skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Parents and Voters,
Please read the following letter which we sent to the district today. We ask for your support in requesting that the Edmonds School District go back to the drawing board to present us with cost estimates for Proposition #2.
Thank you
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 1:19 PM
Subject: Concerned Parents on Proposition 2
Dear Dr. Robertson,
Recently, a group of concerned parents decided to become informed voters and take a closer look at the upcoming school bond issue aimed at raising funds for the new Lynnwood High School and Scriber Lake High School. We were prompted to enter into this research for two reasons: first being the amount of the bond issue, and secondly a concern we have over many of the design features in recently constructed school buildings in the Edmonds School District which, though attractive, appear to lack functionalism. To aid us in our research, we requested and received a "Cost Comparisons: Proposed New Lynnwood High School and Recent High School Construction" spreadsheet from the district. This confirmed our concern that the proposed cost for Lynnwood High is significantly higher than was the cost for constructing Edmonds Woodway or Meadowdale High, even though the student enrollment and square footage are roughly the same, and taking into account that EWHS and MHS were built three years ago. We have tried to analyze these cost differentials but the information does not appear to be complete. In addition to the financial figures we requested from the district, we arranged to tour many of the most recently constructed buildings including: Chase Lake, Maplewood, Edmonds Woodway, Meadowdale High, Meadowdale Elementary and Cedar Valley. We also requested to tour the sight of the new Terrace Park, but our request was denied due to the project completion deadline. As voters and taxpayers in this district, as well as being parents of school age children, we feel it is valid to ask for and receive an accountable explanation for why such a large amount of construction money is needed.
In addition to our concerns about the amount of the bond issue, we have serious questions about funds allotted in school building projects for innovative, but non-goal oriented design features. Not only have we noticed such things as high ceilings, exposed piping, out of the way ledges and oddly shaped and placed windows, but feedback from support services personnel has confirmed our suspicions that although such features give a dramatic and cutting edge look to some of our buildings, they are very costly to install and replace, as well as very costly, and in some cases, impossible to clean. Specific examples would be the high ledges and exposed piping in Edmonds Woodway; high, angled windows in the open commons of Chase Lake (perhaps these windows were meant to let in natural light, yet they are angled so that the light bounces off a non-reflective wall); the outside, angled windows in the gymnasium at Cedar Valley; and the high, towered atrium in the cafeteria at Meadowdale Elementary. After speaking to teachers and parents, we are also concerned with the lack of storage space in the classrooms, and the noisy environment caused by the lack of acoustical materials, and/or open concept plan between upper and lower stories in the hallways of several buildings. It would appear that architectural artistry is winning out over functionalism and practicality in many of our schools. We are troubled that concerns and input from the people who use and maintain these buildings are not being adequately represented in the design process, creating costly mistakes. To be sure, we did not find all of the new schools to be problematic. Meadowdale High and Meadowdale Elementary and Maplewood seemed to have basically sound designs with good use of light and space, although storage seemed to be a consistent problem in all the schools we visited.
In conclusion, Dr. Robertson, we are not intending to vote in favor of "Proposition 2", nor are we recommending that our friends and colleagues do so either. We are certainly not opposed to the building of new schools, but just as two reasons prompted us to begin this fact finding mission, two reasons prevent us from having a positive outlook on this bond issue. First, we feel that there are two many non-addressed issues in the design process, possibly erring on the side of form rather than function, and secondly, we were dissatisfied with the lack of response as to why the amount for this bond issue was requested. It is our suggestion that the district go back to the drawing board, so to speak, and come up with a better defined plan, be forthcoming as to why the suggested amount is needed, and address the issue of including all pertinent parties in all stages of the design and building process. After all, it is not the amount of money, or the amount of innovative architectural features, but what the finished product will provide – dollar for dollar- for our children.
Respectfully yours,
Sharon Nichols
Laura Riddle
Name Withheld
[Anonymous Comment]
How many years have any of you bloggers spent working inside Lynnwood High School? I have over 20 years being in that building. It was old and dysfunctional when I got there! If you want to complain, complain about how it was originally constructed along with tens of other ESD buildings. The fact we NEED a new building completely escapes you in your efforts to "blame" anybody and everybody that thinks differently than you. After all, your right to free speech is defended by others! Not that you would believe in fighting or defending your country. By the way, what country are you from?
[Claire Olsovsky]
As the District Safety and Loss Control Specialist from July 2000 to January 2005, I inspected every building in the District and watched five schools come on line. The current condition of Lynnwood High School pales in comparison to how run down Esperance and Scriber Lake High (at the old Lynnwood Jr. High) were prior to their demolition yet were both occupied to the last possible moment.
