The Madison 9-12 Project meets tonight at 6 p.m. at the VFW. "Rodeo Clown in Charge" Jason Bjorklund says "public education" is on tonight's agenda. How could public education not be on the agenda? Everyone in town is talking about Tuesday's failed bond election. My Wednesday post on Plan C drew lots of local Web traffic, beating even the spike from Monday's discussion of Hal Wick's silly gun mandate legislation. Perhaps the 9-12ers will finally direct their political attentions toward vital local issues of taxation and representation. Maybe tonight's meeting will even rouse some local "throw the bums out!" spirit and produce some candidates seeking to purge the local school board that brought us the soundly rejected gold-plated new gym plan.
My current Madville Times poll on Plan C suggests that not everyone has gotten the message that a new gym masquerading as a renovation plan won't fly with the voters. "Same plan" is neck-and-neck with "Renovate, but no gym" as top vote-getter so far. (Poll remains open until breakfast Monday: if you haven't already, vote now, and send your friends!)
Also not getting the message: Madison Central school board member Ryan Hegg, who appears on the front page of last night's Madison Daily Leader to advocate taking another swing at "renovation efforts." Hegg openly swallows the "domino effect," the thesis promoted by the district that the new gym and renovation combo plan is the only way to solve the school's problems:
"So a plan that involves staying in the footprint of the building is not a practical one," Hegg said. "You just cannot get the required wheelchair access in bathrooms, etc., within the current footprint of the rooms."
He explained that fixing the building's problems with the Americans with Disabilities Act means moving walls "and when you move one wall, it encroaches into another room, making it too small, and so on and so on" [Chuck Clement, "Hegg: Retry Renovation Efforts," Madison Daily Leader, 2011.02.03].
...and so on, and so on, until you reach the inescapable logical conclusion of a new 2500-seat gym.
Of course, you might miss the fact that there was a gym involved in the plan just from reading the paper. MDL's Chuck Clement doesn't mention the word gym until 78% of the way into the article. Even then, board member Hegg refers only to "physical education," not extracurricular sports. This is the same manipulative soft-pedaling of the biggest, most expensive, and most unnecessary part of the "renovation" plan that the school and local media have been perpetrating since day one, a spin that I would suggest played no small role in inspiring the lack of public confidence that resulted in a 50% No vote on Tuesday.
Hegg's statements are the first public comment I've heard from current board members on what might come next. I hope his statements are his own and not a trial balloon approved by the entire board. If it's just Hegg who's wrong, we can make progress. But if the entire board is rejecting the clearly expressed will of the people and clinging to the extremist position that building a new gym is the only way to fix the high school, we're in for another spin-filled, futile bond campaign and more delay of the repairs the high school really needs.
-----------------------
p.s.: In a smart PR move, Doug Knowlton is off to Washington, D.C., where he will likely be too busy to alientate any more potential Yes voters.
Cory,
You don't want a gym. You don't want a luxury gym. You don't want a competition center.
I would like to hear a concrete, detailed, viable alternative plan (from anyone) to fix the flaws in the current building: accessibility, security, safety, lighting and air quality. You have to do it without moving the gym or adding on to the building.
Which programs will you sacrifice and which rooms will you eliminate to provide the additional space to make it happen?
All you hear about in Madison is about the bond election. The community can sit back and criticize the school board but unless a viable Plan D is offered by someone else that can address the problems without building on AND keeping it under $8 million then we are all just wasting our time complaining.
This isn't just a challenge to Cory. If a gym and it's associated costs will cause voters never to pass a bond issue, then we either have to wait 12 more years for the school board to use capital outlay money and build it anyway or someone way smarter than me needs to come up with an alternative.
Who is up to the challenge?
See you all at a game later tonight...
No gym for 12 years: sounds like a plan to me, Michael. We've overallocated our capital outlay, can't afford ongoing maintenance on what we have... darn. Athletes will just have to make do with the facilities they have for now. ADA/accesibility, fire/electrical, academic improvements first, build smaller spaces to meet academic needs where unavoidable based on creative crowd-sourced community input as Chris Francis suggests. Heck, we're up to the challenge here better than the school board, which hasn't made a peep about a back-up plan yet.
