Now What?
We move ahead with the plan. It is quite obvious that the community did not support this bond and clustering grades. It wasn’t one segment of the district it was every building. So this closes on chapter of the “How will we reconfigure Mineola schools”. Chapter two involves another bond in February. The next bond will once again recommend an extension on Jackson Avenue to house grades 3, 4, 5- thereby leaving the Middle School and High School as is. In addition, there will be a contingent option in the bond that builds a 4 classroom extension on Hampton so it will be large enough to house the South PreK -2 grades. Legally we cannot place that bond up for a vote for 90 days. The work is not over. While the vote clearly told us the community doesn’t want a cluster bond, it doesn’t tell us is how many people don’t want any bond. Those advocates that want the middle school and high school to remain the same, as well as the parents that want Hampton as the South school, must be diligent in their efforts to pass both parts of the second bond. On November 4, I will recommend to the Board to pursue the second bond in February. Once I receive the green light I will work with our public relations firm to create a new campaign to promote that bond. Lastly, I would like to remind everyone that the Board of Education placed this decision in the hands of the community, and the community spoke loud and clear. They did not have to do that; it was/is in their authority to determine the configuration of the school system. I applaud their efforts involving everyone in the decision process.
I am very proud of our BOE majority for listening to the community and giving us the North and South PreK-2 schools (Meadow and Hampton) for which we asked. Your vote tonight demonstrates your inherent good will and spirit of compromise and I thank you from the bottom of my heart. Now let’s support the budget to ensure that our children keep the academic, sports and especially the arts programs that distinguish public schools from all others. THANK YOU, Chris, Terry, and Will!
In this week’s issue of The Mineola American there is an article that quotes John Mcgrath as suggesting that merging the Mineola school district with the Herricks school district is the answer to our current budget problems. While I applaud the idea of the merging of school districts in principle, which would reduce the absurd redundancy of administrators and associated staffs that are killing our schools, it does nothing to address the immediate issues that we currently face. I had to laugh when I read the article. Is this the kind of leadership we can continue to expect from Mr. Mcgrath and Ms. Parrino going foward ? I wondered to myself what would be the reaction of the Herricks residents when Mr. Mcgrath springs this idea on them ? I’m sure they’ll be ecstatic.We are a district that is out of control fiscally and we are looking literally across the street to pawn off our problems on Herricks instead of putting our own house in order first?! Mr. Mcgrath, why are you not using your considerable powers of persuasion to get the parties who really control the lion share of our budget to see reality ? In all the school board meetings that I’ve attended I haven’t heard one comment regarding what, if any, savings could be expected from our unions. So before we go to our neighboring district and suggest to them that a combination of our districts makes sense and is prudent financially, why don’t we make ourselves more attractive. It’s been a very long time since I went on date but I haven’t forgotten the basics. Don’t show up broke and looking sloppy .
November 4, 2010,
The BOE meeting has just concluded. The result was the tabling of the next bond vote to move this district forward. We watched the inevitable become prolonged and at the same time we need to ask why.
Why was a typo missed by our paid legal counsel?
Why was the same typo recognized and suppressed, by an elected official of this district, until the last moment?
A 500 square foot discrepancy in the paperwork for Jackson Ave. was indeed worthy of tabling the motion until it is resolved. All involved know full well it is a minor error but worthy of clarification before moving forward. We employ legal counsel for such matters. They are expected to look over documents and render an opinion as to the validity of same.
Should they have caught this error? Yes! Did they? No!
Mr. McGrath on the other hand pointed out the error as the board was about to vote on the next proposition. Do you believe that he found this discrepancy only moments before the board voted?
Obstructionism may be too timid a word. Malpractice could be too strong. Malfeasance might fit.
For those who feel the community was not given a voice, I’ll repeat what I said earlier. The board could have voted on the default option and been done with it. The first option was turned down by 83% of the voters. Now, if the board chooses to, they will again give the community a chance to voice their opinions in the voting booth. Several options can be used if you think it through.
Voting options:
1. You want the 5th and 8th grades to remain where they are and you want Hampton to be the south school. You vote YES to both A and B.
2. You don’t support any bond. Simply vote NO on propositions A and B.
3. You support the 5th and 8th grades remaining but think Willis should be the south school. You vote Yes for A and No for B
Here is another point:
4. If you do not support any bond but feel, ” IF” one is approved, you think Hampton should be used over Willis. You Vote No to A and Yes to B.
