Washington Post business columnist Steven Pearlstein has some scathing remarks about Caterpillar in his Wednesday article:
It’s time for the Jim Owenses of the world to show the same backbone and ingenuity in dealing with the excessive and unreasonable demands of Wall Street that they previously showed in dealing with workers and labor unions.
Ouch!
I was reading through District 150’s Master Facilities Planning Committee Final Recommendations, and I discovered their decisions are determined by the outcome of a facilities analysis they did. Here’s how they did it:
First, they split up the committee into four subcommittees based on high school attendance area. The four subcommittees were:
Then, the report states:
The committee decided to evaluate each facility based on their respective attributes relating to several primary issues: 1) Health-Life-Safety, 2) Operational Costs and 3) Educational Programs. This assessment was then followed by tours of each school in the District. The Committee was divided into four groups to visit schools in each of the four high school feeder areas. The results of the preliminary analysis were then reevaluated and modified based on on-site observations of existing conditions.
So, at the end of the report, you find three spreadsheets with the “raw data” of their scores. Each of those “primary issues” had several factors the committee members had to evaluate. For example, under “Health-Life-Safety,” some of the factors included site size, building size, building age, building structure, hazard protection, etc.
However, what I didn’t find was any objective basis for the scores they assigned.
For example, on the “Health-Life-Safety” spreadsheet, they have to give a score for the age of the building. One would expect this would have some sort of clear-cut, objective standard — maybe “5” for 25 years old or newer, “4” for 25-50 years old, etc. It’s almost that consistent, but there are a few anomalies. It appears that any building built before 1940 received a “1” — except for Woodruff High School, which got a “2,” even though it was built in 1936, the same year as Von Steuben Middle School, which received a “1.” All the schools built between 1941 and 1979 received a “2,” except for Richwoods and Manual. Richwoods (1955) got a “3,” and Manual (1961) inexplicably got a “4.” If there isn’t consistency in this, the most objective category on the list, how are we to evaluate their scores on the truly subjective categories, such as “healthfulness of lighting”?
Another curiosity is the score given for “Energy and Efficiency” of the building, systems, and equipment. Every primary, middle, and high school in Peoria got a “1” in these categories except for two: Glen Oak School got a “3” and Lincoln got a “5.” Are we really to believe that Charter Oak (built in 1979) and Irving school (built in 1898) have exactly the same (low) efficiency rating?
Remember, these scores and others like them form the basis of the district’s $120,000,000 building plan decision. Would you base a financial decision that large on these measurements?
It’s also worth noting that, given the information we have in this facilities report, it doesn’t appear that any experts were called in — for instance, an architect, or fire marshal, or HVAC specialist like Energy Pro Heating & Cooling — so one wonders again on what basis the committee assigned scores to things like “flexibility of building,” or “hazard protection,” or “healthfulness of HVAC.” In other words, they’re giving their opinion on several items for which they don’t have the necessary expertise. I could just as easily fill out these forms with my own opinions and they would be as valid (except on those items that deal with educational issues, on which they are in fact experts). They should have consulted actual experts such as Sitton Mechanical for these.
Yet, based on this “analysis,” the report confidently concludes (emphasis mine): “The District has or will soon have the necessary match of funds derived both from available restricted reserves and the sale of a health-life-safety bond (for the replacement of a minimum of two and as many as six buildings the cost of which to remediate is greater than the cost of replacement).”
The report gives no justification for the statement in bold.
Nowhere in the report do they give a breakdown of what it would cost to renovate/expand the current buildings versus what it would cost to do a new construction (including acquisition, demolition, legal, and other hidden costs). They also didn’t state how they would protect construction workers who are injured in scaffolding accidents. There’s no feasibility study. All they’ve really done is identified which schools they feel (subjectively) are in greatest need of repair. That’s no basis upon which to start tearing down schools and building new ones on different sites.
It’s easy to see why the school district is on the state’s financial watch list when it makes big-budget decisions on such scanty analysis. The school board should throw out this committee’s report and try again, this time with some objective measurements and a real feasibility study. Oh, and community involvement.