I find it interesting the above blogger thought LHS was old at 16 years, for schools are designed to last 50 years. There is an argument afoot that the new school should be built despite declining enrollment because of rising costs of construction. By the time enrollment does ramp up, the school will be considered outdated and as this blogger states "old and dysfunctional."
The comment on poor construction rings very true to me; but at the heart of it is poor design. The roof at Mountlake Terrace High School has leaked in the auditorium since it was built. The roof drainage at the Maplewood Center caused, and still may for all I know, window leaks. The ventilation system at Meadowdale Elementary needed to be extended within its first year because the architect eliminated part of the mechanical engineer’s original design.
Then there’s the indirect lighting at Terrace Park that tries to use a dark ceiling to reflect light, the rusting metal shelves after 2 years in the science storage area at Edmonds Woodway High School, and the main at Cedar Valley that is being replaced bit by bit by Maintenance as it fails. I could go on and on and talk about expensive European light fixtures at EWH, a fire place that should have never been constructed at Terrace Park K-8, and panes of glass Maintenance cannot replace in house because they are too big, but it’s depressing.
Support staff drafted a document known as the Universal Design Standards to aid the Capital Projects office in constructing new buildings. But as I recall in a meeting, CPO staff at the time dismissed our complaints because we only had "anecdotal data" that the buildings did not meet the standards or the needs of the teachers.
Interestingly enough, prior to the passage of the bond to fund LHS, three parents from Madrona decided to educate themselves about new construction. They came to the conclusion that the bond was not worth passing because of too many non-adressed issues in new construction. Given all of this, why would anyone be in a hurry to build a school or the New Administration building?
For those of you slated to go to the new LHS, don’t worry, that train has already left the station. There will be a new school. But when you finally move in, let me know if you get what you wished for…
Fun Factoid: Claire is a US citizen born on an American military base overseas. She learned about her constitutional rights from her father as he defended them for nearly 30 years in the US Army Air Corps and Air Force.
There was a time when the Planning and Property Management Specialist managed the Capital Partnership program. While some may have a problem with a General Fund employee working to support Capital Fund work, the practice made sense and upheld the concept of a true partnership. The District made some sacrifices and the partners normally contributed their personal effort in working to see the project end successfully.
Numerous times, parents and volunteers would surrender their weekends unloading trucks and assembling play structures. Many of these parents and volunteers took time away from their jobs to work on these projects. The motivation was, in part, to keep costs down and transfer funds that would have been expended on labor for Maintenance staff over to the play structure side of the equation and allow for enhancements that would be enjoyed by children for years to come.
Now, with the shift of these partnership programs to the Capital Projects Office, a management fee will be passed along to the project - half of which will have to be picked up by the partner. This directly translates to fewer playground components, smaller play structures, essentially less of a project and more of a subsidy for district processes.
Just so you know, the last round of Capital Partnerships did not expend all of the allocated funds. There was approximately $150,000.00 left on the table. More than enough for another round of projects. My sense, however, is that there will not be another round and that the balance will be folded into the Capital Fund for the management of the last few projects from the previous round. For the schools that were planning to compete in the final round to have their projects funded, I am sorry.
In future, prospective partners should look for the devil in the details. When a levy or bond includes funding for partnership projects, make sure that all of the ear-marked funds are assigned to projects and that hefty "management fees" are rejected.
As many of you can imagine, I have been directed to stop communicating with the District and told to channel all inquiries through their legal counsel. Perhaps the District was getting flustered in having to respond to pointed questions about how they conduct business. Oh well, no big deal. If the District wants a lawyer to read my questions, attach a bill and forward them along, who am I to argue. I have honored their request and have been communicating with Duncan Fobes and Sarah Mack.
Then my wife gets a letter in the mail, dated October 25, 2007. Apparently, she is being notified that as a current employee, consultant, board member, assistant superintendent or superintendent, certain records are being requested that may impact her. I was not aware that my wife ever worked for the District in any capacity and I confirmed as much with her. Strange.
Clearly, the District seeks to provide me with a courtesy copy of the letters that went out to everyone in the District. While I find it nominally informative, I can see no logical reason for including the spouse of a former employee in the circulation. Am I supposed to be worried? Is my spouse supposed to have an emotional response and demand that any and all blogging stop? Just what was the motivation for including her? I am puzzled, but decisions made by district administration normally have such an effect on me.
