(21) comments Back to story

electriczipper
electriczipper

It's all about football?

techi50

This is tax payer money we are talking about saving.all this union is worried about is its position, and why do students have a say.this is about fiduciary duty to trhe tax paying citizens not pleaseing teachers and students

confuzed

Jerry,
The reality is the union will get growth from this because the #.s will increase.
As a disfunctional group in present time we wounder why are educational system is in question?
As a taxpayer and a citizen that has no options but to pay for a unproductive bennfit heavy group to try and educate, please look @ the whole picture and let your conciuos guide you.

Hope2013

The 4th paragraph refers to the 55 member committee. There were only 36 votes, 25 for and 11 against. What happend to the other 19 votes?? Could it be that a third of the committee grew so frustrated with a flawed process that they decided to call it quits after 5 months of hard work? That should say something......ALOT!

Scot Heisel
Scot Heisel

Please see Editor's note above, which appeared after this comment was posted. There are 48 members in the committee, not 55.

Hope2013

Since when are absentee ballots not allowed. That makes zero sense. How could the committee leaders think 55 people, busy people, could make sure their schedules would allow for them to be present for a meeting that would be held 5 months in the future. They all put in a ton of time, effort and emotion into this process to be excluded at the 11th hour. I didn't believe it before but it is sounding more and more "pre-determined".

ralfan

Techi50 - according to the district, no positions are being eliminated by the merger. Thus, the union isn't opposing it based on a worry about "its position." Also, the proposed merger actual costs the district money, according to the consultants themselves. So, maybe the union is worried about something else--like the fact that this proposal isn't in the best interest of the students involved, or, as the resolution states, the union has a lack of confidence in that the process and results.

crowsfoot
crowsfoot

"for 29 of us that could not make it...NOT fair." Whew, I don't care much about this issue but if you get on a committee that is supposed to make big decisions you shouldn't need water boarded to show up to vote.

Skoobie

I'm with Crowsfoot. If you couldn't be bothered to set aside the time to attend the vote then you should have excused yourself from the committee to make room for people who can make the commitment. It's not the committee's job to pussyfoot around your schedule.

Leslie Slape
Leslie Slape

First, a correction: The committee actually ended up being 48, which was said for the first time last night. I did not realize the number 55 was edited into the story. I will change the number in subsequent stories. Second, a reminder that this process went longer than planned. Committee members committed themselves for the original meetings but some were unable to attend the final meeting. Three of the people who couldn't come sent letters indicating their support for a merger.

Leslie Slape
Leslie Slape

It was the choice of the committee to not accept absentee ballots. However, if absentees had been accepted, the three pro-merger letters would have been pro-merger votes, bringing the total to 28 yes. Even if you kept membership at 55 and counted all the other votes as nays, the ayes would still have it. At this point, the issue is in the hands of the school board and they are asking for public comment.

Scot Heisel
Scot Heisel

We just revised this article to report that the facilities committee has 48 members, not 55.

getinvolved

Revising #'s seems to be an ongoing theme with this "process". The committee was formed for one purpose and as time rolled on, their charge seemed to changed at some point The meeting on 2/11 Ms Westrict questioned why only 1 option was presented. The sub-committee of 10 that drafted this "plan" (not 48 or 55, but 10), other than closing 4 schools or closing none? I am confused by the logic of overfilling the 2 smaller middle school and placing kids in portables? Options need to be explored.

gogetyourown

Many people in this area are loosing choice. I bought my house in the area I did do my kids could go to MM.

I will simply move. South 15 to 25 miles. Better for my family. Kids are finally on board with the move.

Even if I loose money on the house. We are moving.

Some have jobs that all ow that.

I doubt this will be posted but I wonder how many will flee. How many of the Decent families.

LVRes1976

PLANNING requires a PROCESS! First step...years to go before anything could or would happen. Declining numbers in enrollment are a national trend. People are not having large families. The district is funded by the number of kids. Currently, the school district is be PROACTIVE (new concept to many of you) and trying to figure this out before they go bankrupt. Is the process perfect, nope. Is the decision final, NO! Yesh, stop freaking out and be part of the process, it was open to the community.

SkiBum

So now they are going to hire a consultant to review the findings of the consultant. No confidence? Oh I can certainly understand why! Is there no end to the madness? Again I say, rather than look like an even bigger fool, simply do a better job of managing the resources you currently have. The leadership has already shown that they lack the skills and knowledge to take on such an enormous project regardless of how many consultants they hire. Why go down in history as the group who ruined it all

electriczipper
electriczipper

Build another at a convenient location that would allow for expansion if/when needed and at LCCs' expense then deed MM over to them. One too big of a school would be more problematic, I think (I could be wrong), than 2 smaller ones. As for location, somewhere between 3rd avenue, Oregon way, The Habitat for humanity, and Industrial way may be an answer, or the west side of town? jmho

Elvira

We are blessed to have smaller schools in this district. Our kids have MORE opportunities, less crime, closer connections to teachers/staff. We CAN make it work financially. The district has managed to amass over 8 million dollars in reserve money; albeit by shady budgeting -- so, it's possible to keep the facilities as they are. What we do need in this district is NEW LEADERSHIP who value education ahead of their own egos. Read http://www.wpaag.org/Consolidation%20Studies.htm

cakemaker2000

Of course the UNION is complaining. This would SAVE money..... Heaven forbid the district should do something that SAVES money.....

Euphonium

Why should employees have a say about management duties & decisions? The union doesn't know its place in all this. If your last educational experience was HS, you probably have some loyalty to MM, but if you are a college grad, your HS experience was only a means to an end.
"It is not possible to create the best future for our kids in the face of continued declining enrollment when we have our resources diverted to maintain excess property." Suzanne Cusick
Suck it up Teach - U R lucky to 2 B W

ralfan

Cakemaker2000, read the articles. This plan does not save money. The district gave that up some time ago. This plan costs money. Quite a bit of it. If you are going to have an opinion, it's better to have an informed one.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.