While B is contingent on A’s approval, you can still vote to approve B without Voting to approve A. It is the totals that matter, not the individual vote. There is also the option of abstaining on one or both parts. So long as you take the time to sign in to your polling place and enter the booth, you have exercised your right/duty to vote. Abstaining is your way of saying you don’t have an opinion at this time. Simply not showing up means you couldn’t be bothered.
The article states this is what will be voted on. Hampton as the Pre K- 2 South School.
The next bond will once again recommend an extension on Jackson Avenue to house grades 3, 4, 5- thereby leaving the Middle School and High School as is. In addition, there will be a contingent option in the bond that builds a 4 classroom extension on Hampton so it will be large enough to house the South PreK -2 grades.
Artie , thanks for your thoughts , I could see that situation. Although , I was imagining Willis housing central office, and the alternative high school if bond two [both parts] gets voted in. Also , I assumed that central office would stay at Willis if bond two were to fail , and pre-k-2 south would be in there with them. I suppose this must keep evolving as the options change. Maybe housing an alternative high school at a new location is not a goal at this time. Well , I will be looking forward to learning about the options. If we are able to free up two complete buildings for rent while solving the main concerns of parents I think we’d be in business.
I have to applaud Carolyn Sweeny for her thoughtful comments regarding the 5th and 8th grade relocations. Finally, there is (at least what I consider) a legitimate reason for possibly not considering this as an option. Until her blog, the only reason, I had heard repeatedly was parental fear regarding the move. Children in general are far more resilient than they are often given credit for. She raises a good point about the cutoff date and perhaps that needs to be considered as part of the comprehensive plan for the future configuration.
Dr. Nagler, can you let us know what the percentage or actual number of the children in both those grades that are impacted by the cutoff date? Understandably, another date might impact more students, but it might be interesting to know the current numbers.
Lastly, the Meadow Drive kids also deserve a solid round of applause for the tremendous efforts fundraising for UNICEF. They did a wonderful job. Thanks, too, to all the parents who helped “Clean the Money” and to Mrs. Molloy for hosting the event.
Pat, I believe that part A keeping the 8th grade in the middle school leaves room for the administration to move to the High School. Should part A fail there would be no room to move both the classes and administration into Hampton.
But I’m just assuming.
I will make a brief presentation on the next bond on Thursday November 4
In thinking about the the bond vote it became obvious that it contained alittle something for everyone…not to like. Whether it was the shifting of the 5th and 8th grades to the middle school and the high school, the further accumulation of debt, the closing of three local schools, clustering of the district, it had it all. So I don’t know how it came as much of a surprise to anyone that it was defeated. It was dead on arrival. But of all the aspects of this plan I find the most amazing is the continuing life of the Willis Avenue building. When the plan to rebuild it was presented years ago the community did not want it. It was rebuilt. Now that we face the task of closing some buildings, the one building that no one wanted in the first place and still no one wants ,was being preserved . I don’t understand. Artie Barnett suggests that we consider some radical ideas. They’re not so radical. Chaminade is a natural buyer for the Jackson Ave building. It would not and should not be a fire sale situation. It’s a once in a lifetime deal for Chaminade and they know it. They are well aware that this district is in the process of restructuring and that this opportunity will not present itself again. Why are we not considering it ? We close a building, we pay down debt,make capital investments in our remaining buildings with the proceeds and the building is not abandoned. All of this again revolves around the basic fact that we have no money. The structual problem of our finances still haunts us. The ratio of 80%-20% is still THE PROBLEM. Let’s make the difficult but necessary decisions as a community with our buildings and then demand that the district unions make their own difficult choices.
Dr. Nagler can you please explain why part B would be contingent on part A in the next bond proposal ?
I just wanted to share and echo what many others are writing here. I too voted no, but not because of cost, rooftop playgrounds, or a full cluster model. I simply voted no because I did not want the 5th grade in the middle school and the eighth grade in the HS. Unless Mineola will change it’s cut-off date to December 1st there will be some children (one of my own included) who will be 12 when they begin grade 8. And they will be 12 for FOUR MONTHS of that first school year. In many of our neighboring districts who have a 7-12 model not only do they separate the younger grades, but they also have cut-offs of December 1st. Are parents of children who are December babies supposed to consider holding their children back if the eighth grade does indeed move to the HS? I think the vote would’ve gotten a better response if the grade configuration was more thoughtfully planned to keep children in settings more age appropriate.