In fact, maybe they could learn something from this report by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Among many other valuable pieces of information, it includes this warning that the district is already learning the hard way: “A study conducted behind closed doors does not consider all viewpoints or build trust and support from within the community.”
Just like the façade improvement program approved last month for Sheridan Road, Prospect Road south of War Memorial is getting some city help to improve its look as well.
I do a fair amount of criticism of the city on this blog, but I have to applaud the façade improvement program. This program is brilliantly-conceived and well-executed. It helps older neighborhoods, it implements the Heart of Peoria Plan, and it shows some commitment from the city to long-time established businesses.
Kudos to the city for a job well-done!
As stated in the council’s request for action, “In 2005, the City Council and County of Peoria approved a sole source contract with Ady International Company (AIC) to evaluate locational characteristics of the City and County as a preferred location for business attraction.” In other words, when companies are looking for a city in which to locate, how does Peoria stack up?
Mr. Ady gave a presentation to the council on his findings. Interestingly, there were a couple of popular beliefs that were dispelled :
One other thing is worth mentioning: “Community appearance” is one of the city’s weaknesses. I really expected that to be one of our strengths. Even with all the public and private projects the city has been doing to beautify Peoria, apparently outsiders are getting a bad first impression of our fair city. This should give us all pause. Why are visitors getting this impression? What specific things can we or should we do to change our appearance?
But we won’t know for a couple of days whether monthly collection will start in May or September. There’s some question whether Illinois American can change their billing process quickly enough to start collecting monthly in May.
The switch to a monthly fee was opposed by council members Sandberg, Van Auken, and Grayeb. Grayeb has a deep-seated hatred for Illinois American Water Company, and he feels the company is profiting from collecting this fee for the city. That’s why he voted against it. Sandberg and Van Auken voted against it because it doesn’t address the root problem — as Sandberg put it, it’s “putting sugar on” a poor funding decision by the previous council; it hides a bogus tax.
After reading in the paper that the school board is still eyeing Morton Square Park as the possible site of a new District 150 school, neighborhood activists are not wasting any time trying to protect the park (and their homes) from unwanted intrusion. They want the park to be named an historic landmark. The Journal Star reports:
Frank Lewis, who owns property adjacent to the park and who sits on the city’s Historic Preservation Commission, brought the idea to the Central Illinois Landmarks Foundation. The foundation, of which Lewis is also a member, approved supporting landmark status for the park at its meeting Monday.
Making it a landmark would stymie attempts by the park district and school district to site a school there. The funniest line, though was from park district board president Tim Cassidy, who said the park board may welcome, rather than fight, landmark status for Morton Square:
“I cannot tell you what position we’d take, because I don’t know the implications,” Cassidy said. “If one of the things driving it is the school district’s plan, we didn’t have any knowledge of it until I read it in the paper. It’s never been discussed. The request has never been made.”
This is laughable. I encourage everyone to read the District 150 Master Planning Committee Final Recommendations, dated October 11, 2005. In there, the school district specifically states as one of their action items:
14. Engage the Peoria Park District in discussions to acquire land adjacent to or on the Morton Square and upper Glen Oak Park sites. Such discussions might include the swapping of land.
Now we know that the school board talked to the park district about the Glen Oak site in an illegal park board closed session. Are we to believe Mr. Cassidy’s assertion that he “didn’t have any knowledge of [the district’s plan] until [he] read it in the paper”? That the school board only mentioned the Glen Oak part of the plan, but not the Morton Square park portion? Does he think we were all born yesterday?
Also in the Master Planning Committee report (emphasis mine):
Beginning in the Woodruff attendance area in Fiscal 2007 with completion by Fiscal 2009, phase-out Glen Oak Primary School and either acquire/swap land in upper Glen Oak Park or adjacent area or expand Von-Stueben campus into K-8 [ . . . ]; Alternatively a new “Glen Oak Park†campus or, a vacated administration center on the Von Stueben campus would be vacated by 2009 and re-purposed with an addition into a primary school.
Separately, property would be acquired adjacent to and/or on the Morton Square Park site. A separate replacement building would be built as funds became available with a targeted opening of Fiscal 2009. Upon completion of the new school, Kingman and Irving schools would be closed. The Glen Oak, Kingman, and Irving primary students would be re-allocated to the “Morton Square Park†and either the Glen Oak Park (preferred) or expanded Von Stueben sites.
