our own argument easier. Writing a 4 page letter is the exact opposite of “tantrum” in my opinion.
And if it is indeed a tantrum, with no solid foundation in calm reality, I’d like someone to please extrapolate on why a smaller site is still completely functional for our 4/5 academy, based on all the rational discourse that has been thrown off-course by this unhinged rant of insanity.
This isn’t to say that we shouldn’t move on, because eventually we gotta hedge our bets and be practical about timing, etc,, but framing the other side’s argument as irrational seems rather a bit unfair.
Fighting other people’s battles is fun!
This battle has gone to a committee twice. It is time to move on. Everyone will not be pleased but even children can walk off the field after playing a great game and congradulate the other team. It is time to accept what two committees have worked very hard on. And I will still call it a tantrum not worthy of teaching your children.
Of course, when arguments are built on flimsy foundations they are frequently pursued with circumlocution and distracting premises in order to disguise their original position.
Perhaps we can see “lot size” as the strawman in this argument.
I’m a co-author of the letters addressed to Dr. Edwards and the CSD Board (collectively, “CSD”). Lisa Coronado Mauldin and I have stayed silent until now, in part, because we didn’t want to overstep the unifying goal of 150+ supporters who signed the initial letter: they and we want to engage CSD in a meaningful dialogue re recently-disclosed/acknowledged site limitations at Fifth Avenue, so we can be assured that the site and design of the new 4/5 Academy represents a substantial and lasting improvement over Glennwood. We also didn’t want to muddy the waters by making CSD feel obliged to respond to both our letter and “whatever Don and Lisa said” on the blogs. No one likes to shoot at moving targets. We were trying to be direct, reliable and responsible in our dealings with CSD.
Insofar as the initial letter has been misconstrued by CSD and others, however, Lisa and I recently decided to compose a reply to Dr. Edwards, and clarify our motives and goals for DM’s readership. This is where CSD chose to post Dr. Edward’s statement, after all. We’ll try our best to be responsive here at DM. (One caveat: I lost access to DM during the day because my office’s firewall and/or default PC settings won’t allow DM’s embedded Google calendar on my machine – if anyone has suggestions for resolving this tech problem, I’m all ears at .) So, here goes.
Lisa and I spoke at the board meeting on December 8. As I told CSD, I had a knot in my stomach when I learned that Fifth Avenue’s site was only 3.6 acres. (This figure came to my attention when I read documents posted for the board’s work session on 11-30-09, and I’m not aware of its being part of any prior public statement by CSD.) I credited CSD for working tirelessly with its “reconfiguration committee” before choosing to build the 4/5 Academy at Fifth Avenue, and I acknowledged that much had been done to effectuate financing and construction at Fifth Avenue. It seemed to me, nevertheless, that CSD should pause to reconsider its plans before finalizing contracts for design-build construction. I learned later that many people shared my views.
Discovering that Fifth Avenue’s site was significantly smaller than Glennwood’s made me question whether Fifth Avenue represented a lasting solution to Glennwood’s overcrowding problems. Consider the numbers. According to CSD’s data supporting reconfiguration “Option 13″ (linked above by DM), Fifth Avenue would have 24 classrooms. Assuming none of them would be set aside for special education, pull-outs, art, science, music, etc., 24 classrooms would hold 480 to 600 students (with class sizes ranging from 20 to 25 kids). CSD forecasted 569 students at its 4/5 Academy by 2012. This figure was published in the “City Schools of Decatur Growth Projection” when CSD weighed in on the City’s annexation plans; if annexation had taken place, moreover, CSD projected 666 students at the 4/5 Academy. (The City intends to revisit its annexation options within the next year or so, and this was one of many reasons why the original letter to CSD underscored a new 4/5 Academy’s needing space for expansion.)
I also questioned whether it fairly could be said that community consensus formed around “Option 13″ for a 4/5 Academy at Fifth Avenue. According to reconfiguration documents posted by CSD (again, linked above by DM), three particular advantages distinguished a 4/5 Academy at Fifth Avenue from other options: (a) it was the “best fit”; (b) it would “allow for future growth and annexation without dramatic change”; and (c) it was a “big lot.” If none of these statements is accurate, is it fair to say consensus existed for the plan that’s being effectuated now?