The fine arts people are going to have to make do too...I know that is a soft place for you.
Cory, so when will your plan be available?
Fine arts hasn't gotten a turn at the trough for 45 years. Athletes have new MS gym, HS practice gym, fieldhouse for games, wonderful community center for workouts, downtown armory... they can wait. Besides, fine arts produce more academic gains. Gotta have priorities.
I think we're got the outline of a plan right here. If you want dollar figures and blueprints, well, we'll have to convince the school board to let us access the public funds they use to hire architects and consultants.
You need DETAILS!
How would you make the bathrooms handicapped accessible for instance?
Michael, as I said, you have me at a disadvantage. The school board is at liberty to spend tens of thousands of dollars on an architect to give them the answer they want. For instance, I can tell you I would consider turning the current south end of band room and north end of chorus room into big ADA bathrooms, building onto the west side of the building for bigger band and chorus practice rooms... maybe even expand the locker room to fill the current west hallway and putting the new hallway outside between the current west wall and the new arts addition. I can also advocate expanding the current central bathrooms west into the work room and storage space (that would be easy space to relocate to new pods on the side of the building)... but I need board members willing to demand alternatives from the architect to give costs.
Or know what? With all the pipes needed, maybe we just build new bathrooms along the edge of the building, outside the footprint (see, I'm not committed to the strict footprint idea, the false dilemma Hegg tried to establish in the paper last night). We have numerous alternatives. The board has to start considering them and getting numbers so we can compare and make a fully informed decision.
Besides, Chris's suggestion isn't about having one person offer the golden plan everyone follows. Chris would have us throw a charette, get all the good ideas we can from all comers, and then find out what works. Involving everyone builds support and develops a good plan that has more buy-in.
You are getting better with the central bathrooms BUT I can tell you that adding on is NOT popular.
Now what else would you sacrifice if adding on is not an option?
Michael, it seems that the only option you're thinking of is for the school district to offer a plan and the "no" voters to offer an alternative plan. This is not the way we should go about this, mainly because it's pitting the school against voters. We don't need further division; we need to come together and work this thing out together. That is one of the key pieces that's been missing all along: the public being included in the plan development from the very beginning.
As Cory has mentioned, one of the best and most viable solutions is the charrette concept (Chris Francis alluded to this in his comments about open design on another post). A charrette is a way of planning for the design of the school renovations that includes the public from the very beginning (along with the school district and architects). You can read up on what a charrette entails here:
http://www.charretteinstitute.org/charrette.html
The people over at the Rural Learning Center in Howard are well-versed on the charrette concept, so they could be of great help to our community.
We would easily have time to enact the charrette process, make some modifications to the original plan, and have a new plan ready to vote on within a few months.
On the contrary, I am asking for ideas on how you would accomplish the goal without building a gym and the supporting facilities. Relocating the gym opens up possibilities. Keeping the gym means constraining opportunities for expansion of the fine arts (auditorium, band and chorus) and interesting space challenges with the locker rooms. The bond issue plan was well developed. You cannot just say "no gym" without dealing with the consequences of eliminating all the additional space. Someone has to put together the "How can we...?" part of it first before you can move forward to formulate an alternative.
I have this cool program on my computer that allows me to do house design. You can put a footprint down and then populate the plan with rooms. Through a great deal of frustration I learned again that there is no free lunch. If I wanted bigger closets, multiple bathrooms, a kitchen pantry, a laundry room and bigger bedrooms, the square footage would have to increase or I'd have to dramatically lower my expectations.
The details ARE important.
Michael, Haven't Charlie and Cory already done that?
Charlie proposes building a fine art annex. I'm not sure that will fly any better than a new gym. It doesn't solve the auditorium upgrades. Not building a new gym saves a bunch of money but realize that adding on anything will cost significant dollars as will redoing the present locker rooms. Work out some of those details and enlist the support of the school board to discuss a new plan.
Maybe the public should be asked first how much money are they willing to spend. Will the farmers whose tax bill is already plenty high support a increase in the thousands of dollars even with a reduced plan?
Let's think outside the box. Forget about how we always did things. That way of thinking is in the past. Crowd-sourcing is the way to go.