Sounds like neighbors of Morton Square Park have plenty of cause for concern; I’d say it’s pretty clear their houses are next on the chopping block if they don’t act to protect them. Godspeed, Mr. Lewis.
Like we didn’t know. George Ryan was found guilty on all counts for racketeering. Read all about it in the Chicago Tribune:
A federal jury convicted former Gov. George Ryan today on all charges that as secretary of state he steered state business to cronies in return for vacations, gifts and other benefits for himself and his family.
Lobbyist Lawrence Warner, a close Ryan friend, was also found guilty on all charges against him in the historic trial.
WBBM in Chicago, among other radio stations, is reporting that the jury has reached a verdict in former governor George Ryan’s raketeering trial. Stay tuned!
It’s as easy as 1-2-3 for Albert Pujols.
Last year’s most valuable player hit three home runs yesterday, including a walk-off homer in the bottom of the ninth, powering the Cardinals past the Reds in a game with a see-saw lead.
The only bad thing about being so stinking good is that now pitchers will probably start pitching around him (a la Barry Bonds). Still, it’s players like Albert that make you proud to be a Cardinals fan.
Terry Bibo’s article in the Journal Star today is one of the most disturbing things I’ve read about District 150 (and that’s saying something). The gist of the article is that a Peoria family who had been sending their kids to Peoria Christian School decided to give District 150 a chance. So they put their kids in Glen Oak school, only to have them be bullied and discriminated against because they were white. The daughter even got threatened by a group of three girls in a restroom once. The last straw for this family was when a fourth-grader (one of the three girls in the previous restroom incident), armed with a box cutter, threatened to kill their daughter.
What’s most troubling to me is the school’s response. Bibo talked to Associate Superintendent Cindy Fischer about this situation and was told:
. . . the district has policies that were followed in each of these instances. Every one was addressed, in large part through a nationally-recognized program that teaches and reinforces appropriate behavior. District-wide, 150 has four committees exploring various aspects of discipline problems. And for this family, offering [to let their kids attend] Kingman [Primary School] is a respectable option: It is late in the year, so the district is reluctant to make any transfers. But Kingman has fewer discipline problems and several openings. Hines Primary School . . . has none.
“It certainly is our regret that we were not able to bring satisfaction to this parent,” Fischer says. “As consumers, when we’re not satisfied with one product, we go to another. I think that is what this parent has done.”
Is it just me, or does that response leave something to be desired? First of all, if the district followed all its policies and the level of hostility toward this girl escalated as a result, isn’t that an indication that the district’s policies don’t work?
And what about those policies? They’re part of a “nationally-recognized program that teaches and reinforces appropriate behavior.” Wouldn’t it be more appropriate for the principal or administrator to punish the student’s inappropriate behavior? Are we to believe that this girl didn’t know that threatening another student with a weapon was inappropriate? If that’s true, then this girl has bigger problems than a lack of positive reinforcement. She really should be in another school that specializes in problem children.
Which brings up another point. Why is it that the well-behaved students were asked to leave Glen Oak and go to Kingman? Doesn’t that reinforce the behavior of those kids doing the threatening? I mean, they wanted those white kids out of their school, and now they are. I guess they won, huh? Why aren’t the delinquent students being removed from the school (sent to remedial school, suspended, or expelled)? Are we to believe they aren’t threatening other kids — that this is an isolated incident?
They have “four committees exploring various aspects of discipline problems,” which gives me mixed feelings. In one sense, it shows that they’re acknowledging the problem and trying to do something about it. But on the other hand, is effective school discipline really such a conundrum that it takes a cadre of administrators to figure it out?
I seem to remember the kids in my grade school being reasonably well disciplined. Of course part of that discipline was getting punished for wrong behavior, up to and including corporate corporal punishment. We were so unlightened back then, weren’t we? Unenlightened, but well-behaved.
One last thing this episode points out (as if we didn’t know): District 150’s problem is not aging schools. People aren’t avoiding the district because the buildings are not energy-efficient. They’re worried about safety, discipline, and education. This is where the district needs to be spending its time and resources.