If the District would like to send a copy of their letter to anyone else in my family, just let me know.
When the initial flurry of developers submitted their proposals for the Lynnwood High School site, the one developer that out-paced the other candidates was Cypress Equities. Their proposal included a profit-sharing element that would have resulted in unanticipated funds the District could ear-mark for periodic capital enhancements, like perhaps a round of capital partnerships or a few covered play shelters.
While there was at least one person in the room for the District that knew such a proposal would be difficult to monitor, and likely impossible to enforce, everyone else had their horse picked on the way to the starting gate - it was the only horse in the race.
When a company like Cypress Equities wants to come out on top in a competitive process, they can toss in a profit-sharing concept - but no doubt it is just conceptual. By now, every mortal on earth knows that corporations can run with a negligible margin of profit. After they pay all of their "expenses", dividends and annual bonuses to executives, there will be little or nothing left to share with the District.
Another peculiar element to the agreement is that it is initially pegged to an 8% return on the appraised value of the property. For those of you reading the blog on a regular basis, you know that appraisals are just opinions. I would immediately become concerned as to which party hires the appraiser, particularly since the District likes to use the other party's appraisals when parting with money. Also, if property values dip, the 8% return will fall right along with the appraised value of the site.
The local newspapers have also quoted district administration as saying that there will be periodic adjustments over time but they naturally assume the value of the site will only move upward. Traditionally, that has been the case, but a simple modification to the basic assumptions to valuation can radically alter the final appraisal at any time during the next 99 years. The formula for determining actual value of the site will have to be illuminated, otherwise any reasonably crafty appraiser can show a plummeting valuation in adjusted terms.
Like many others, I will be interested to see what materializes.
Fun Factoid: I have requested a legible copy of the 99-year agreement and will share its contents in future entries - or, you can retrieve a copy from the Public Records Repository once it is provided to the blog.
There will be lengthy discussions in the coming weeks and months regarding the manner in which schools are constructed. However, one reader in particular voiced genuine concern about something they read recently. The District recently received a "BetterBricks" award for 2007. At first blush, anyone would be proud to show such an award to their counterparts in other districts but a closer evaluation of the real issue is definitely warranted.
Over the last several years, the District, like many other school districts across the country, has made a habit of building overly-extravagant schools that put elements of form above function. While all of these features and embellishments may look good on paper, the District will no doubt be expending untold millions retro-fitting the building to an operational standard after construction.
While the walls of architectural firms will be adorned with the casualties of public funds like the heads of game in a hunter's lodge, the chattering of teeth inside the new Lynnwood High School may prevent any real education from taking place.
I hope the concepts lauded by the BetterBricks award work out for the District, but perhaps others may claim it constitutes gambling with public money.
The District struck a deal with Seattle Piano Gallery to "lease" fourteen pianos for one year for a total price of $76,121.10. The deal was inked on August 4, 2004 and was to last until August 15, 2005. At the end of the lease, the pianos were to be sold and the proceeds were to be used to offset the expense incurred by the District under the terms of the "lease" with any shortfall to be paid directly from the Lessor.
There were fourteen pianos. Nine of these pianos cost $3,528.36 each. One piano cost $4,617.36. The remaining four cost $9,937.13 each. At the end of the lease, all of the pianos were sold - including the four most expensive pianos - which were purchased by the District.
At the moment, it looks like the District paid for all 14 of the pianos on August 4, 2004 and then paid for the most expensive four pianos a second time on August 16, 2005 (one day after the end of the "lease"). Interestingly, the District could have opted out of this lease at any time, with 90 days written notice to the Lessor and their initial payment of $76,121.10 would have been returned.
It looks like a member of the public received free financial services from the District. The owner of Seattle Piano Gallery clearly had insufficient credit to buy $70,000.00 in pianos on his own, so orchestrated a deal that shifted the financial burden to the District. The District "fronts" the money and the seller has one year to look for buyers. Why wouldn't a bank play along?
At the end of the lease, the District has paid $115,869.60 and has just four pianos to show for the expense. What is needed now is a copy of the check paid by Seattle Piano Gallery to the District in the amount of $76,121.10. Call me a skeptic, but I would like to know if the District actually has these four pianos, along with the names of the schools where they might be found.
Fun Factoid: Arnold (Arnie) Tucker signed this deal on behalf of the Seattle Piano Gallery. He is currently working his way through bankruptcy in King County. You can search for his list of cases by clicking here. Perhaps such a filing had an adverse effect upon this piano deal. Time will tell.