Anyhow, that’s a basic introduction to my views and motives. I’ll stop for now, considering that blog posts should be short, no? This format is very new to me, and it’s a struggle (as in all e-correspondence) to find the right tone. Let me say this directly, then: all who signed onto the letter/petition to CSD are committed to seeing the new 4/5 Academy succeed, wherever it may be. We are concerned, nonetheless, that CSD is not doing enough to maximize the likelihood of the new 4/5 Academy’s satisfying all its programming needs while providing substantial, lasting solutions to overcrowding problems. We would appreciate CSD’s providing a data-driven, fact-specific rationale for asserting it’s ‘okay’ with Fifth Avenue’s relatively small size.
Now, I’m off to work (after pausing to appreciate my kids’ snow angels). More later.
From what I have gleaned from these discussions, all I have seen is some passionate discussion. With one or two exceptions, I don’t think I’ve seen any name calling or anyone having their faces rubbed in anything. At that time its the parent’s responsibility to instruct the child that is not the right way to handle disagreements. The tone is a bit tense on occasion but I think that is from ones passionate beliefs in what they think the right thing to do is. It is a rather civilized debate and actually one that I think it would be good for kids to be following along with. Its the real world in a microcosm. Perhaps some frustration from some quarters when things aren’t going their way. Not an unreasonable human reaction, as long as its not taken to extremes. There is no doubt in my mind that both sides of this issue feel that their viewpoint is the right one, for their kids, for the schools, and for the city. I am sure that those on both sides are good, solid, citizens. Sometimes disagreements can serve to bring folks together after the smoke has cleared. Hopefully this will be one of them.
If the lot size doesn’t fit, you cannot commit
uh oh, now there’s more than one George out there. Who knew our name was so popular?
Change your name to the REAL George!
Why do some folks seem to feel it is unreasonable to have an open evaluation of this project before we spend $8 million +? As a taxpayer obligated for this expenditure, I would like to be very sure we are spending our money well – which does not seem to have always been the case in the past. “You lost, we won, get over it or move” does not add anything to the conversation.
Speaking as a taxpayer, I’d rather have Dr. Edwards and her staff spend their time, energy and expertise on the work they’re paid to do, instead of engaging in unnecessary dialogue with the persistent few who seem bent on micro-managing our school system. There has been plenty of “open evaluation” and now it’s time to let CSD get on with it.
By the way, DM, children don’t have to read blogs to pick up on their parents’ values and behavior.
Well said stg. It’s time to move forward.
Yeah, ’twas a joke smalltowngal. But I’m curious what sort of “values” are portrayed by writing long letters with questions in them. I might not agree with the folks who want to stop the process, but I’m not ready to write them all off as a bunch of grudge-holding yahoos.
No, I don’t think we should stop the building at 5th Ave just because of a smaller site, however I think much of this lengthy back-and-forth could have been avoided with a simple “Yes, the site is smaller than originally presented, but we still think it’ll work.” from CSD.
That said, I also understand the hesitation of CSD to do that, since there are some folks out there who would obviously like nothing more than to rub CSD’s face in any sort of error and second guess them til the cows come home. I’m not sure that’s the only reason for cryptic replies on acreage from CSD, but I have to believe it’s a piece of it.
All together now,
Free Westchester!
Flood plain.
If you don’t like it, you can leave.
Keep your children and pets under control
Gladys:
RE: “Why do some folks seem to feel it is unreasonable to have an open evaluation of this project before we spend $8 million +? As a taxpayer obligated for this expenditure, I would like to be very sure we are spending our money well – which does not seem to have always been the case in the past…”
Too bad we as US Citizens don’t get the same courtesy regarding the Health Care bill.
Just sayin’.
At the risk of threadjacking…right on, SAACJack.
Maybe the city of Decatur should offer health care to its citizens.
As long as it’s single payer and truly Decaturversal.