I think if we involved the community from the start, engage the community, and then hold a professional design competition based around the criteria the community itself designates (I've suggested environmental, budget, and reasonable/flexible space needs for starters) We'd really might see some interesting results. Sure, we might not like a few, but we might love a few too. I just like the idea of developing a community-centric design scheme.
Also, I think the school itself must function beyond the normal school day, we need to discuss ways, and yes this rests on design too, of using the school for other kinds of programming during the evening hours. I'm not sure what that all implies, but I'm sure we'd have some really innovative ideas from the community. How would you like to use the school after hours?
I know there wasn't much, or any at all, real community involvement and dialogue in the past planning for this project, and honestly, that's not a productive means to create a community-based project, which is what we'd all like to see happen. I'm more than willing to be part of this dialogue, and I believe Cory, Erin, and many other members of our community would like that same opportunity too.
So let's get working...
Michael, I'm with Erin: the details are important... but we can't nail down the details without a transparent process that fully involves the public as equal stakeholders. Your suggestion that we ask people how much they are willing to spend fits with that participatory sentiment.
If we tackle that money question (maybe that's my next poll), we need to be careful how we ask it. Asking "What's the most we should spend on the whole project?" is pointless: Numbers like $17 million, $10 million, $6 million are all mostly abstract and uninformative without context of what that money buys. People might not be willing to spend $6 million on a gym, but they might be willing to spend $8 million on new classrooms and auditorium.
A question that might be worth surveying: how much can you personally afford in your budget for increased education spending? Even that is a tough question to answer, and the answer could change tomorrow with a cracked engine block.
But you're getting the idea, Michael: no plan will fly if we don't involve more people, get more ideas, make more people real stakeholders in the process.
Why can't the "gym" be a multi-use area? Sharon Knowlton hinted during my tour the facility would be available to our community for other things. What other things? That should be in writing as part of the proposal. Why can't it be configured to accommodate many other useful things for arts, sports, and other things to more directly benefit the community. We are being asked to pay for it after all. If the Masonic Temple simply falls, why not draw on the purpose of the early fraternal organizations and make the school more community friendly.
I'd suggest being very specific with your ideas. Architects are expensive. Redoing the entire project is just not a matter of setting a date for another vote.
We need to do this right the first time. If we can't get the support to do it right then we might as well wait until we can afford it later on.
It seems everyone is talking about the vote and the school now, BUT...
How many people were involved in the formation of the remodel plan in the first place? It just didn't happen on its own.
We had a 28% voter turnout even with early voting. That doesn't sound as bad as the 72% that didn't bother casting a ballot. If a bond issue will cost your family hundreds or thousands of dollars in increased taxes, don't you think you should pay attention to what the money is going to be spent on. I don't understand the apathy. That has to change.
Imagine if we do the whole process over again. Will enough of those strongly opposed to spending $16 million (remodel with gym) be determined enough to commit the time and energy working within the system to help develop a solution that they can accept and support? It's not necessarily going to be easy to stand up and say the opposite of what many want to hear.
I am currently President of the South Dakota Professional Photographers Association. I've been on the Board of Directors for 7 or 8 years. I have learned that what I believe to be the best answer is not the one always accepted in the end. It has cost me time, energy and $$$ to serve my peers. Those who dedicate their lives to trying to make the school better should be thanked - even if their views goes against the grain. I encourage everyone to be involved.
It is also the role of a leader to listen. Eqypt has a President too. At least currently.
Great game last night at the Middle School Gym. I believe the girls play tonight. Go out, enjoy the game and mingle with your friends in the community. Express your opinion and listen to theirs. Ask how you can contribute ideas and become involved.
It sounds like Cory is going to take another run at a board seat on the Madison Central School Board, so if he's successful, he can stand front and center and declare, "This is our plan and we back it 100%".
You know, Rod, if we can get a charette together and produce a plan as a community, I could stand in front of that plan and declare it "our" plan.
When we organize our charette, would it not be 'we' standing as a community to declare 'our' plan.
Two articles in today's Argus Leader (sorry, I don't know how to hyperlink yet) make the correlation between better education facilities and a smarter workforce, along with economic development.