I have to admit I was relieved when this bond failed, but now I will hold my breath when we vote again.
Lisa and/or John,
Don’t you think you’re being a little hard on the board? Are you aware that it is within their power to do anything that they vote on as a majority? So long as it does not create debt, as in a bond, they never had to put anything out for a vote by the district residents.
They authorized the superintendant to close two schools. He came back with a no cost way to do it ( the default option). He went further to offer other options based on the public opinions he gleaned from surveys and other sources. They then allowed options to be voted on by the public when they could have simply accepted his plan and been done with it. Both the board and superintendant went out of their way to let the public be part of the process.
Below you will see Susan Iadevaio state the following:
“My point is, that there may have been some things that people agree with in this bond and some that they did not and that is why they said no to it.”
This is the crux of the problem. If you are not 100% satisfied, vote no. If this remains the majority sentiment, the board is better served by taking the public out of the process. Nothing will please everyone.
I don’t believe there is an easy answer to this question. I will recommend the next bond with the default option as “one package.” Whether or not the board accepts that recommendation is up to them.
Hi Dr Nagler,
I’m a little confused about the next bond being put forth and the default option that may follow. You wrote on your blog that it is the BOE’s authority to determine the configuration of the school system. IF the next bond fails, is the default option as put forth to the community a 100% deal, or can the BOE choose to do basically whatever they’d like at that point with whatever schools they choose? (And the inverse, if the bond passes, can the schools that are mentioned as staying open be changed, or is that more concrete???)
Perception does play a big part. Many people’s perception is the default option is set and will be adopted should the next bond fail. Is this not necessarily the case?
It is also stated on your blog (not by you) that the BOE will honor, stand by and promote the wishes of the community through the voting process. The community can only vote on what is put out to them. I feel disheartened by the BOE putting up a bond that failed by 82%. If the BOE listened to the majority of the people they are SUPPOSED to represent, they would have realized that people overwhelmingly did not want this bond as an option. It was, in my opinion, a big waste of time and money. Cluster, no cluster, close three schools, close two schools, what did we learn from this? Pretty much nothing, except that only 18% of the people are being listened to.
Please clarify the role of the BOE in their final option/decision.
Thank You.
And also thank you to the BOE for all your hard work. While I may not agree with some of the things you say or do, I know it’s a tough, thankless role to be in.
Now everyone wants a cluster model?
Here’s a RADICAL idea (I love that word):
Sell Jackson to Chaminade, They would jump on it.
Sell Meadow, the prospective renter wanted to buy it.
Sell Cross and Willis also.
Take the proceeds and tear down Hampton and build a state of the art Pre K to 5 school using all of the grounds.
Pay off all current bonds.
Put a multi use sports complex at the High School.
————————-
Or, we could just stop trying to come up with more ideas and follow the course set before us.
Meadow would be the North PreK-2 school
Dr. Nagler,
Your blog indicates that Hampton would be the pre-K-2 South model. I thought that Meadow would serve this purpose. Can you please clarify? Thanks.
I also agree with Rosemaire Fabiano. I do not believe that this vote showed that the community does not want clustering. I personally would like the schools clustered and am fine with having the 5th grad at the MS and 8th grade at the HS. I just don’t believe that Willis Ave is great building to house a Pre K – 1 when we have other buildings that have bigger playgrounds and better parking. As a parent who normally would have a first grader going into Hampton next year, I would rather my child travel to Meadow and have more space play than attend Willis for first grade. My point is, that there may have been some things that people agree with in this bond and some that they did not and that is why they said no to it. I know that this is a difficult task and you can not please everyone all of the time and I want to thank Dr. Nagler and the BOE for addressing it.
I could not agree with Ms. Fabiano more. The overwhelming “no” vote does not necessarily imply that the community is against a cluster model- all it tells us is that they were against THAT cluster model. There are a myriad of possible reasons why the bond failed.
I have said if on facebook and I will say it here: It is what it is. We all might not agree with it, but we all need to be mature and deal with it.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the ENTIRE Mineola Board of Education and Dr. Nagler for giving us the opportunity over the last few years of letting our voices be heard and making us a part of this process. We know that letting us be a part of the decision making was not something you had to do and I, as well as many others, are extremely grateful you gave us the chance to do so.