That “it’s” was for me, wasn’t it?
Everything I do, I do it for you.
Westchester would make a perfect clinic site! Free Westchester!
Totally agree! It’s not a matter of win or loose, it’s a matter of is this the best/necessary choice? Why wouldn’t a addition at Glennwood be exceptable? It would be so much cheaper, My child is past the 4/5, but the money effects the whole school system. Our wonderful teachers deserve to be paid well and have support staff which this money will in the bottom line effect.
Yep, I guess I agree on this one. I’m good with 5th Ave. Let’s focus on that school now. There’s a lot to be done.
OK. I get it. It’s going to built anyway. Thank goodness for blogs where a powerless person gets to vent and have a voice.
So…the building is going to be small and doesn’t meet the minimum georgia public square footage requirements for a 500 student school… we’re going to build it anyway.*
So…it can’t be state of the art because we don’t have enough money…we’re going to build it anyway.**
So…we’re going to have to furlough teachers to cover the $400,000 in interest next year…we’re going to build it anyway.***
*Square footage requirements for use in developing the local facilities
**School document: We all have to be aware that with this financing structure, there will be little room to just “add” in changes.
***School document: The piece that is on my radar screen is the word that the Governor plans to cut schools back by another 10 days. This year, we were able to keep our teachers’ schedule intact with one less day even though the call was for three days. If ten days are cut, we will not be able to handle all ten. We may have to cut 5 days out of the calendar.
Ok, we know what you guys DON’T want–so, what DO you want?
Can’t you tell
I think the 4/5 building should be the right size for 600 students, be state-of-the-art and have teachers in it! Crazy me.
Anyhow – just came back from the board meeting…a real deja vu…
At the last reconfiguration, when the decision was made to put the 4/5 at Glennwood, there was a group of parents saying the building was too small – but it went there anyway. And…since the first year it opened, there have been space issues at Glennwood.
Now, there is a group of parents saying the projected 4/5 is too small at 5th Avenue, but the school board is clearly going to vote to put it there anyway. I’m telling you now, there are going to be space issues from the first year on.
If you are a parent with a child who will be entering the 4/5, you need to go to any meeting where they have the final conceptual plan – the whole thing – not just one floor. Compare that plan to the spaces at Winnona Park and you will see what I mean. One compromise is already evident: the classrooms are 660 square feet, not the 750 square feet originally listed in the “City Schools of Decatur Reconfiguration Assumptions” goal for K-8 classrooms.
Rachel, I am afraid many won’t read your post in this location. (I, of course follow all posts by RachelF!) You may want to put it under the recent CSD special community meeting post.
My Mom, one of the sharpest people I know, attended school as a child in the southern Virginia mountains, where all grades, K-8, occupied a single room. I need to give her a call and let her know how deprived she was. She had no idea she wasn’t properly educated. I hope she can understand the words that are coming out of my mouth.
In all seriousness, folks, if we’ve reached the point where arbitrary or less than relevant square footage recommendations are somehow being equated to proper education, we may have jumped the shark.
It sounds like you are saying there isn’t any need to move Glennwood…
Scott, these are federal and state guidelines. This is not about personal opinion. If we build 5A to have 660 sq ft classrooms, then we can’t convert it later to a K-3 or K-5 because the requirements for younger grades are 750 sq ft.
To be clear, I’m not saying the issue is without merit. I’m saying that guidelines, by definition, are a guide. They’re one issue, and one that should remain flexible, among many. When I start to see dissertations on square foot variations — be they playground space, room size, whatever — I get the sense there’s a suggestion that the difference between a good education and a subpar one is 90 square feet (for example).
I recognize this is likely not the position of those in opposition and I also recognize that sometimes people are compelled to treat guidelines like mandates. All I’m saying is that (some of) those pushing for another solution need to broaden their message to one that recognizes the million moving parts of a good education if they want to get any real traction on the issue.
Good educators, of which we’re blessed with many, turn available resources into educated kids. I have faith — until they prove me otherwise — in CSD’s ability to continue doing so in the context of the 5th Avenue decision.