First, Dana Dykhouse, who leads the Forward Sioux Falls group said, "one of the main benefits is a work force that continues to make gains in higher education." Dykhouse added, "Today, we can attract people because of our intellectual capital." Even the City Council members felt "it's in the best interest of business to help their employees attain higher levels of education."
In the second article, Brenda and Paul Scott of Valley Spring say they "decided to move ahead with their expansion plans" after Hills-Beaver Creek school district passed a bond issue for a new high school with 71% approval, which "renewed the Scott's faith in the town's viability."
Renovating our high school is for the benefit of our students and their learning environment first, but there are also community and economic benefits for industry and business that happen when education facilities are improved.
The Argus Leader article noted that in the past, development efforts used low wages to lure business, but education facilities are now a top factor in attracting business, industry and families to fill our schools.
This is not an us vs. them battle. You have to organize and then work within the system not against it.
Get a few people together, call a school board member and see how you can incorporate your ideas for bigger community input.
I look forward to watching this progress.
...a few people? Like a secret hand-picked committee? Are you missing the point, Michael?
I really don't think we need a school board member to tell us how to incorporate ideas for bigger community input. I think there are already lots of obvious, proven models for engaging the community.
Thanks for the articles, Rod!
The Dykhouse comment refers to workers seeking higher education and intellectual capital. Not a lot of guidance for what renovations our high school needs... unless you are suggesting establishing an adjunct campus for DSU or Lake Area Vo-Tech... which might be a better use of 62,000 square feet of new building than a luxury gym. Hmm... maybe we could build a new tech center for student-led start-up companies....
Note also that Dykhouse doesn't mention the need for more phys ed classes to create a better workforce.
The Hills-Beaver Creek article is encouraging: I'm always glad to see a local café thrive! I'm also glad to see that the community could put together a plan that could win such overwhelming support from its voters. Put up a good plan, and it will pass. But a bunch of people voting for a bad plan filled with frills does not signal any special viability for a community.
Please don't forget in your plans to include the fact that the cost of this needs to be equalized out better. The same people should not be expected to bear the majority of the cost of this, no matter what the plan is.
Please don't forget in your plans to include the fact that the cost of this needs to be equalized out better. The same people should not be expected to bear the majority of the cost of this, no matter what the plan is.
Cory, unless the 14% of registered voters that voted against the bond issue work within the system in enough numbers to influence any future proposal, the same basic plan will again be put to a vote and you will be unhappy.
Changing the plan means spending some significant dollars in architect fees. You are going to need a number of people coming to the table. Neal and Linda did their part already. They stood up and said their piece. I'm sure they will again. Unfortunately the small group of people that comment here on Madville Times is not enough either UNLESS they get involved.
Then there is the issue of the 72% of voters that did not cast a ballot.
Wrong, Michael. We are the system.
I do believe that the lack community involvement, active engagement, and constructive dialogue by the school, as seen in the 28% voter turnout, is more reflected in the closed design process, which is reflected in the past two proposals. Without a new direction, one with which cooperatively and openly works along with the community, the prospects of this bond effort seem remote at best.
What many of us are proposing is an open community discussion, and an open design process, which would result in a facility which best represents the actual needs, both fiscal and educational, of the community itself.
No community project, and one which asks so much of a our limited resources, should be held outside of the community realm, as this is a flawed means to find support within the very community asked to take on this financial burden. The lack of voter participation only echoes the lack of interest and support, which was only encouraged and motivated by this failed closed-door process.
So let's go over what was done before this came (not) to pass:
Taken MHS website...
In November 2008, a group of 18 concerned citizens, teachers, staff, and administrators met to discuss the future of Madison High School. A consulting firm (Neumann Monson Wictor) had conducted an analysis of the MHS physical plant the year before, and their report in May 2008 prompted the organization of this committee.
This committee worked with architects from Baldridge Nelson Architects and Engineers, Inc. to identify needs and deficiencies with the MHS facility. After several months of meeting, discussing priorities, and clarifying the issues, the committee requested that the architects create a plan that would meet the identified needs. They also requested that the architects project the cost of a new facility that would also meet all of the identified needs.