More than a few of us have been asking for the same documents and, to date, they have been withheld. The District evaluated the property now known as the New Administration site on two earlier occasions. Once in 1991 and again in 1998. Both of these evaluations generated a significant amount of documentation - along with the conclusion that the site was too contaminated to purchase.
I personally witnessed and perused the files that are now being withheld. I know exactly where these files were kept and I am certain they have been relocated to a secure location, under Marla's watchful eye. After all, these documents prove beyond any doubt that the contamination at the New Administration site is absolutely real - or in other words - that Marla has not been telling the truth.
When I requested “any and all” environmental reports under a FOIA request for the District’s New Administration site, I expected more than one document. I was emailed by Marla Miller after my initial request because she wanted to dispel “rumors about contamination.” She informed me that the Test Pit on parcel C with elevated levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH’s) had been remediated. Knowing environmental regulations, I knew they had to coordinate with the Department of Ecology (DOE) to a prescribed process. But why did I not receive a report on the remediation or the two previous assessments of the property conducted in 1991 and 1998?
Then I realized the question was not where were the reports, but why did they not send them to me? The answer is lack of transparency. Marla Miller does not believe that the business operations of the District should be scrutinized. Since when are the operations of a School District “top secret”? After all, they aren’t conducting matters related to our national defense. They are just exercising poor judgment at an astronomical cost.
So I looked to the DOE for answers. At first they were convinced the site I was looking for was Raskin’s property north of the site, called Center 5000. After reviewing the report I sent them they determined it was a new site that had never been reported. Assigned the tracking number ERTS 601404, DOE will investigate as described in the above link. So now I am at the conclusion that the District does not believe in transparency or accountability with regards to state and federal environmental law.
For some reason they do not want to inform us nor be accountable for their poor decisions. Instead they use their time and waste tax dollars to hire law firms like Duncan Fobes to create a show with smoke and mirrors to distract from the issues at hand and wear down those who seek the truth.
It did not work for the Wizard in the Wizard of Oz, nor will it here.
Years ago the District sent forth a mission statement. Each item in the statement began with the words "We Believe". They all extolled the value and importance of our students, community members and staff. These statements were positive and aspired to high goals for the betterment of all the above mentioned groups. That was a different time, a different Board and a different superintendent.
It's obvious to me, as a member of the classified staff of the Edmonds School District that these goals and values have been lost, at least when it comes to the particular segment of staff I'm in. Mark's experiences and eventual termination serves as an example of these lowered standards and callous treatment of staff by the current administration. It's only a matter of time before this administrative style (if it can be called that) begins to have a negative impact on other staff groups, community members and, God forbid, our students.
At this point I feel the need to say that I believe, rather, I know, that the vast majority of District staff are hard working, honest individuals who have a heart for serving the District in its' work of educating our children.
There's always going to be a few bad apples in any organization. Unfortunately for us, some of those bad apples hold the highest positions in the District. It wouldn't be the first time that a good organization was brought down by just a few individuals. My sincere hope is that this will not be the case for The Edmonds School District.
Not-so-Fun Factoid: The author of this entry still works for the District and chooses not to provide a name because of retaliation. If the District can target former employees, what chance does a current employee have?
There is a civic-minded organization, known internationally, that developed a test to determine if their professional and personal conduct was acceptable. It was, and continues to be called, The Four-Way Test (of the things we think, say or do). What would happen if this Four-Way Test was applied to the real estate transaction involving Michael Raskin and the Edmonds School District? Let's see.
1. Is it the TRUTH?
We have already established that the District lied when they said stories of contamination are just rumors. The District's past decisions refute their current statements. Why buy insurance for contamination if the site is not contaminated? Why hire an environmental consultant to monitor for contamination if the site is not contaminated? Why reject the site twice before only to adjust your standards under pressure from a desperate seller and a revenue-driven City of Lynnwood?
2. Is it FAIR to all concerned?
The transaction was certainly not fair to taxpayers, District employees and students. The taxpayers will have to pay for remediating contamination and repairing unanticipated settling. District employees will have to navigate around sinkholes, potholes and risk potential exposure to harmful elements. District students will have to do without whatever these funds could have been used to purchase, like better classrooms, better covered play shelters, better parking lots and better playfields. But if you see the District as its administrators see it - as an extension of their own wallets - the transaction was more than fair to the seller. A hefty scoop of fairness has likely been served to the buyer's agents behind closed doors. Why else would they agree to the terms?