Dr. Nagler, I disagree that this vote shows the community does not want clustering. Basically, the bond you put forth put 5th grade in the MS, 8th grade in the HS and a roof top playground at Willis. There was a lot in that bond that the majority of our community did not want. I don’t believe this means we don’t want a cluster. Since you say the BOE chose to put this vote up, why didn’t they listen to 80% of the community prior to putting up this vote. Everyone voiced their concern prior to this vote and I believe this vote failed because this option was way too extreme. The CCC told the board what the community didn’t want. Basically 5th grade and 8th grade moved up was a big concern and the rooftop was never presented and once it was put out there, everyone was upset. Yet this Board chose to put this bond up anyway. Yes the voting process is a good process, but it works better when you give the people something more palatable to vote on. I don’t know how much it cost to put up this option, but failing by over 80% tells me that somebody wasn’t listening.
Not sure that I understand the question Lisa. Both bonds are roughly the same cost.
Dr. Nagler,
You don’t mean that there was no need for the community to vote for a bond of that size, do you?
And I agree, that to assume the community does not support clustering, is a misinterpretation of many “no” votes.
Perception played a huge part of this bond vote but to accuse the majority of BOE members as being “cheerleaders as the band played as the Titanic went down” is completely unfair and incorrect, in my opinion. The decision to put up a bond to streamline this district and close three schools was nothing short of an enormously difficult, complicated and very emotional decision. I’m sorry if you did not get the feeling that we were in complete support – I know that I always felt that the power was in the hands of the voters and I wanted to give every voter a chance to weigh in – thus the three options. It is quite easy to sit in judgment of the efforts of those who made that decision. We have been accused of only caring about saving money. Imagine that – a BOE that tried to save the taxpayers money while not cutting the educational program. I had every confidence in this bond and said it loudly, publicly and at many other venues besides BOE meetings but it is obvious that the community did not feel the same. The majority board always felt that it was up to the public to decide on how they wanted their school district configured but to come up with one clear winner (even the CCC recommendation), was impossible – every plan, in my opinion, had flaws.
That being said, this BOE will honor, stand by and promote the wishes of the community through the voting process. It is not a perfect system but it is the best one we have. The voters have spoken loudly and clearly and I am very glad we had a great turnout. That’s what the process is about. I can only hope that when budget time comes, that people have the same passion and conviction that they had during this bond vote. Our problems have not gone away and it will take a concerted effort on the part of those who really care to pass responsible budgets. Being a BOE member is probably one of the most difficult things a person can undertake and I applaud this BOE and Dr. Nagler for the incredible efforts made.
Why must part B be contingent on part A ?
I begin by stating this is only MY opinion, that said:
The bond has failed in a resounding fashion. That is fact. What remains unclear is, the reason the bond failed. Without oversimplifying the situation, the problems that are being addressed are way too multifaceted to be fixed with a single bond vote. There is no one size fits all here, as we all well know.
While, I know there will never be the perfect solution to satisfy all, I also believe that the problem of ‘Perception” also played into the defeat of this bond. I can only speak for myself, but I personally remain unconvinced, despite the “Outreach” newsletter, that the Majority Board and Administration were ever anything more than cheerleaders as the band played the Titanic down. That said, in my mind, there is little wonder that the people spoke the way they did. If strong conviction had been conveyed, perhaps the outcome would have been different. This bond was defeated before it was voted, because it was too flawed and the Majority Board and Administration were hoping for a pass vote but I believe expecting a fail. Not a big confidence builder for such an important vote.
I personally don’t believe we need to address all the problems at one time. Would it be more cost effective? Certainly, but perhaps a slower, more measured global approach is what is necessary, to ultimately achieve the best all around solution.
I also wish to acknowledge the hard work of the CCC committee, as well as all the residents who have supported the effort to address the problems by voicing their opinions.
They will be on the same ballot. Voters must actually cast two votes. Part B (Hampton) will be contigent on part A (Jackson) passing. JAckson can pass and Hampton can fail, but the opposite cannot happen.
Dr. Nagler,
Should the $4.4M pass in February, how long before the additional $1.7M can be voted on. Can I assume another 45 day notice is not needed?