During the 2009-2010 school year, the architects met with every MHS staff member and department to find out their specific needs, desires, and visions for their teaching and working areas. After meeting once with everyone, they returned with some beginning architectural drawings. They then met with every department again, to refine their plans and to ensure that specific needs were being met for all departments and programs. In some areas and departments, the architects met at least one or two more additional times. Several students were also involved to find out the learning perspective for the proposed changes. In July 2010, the Committee recommended to the School Board that the work with the architects needed to continue.
In September 2010, the architects were able to present to the School Board and the public a detailed financial breakdown of the proposed costs. In October, the Board voted to allow the architects from Baldridge Nelson to move forward with the project which would allow them to create specific detailed plans and drawings for the project. In November, the Board passed a resolution to borrow money by issuing bonds in the amount not exceeding $16,975,000 payable from 1 and not to exceed 25 years for the purpose of financing the renovation and construction of the high school. They also set the election for Tuesday, February 1, 2011.
===========
This process took two years. I don't know how the original committee came to be. They did spend a great deal of time and energy on the process to come up with a plan.
It would appear to me that going back to the drawing board would take a little less time in the design phase, but it looks like 3 to 5 years at best for any construction to be completed if we start over today. It could be much longer depending on the time line and outcome of future bond elections.
We have to remember that the architects design a school up to a set of standards that most of us know nothing about. There are codes and rules for everything and this drives the cost up beyond what we would think as "normal".
It looks like for now the school will continue on "as is".
Hey, don't blame me for the school's wasting two years coming up with a bad plan.
I thought I'd ask why the community wasn't invited to participate to discuss the design and provide input just a few weeks back at our council's meeting, the response given was along the lines of 'we don't want your input cause it's not your building and it's not your class, it's not up to you.'
Well, that kind of closed process it why this proposal lacked both the community interest, and thus support, and hence why it will fail again.
The plan fulfilled the requirements of the committee. The voters did not support it with a 60% majority. The quality of the plan depends on one's subjective opinion.
The job now for the school board is to either resubmit the bond issue with a few changes and see if the voters approve it on the second try or to go back to the drawing board, broaden the vision of the design committee, spend a year or two working out the details of the revision and then use the wide diversity of the design committee to generate support among the voters.
Imagine if everyone did come together and developed a plan that cut costs to half of what they were projected to be. Do you think that the farmers like Neal and Linda would support it because of its dependence on property taxes?
"We have to remember that the architects design a school up to a set of standards that most of us know nothing about. There are codes and rules for everything and this drives the cost up beyond what we would think as “normalâ€."
Mostly architects design up to the maximum amount that can be spent because they get a commission on what is spent rather than on what is saved. Ask them to design a building that meets "standards" and do it for $X and see what happens.
Don't re-invent the wheel. Standard steel buildings can be built for much less than brick and mortar monuments to a bronze plaque with board members and architects names on it.
Do we then tear down the high school and put a steel building in its place?
How long would it take to complete?
One way to off-set the dependance on property owners, is for direct contributions from the community, which I understand 500k was promised to offset this 17 million (+interest) dollar project.
Yet, this made me uneasy about the implications of these kind of gifts on a public project primarily supported by the community itself. Should we as a community not know who the gifts were from, or if naming rights were promised for any of the facilities, prior to the public vote which we held last week?
The people voted. Will the school board respect that? In hind sight they should have had some tours before the planning stages to get a better feel for what the community thought and where they were willing to go. Without that, it's top down, we want, you pay. There's nothing wrong with something moderate that's a representation of this community. We have a small tax base with other community improvements necessary. DSU encourages community groups, so MSU should explain more how the expanded space can be used outside of immediate school concerns. Right now someone new probably has an easier in to the school board. If they won't listen, it's the right time. And no more unsavory voting tactics reminiscent of the third world. That's the unbelievable thing they don't seem to get it. Civics is more important than food prep!
The one thing no one is talking about is why not invest the community's money with Glenn Beck's and 9-12 leader's biggest supporter, Goldline.
I bet there would be enough to build 3 gyms. What a perfect way to honor Glenn, the US of A and have enough left over to pay for everyone's taxes.
Goldline. It's not just for Glenn Beck fans...it just has to be the very bestest and smartest way to invest our money!
Oh, I forgot...we could also have enough for more blackboards. Think of all the really cool diagrams we and our children could draw.
Well, we clearly don't need to increase funding for education in satire.