Replying to Scott (there’s no reply button on your reply): The overcrowding at Glennwood has singularly, specifically, negatively affected my child’s education for the past year and a half. She will enter Renfroe next year having had what I deem a subpar education, and I am in a financial situation that prohibits me from pulling her out. I do not want my other two children who are in the queue for the 4/5 academy to have the same problem. Moving [increasingly] more children to a smaller site than they’re on now does not make sense IMO. Period. I don’t know how to make that more clear. I don’t know the answers. But I know that there is nothing wrong with taking more time to consider other options.
Here’s what I want: a school that will actually resolve the overcrowding issues at Glennwood for the long term and will take into account the population increases projected for the City of Decatur so that we don’t have to revisit this issue again in five years.
It makes no sense for CSD to pursue this very expensive capital project without making sure that the school will meet CSD’s needs for years to come. If we’re going to do this project, let’s do it right. I don’t want to see CSD spend $8 million renovating Fifth Avenue only to have my kids attend classes in trailers by the time they reach 4th grade.
Please keep in mind that the current Georgia standards set forth the following land requirements for elementary schools:
Schools of 300 students or less [must] have a school site of at least 4 acres. Schools of more than 300 students [must] have a school site of at least 4 acres plus an additional acre for each 100 students above 300.
http://www.coe.uga.edu/gac/standards/elementary.html
According to Dr. Edwards’s letter, Fifth Avenue is being built to house 500 students in the future. Thus, under the Georgia standards, a 6-acre site would be required for a 4/5 Academy that would house 500 students. Fifth Avenue’s lot is 3.62 acres. While I’m sure variances are possible, it seems that a school intended to house so many students built on a lot that is just over half the size of the state’s recommendations may not be workable in the end.
Lot size matters. If we want to have room for sufficient classrooms and outdoor recreation space to make Fifth Avenue a viable school for a long time to come, we have to have adequate land. The lot size was presented to the committee and the community as being larger than Glennwood’s lot (5 acres), and now we have found out that it is actually significantly smaller (3.62 acres). If the site is not in fact adequate, wouldn’t it be better to know that before construction begins?
This has nothing to do with “Northside/Southside” politics or personal vendettas against the Board or Dr. Edwards. It’s simply about making sure that we build the best 4/5 Academy possible for the school system that will last for many years to come.
If I’m not mistaken, Renfroe has about 550 students on perhaps a 6-acre lot. Fifth Avenue will have more than that number of students on a lot of 3.62 acres.
Why does everyone seem convinced that the schools are going to continue to grow at the same rate? The city is 4 square miles. CSD cannot and absolutely should not plan for annexation- the way the letter writers feel about this 4/5 process is the way many,many people feel about annexation. Let’s leave that out of the equation, because that changes everything anyway. So considering how many houses have turned over in Decatur in the last ten years, how much more turnover can we expect in the next 15-20 years? How many more elementary-age bubbles like the last one can we really expect? Scott? Anyone?
I think 15-20 year cycles are about as good a guess as any. The last bubble fell roughly into that time period. When from 1992-1997 enrollments surged almost 30%. On the other hand, economic down-turns may be more predictive. Where property taxes are high, hard times may push the folks with empty-nests out, and usher the young families in.
Whatever the cycles are, they occur more frequently than building new schools.
At Dr. Edwards’ State of the School System address, she cited our current enrollments at 2,984. I believe that number may include our 0-PreK enrollments. Supporting ages 0-4 in our school system is a good thing. It does however add to the total number of enrollments, demand for facilities, and space.