I visited with Charlie for a while as we walked the track at the community center. Interesting conversation...
Who is going to get the people together and step up with presenting alternatives to the school board? When?
If you want improvements to be made, you have a few choices:
1. Wait until a bond issue is presented that you can support, vigorously opposing and defeating plans until you get what you want.
2. Work within the system to make revisions.
3. Wait 12 years until the school district can fund the remodel through capital outlay.
4. Not vote and let someone else make the decision for you.
Good luck on your endeavors.
They would have us believe that the only way forward is to agree that the current plan is the only reasonable way to go forward. Perhaps, this is true in some respects, as the community seems to have had little voice or involvement in the current structure of this now twice-failed proposal. Why would this culture change in the coming months?
Yet, I firmly believe we could do better.
The process that has been taken by our school district, a process void of meaningful and constructive dialogue, which has resulted in a 'take it or else' mentality has left the voters, the community itself, for the most part removed and isolated from the very proposal that needs its vested interest and support to prove successful. This path, however flawed it has been continues forward, and as some suggest, we should just accept it as what's best for all of us.
I find this kind of thinking difficult, and more so laughable, as to accept that this plan as 'the best for us' is as far-fetched as anything else. This proposal that had little input, little dialogue, and little involvement from us, the community, is not what's 'best for us'
However well intentioned this selective group of developers behind this current proposal, they failed to realize that without an equal seat for the whole of the community, one which allowed for the necessary dialogue to make a stronger plan which reflected the needs of the community and their students, they've lost from the beginning. Without a doubt, the moment they decided to exclude the public, because 'it's not our building' was the moment this proposal failed.
Yet, I'm provoked to go further....
Yes, our school is broken, it's a relic of poor foresight and vision, and one which is so desperately behind our students basic needs. Yet, the very needs of this building have been placed secondary to our own selfish desires and self-vested interests, be it for the duplicity of competition centers or even theaters, we could all look at this plan and question many aspects of its design.
I honestly question the wisdom of even attempting to renovate a structure that is so inherently flawed in its basic design, that the basics of plumbing and ventilation are considered to be major problems to overcome. The challenges of this current structure in my opinion are too great to simply patch over, and to invest any further would only prove to be a loss for the long-term needs of our students.
But, that is my opinion, and that opinion was never given the opportunity to speak aloud throughout this closed process. I'm sure many within our community have their opinions as well, but only a select few were given the opportunity to develop this current proposal. Perhaps the best illustration in practice of why an open-development scheme would have better suited the needs and desires of this very community, can be seen in last week's vote.
I can only hope that we are given the fair opportunity to become part of this plan in the coming weeks and months ahead, as the prospects of being forced to accept this current proposal will only further divide our community.
We can do better, and we will do better, that is part of our very fabric as mid-westerners after all.
Michael, you keep overdoing the "within the system" talk. This isn't Washington. The system is close enough and "us" enough that we can take hold of it and say, "You're doing this our way." Chris understands this. Let's see how many others do, and how many others want to participate. Those who show up are the right people.
My preferred order of options:
1. Use genuine public participation to establish priorities and design a viable plan, not just market the plan developed by hand-picked members of the hierarchy. Engage the public as producers, not mere consumers.
2. Use capital outlay to perform better ongoing maintenance so our buildings don't languish in such purportedly dire condition for decades.
All plans are contingent, of course, on the budget passed by Pierre at the end of March. We set the general fund and opt-out first, then float the next bond issue, if we can afford one. Academics, students, teachers first, then bricks and steel.
I'm a little late to the dialog here, but I just wanted to point out that the meetings held to establish priorities that eventually led to a building design were open to anyone. There was no hand-picked hierarchy. Meetings were publicized, and anyone was welcome to show up.
It appears that you guys are waiting for a golden invitation that may never come. You have to do more than that.
Matt, how can Cory and others join with you and the committee to make revisions to the current plan?
Well, Matt, if that process was open, we either need to restart it to come up with a better plan... or we need to abandon the public participation that produced this failed plan and go back to closed committees.
Since the process was open, which member of the public came up with the idea to tear up the existing gym and build a new one? And what is the full, itemized cost of the complex that would have been built on the NE side of the school?