Marc Wisniewski once told me that the CSD had had enrollments as high as 4,500 students. However, demographics have changed. The national average number of children per family with children under 18 has changed (http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/fm3.xls):
> 2008 1.86
> 2005 1.82
> 1995 1.84
> 1985 1.85
> 1975 2.09
> 1965 2.44
> 1955 2.19
And to make matters more complicated… demographic trends for the City of Decatur don’t necessarily match national trends, or even what is going on in Dekalb, Atlanta, or Georgia. (http://www.decaturga.com/client_resources/cgs/citysvcs/rec/masterplan/rec_section2.pdf)
> Population Trends
> 1970 1980 1990 2000
>
> City of Decatur 21,943 18,404 17,336 18,147
> DeKalb County 415,587 483,024 553,800 665,865
> Atlanta Region 1,434,676 1,896,182 2,557,800 3,429,379
> State of Georgia 4,611,479 5,484,527 6,478,216 8,186,453
I don’t think anyone knows for certain how long the current trend will continue or what will follow. At a guess, I’d say we need to be prepared to flexibly and efficiently handle from 2200 to 3500 K-12 students. -And pulling numbers from thin air… from 200-600 0-PreK students.
I think this is based on nonsense – page one of the .pdf mentioned above shows that Westchester’s creek would have serious financial repercussions on construction – this school operated perfectly well after $2M was spent on its renovation in the early 2000’s, and the notion that construction is required needs serious revisiting. Administration’s use of the building involved nothing but temporary partition walls. Whatever else the facility might need is nowhere NEAR $8M. Maybe it would be cheaper and more effective to move Administration to 5th Avenue site and reopen Westchester with minimal changes there.
Can someone please tell me what is happening to Glenwood? Is the new school supposed to replace it completely, or just supplement it?
I believe it’s going to be a K-3 neighborhood elementary school, which would give the city four K-3’s.
For those in the know, am I right?
Yes, it’s supposed to be our fourth K-3 school.
@nelliebelle, it should be recalled that the last CSD reorganization was based on population projections from then-current birth rate at DeKalb General Hospital, period. An astonishing assumption if you ask me, but representative of the “planning” resulting in today’s problems. Intown migration was well underway at that point, after suburban flight of the 70’s-90’s.
Using DeKalb Medical births was especially silly considering that I know a whole slew of babies in Decatur that were born at Piedmont and Northside.
BTW, if you look at the CURRENT enrollment numbers for K, 1 and 3, and if 5th Avenue really is only going to be designed for 500 kids.. then it will be officially overcrowded in its second year of operation with 514 kids enrolled at that time. The next year, there will be 539 kids. Will that mean two trailers?
All of this assumes that we have no net gain in students in grades K-2 in the next few years.
My last $0.02 worth: an open planning process requires divulging all information up front for public consumption, followed by a continuous acceptance of public review throughout the process, including public influence upon the final decisions. This school system has a history of claiming public process, going into a closed session to make decisions including options never publicly presented, and coming out with finalized deals that are not subject to public input. This is NOT how government in the sunshine works, people.
Really my last: the pros and cons listed are not systematically applied; i.e. disruption for students/teachers should be listed universally (except for the status-quo option). This abbreviated scorecard is insufficient to the complexity of the task, even if it is visually comforting; a spreadsheet analysis of each option should be linked to each of the summed values, weighted (for the public to see) and numerical values produced. A matrix could easily result, with consistent numbers flowing from the value statements, with footnotes galore. The current approach is subjective in the extreme, while pretending to be rational. This is 2010 for goodness sake.
Bruce, several people pointed out the inconsistencies of that document when it was first introduced. I found it completely ridiculous that they would release that as an official document and the one by which everyone was supposed to decide what was the best option. It is completely insufficient and the pros and cons are not consistent from one option to the next. This is typical of the half-a$$ed way that the board does things sometimes. Many people pointed this out to the board and to Thomas van Soelen, but nobody ever went back and fixed it. Also typical.
I agree with Bill Bibb and Decatur Metro that this dialog is useful. At the very least, all of us know more about the positions of others even if it’s impossible to gauge how much support they really have outside of this blog, even if the positions have made us want to scream and resulted in occasional use of inappropriate for the dinner table language. Even more, I believe that some facts and issues are out on the table that wouldn’t be otherwise. Everyone is very busy with their work, keeping up their homes, and spending time with family. We don’t have time to research every issue important to us. One still has to use judgment and caution in reading the information posted on this blog but that’s true of all media, all communication from official sources, even communication from our friends and supporters, whether or not we realize it.