3. Will it build GOODWILL and BETTER FRIENDSHIPS?
No doubt the buyer and seller are much better friends now. Of course, it is probably the sort of friendship where the seller makes the buyer the butt of every joke. The sort of friendship where the buyer always gets stuck with the bar tab. The sort of friendship that has the buyer loaning his car to the seller only to see it returned with a few more dents and dings. I wouldn't call it a friendship.
4. Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?
The answer to this one is blatantly obvious. No one comes out of this transaction smelling like roses, aside from the seller and his investors.
Nothing drives the price of commodities higher than a buyer feeling desperate. Not unlike walking through Alderwood Mall with a wad of dollars in your pocket and clearance signs hanging in every window. Sadly, when your pocket holds millions in public money, some still give in to personal desires to part with cash. Most of us know that "clearance" is a just a subtle price shift in the direction of "reasonable", but why in the world are we so quick to believe the recipient of our money when they tell us everything is discounted?
I am frequently asked if the District could have paid for the Old Cedar Valley (Former Scriber Lake) site twice. Sure, some may laugh at the suggestion but I would never exclude the current District administration from making such a mistake. Here is the argument - in a nutshell.
The property sold to the District by MJR Development, LLC (Michael Raskin), does have a value. Without debating what that value might have been at the time of sale, let's explore an inflationary concept. How valuable would Raskin's site be without any real street frontage? Sure, it wouldn't normally be a site offering retail opportunities or depend upon customers driving by, but the site was buried behind the District's property with a piddly point of entrance off the end of 204th. Not a major arterial by any means. Would combining the Raskin site with the District's justify a higher price? One could see things that way, but why should Raskin get a windfall because his neighbor sought to expand? If anyone else bought the site, they would have paid a more realistic price for a lack of frontage. If there was an inflationary effect, why wouldn't the District sell their frontage to Raskin, reaping the benefits while continuing the search for uncontaminated land?
The District really should have sold their frontage to Raskin, using his appraiser's valuation of course, and looked for a better location. Better soil conditions, better soil quality and, as will be discussed in future entries, better traffic conditions for their bus fleet.
Not to suggest that I retrieve all of my best information from Wikipedia, but in this case it does offer a shotgun blast of the concept of highest and best use. Click here for their website.
The reason behind a concept like Highest and Best Use is to prevent disorganized and erratic growth. If a city defines an area to become its future downtown core, they attach the necessary zoning that prevents junkyards from moving next to City Hall. The highest and best use for the property next to City Hall may be something akin to a strip mall or office complex - not a junkyard. So, when an appraiser looks at the five acre parcel next to a City Hall, they determine valuation based upon the optimal use of that parcel, like a strip mall or office complex. Any developer interested in building a junkyard must look elsewhere because the highest and best use would not include his business. The cost per square foot would remove him from the equation - as it should be.
Now imagine the situation at the Maintenance and Transportation site. The highest and best use for that piece of land does not include the storage of buses or stockpiling of dirt, wood or building materials. The City of Lynnwood has been trying for years to successfully rezone the site to drum up additional sales tax revenues and force the District to a new home. If the site were vacant today, the District wouldn't be considering its purchase because it would be too expensive. What is the difference with their new site?
If the District's appraiser went about determining a value for the New Administration site knowing what was to be constructed and determined that it was consistent with zoning, why would anyone fault the valuation? If the seller's appraiser claims that it is possible to build a thirty story high rise and generate untold billions in revenue, then the District should have kept looking for a new home. The Raskin site would not have been a reasonable fit given their programming needs.
To put this much more simply, the District was in the market for an automobile. The District only needs to drive between points without a lot of fanfare while remaining focused on their mission statement - educating our children. Why then would they purchase (by the seller's appraisal's own determination) an $85,000 Porsche when a $30,000 Nissan would be as effective? Both parties hired mechanics. The District's mechanic inspected the car and determined that it looks and performs like all of the other $30,000 Nissans in town. The owner of the car called in his brother-in-law, who sold cars part time, to offer an opinion as well. Of course, his figure was considerably higher. A figure that would normally cover the cost of an exotic German import.
As I sip what remains of my frothy latte, I cannot help but ponder the meaning of the District's questionable legal advice. Surely the English language couldn't be so difficult to comprehend for people that make a living in education. When Board policies are adopted that specifically prohibit spouses of employees from serving on the Board, how can educated people hire lawyers (at considerable cost) to redefine the Board's intent and the efficacy of our native tongue?
If there is no conflict with a Board member voting to rebuild a $100,000,000.00 high school for his wife, why can't District employees run for a seat on the Board? The lawyers will have you believe that as long as you were an employee BEFORE obtaining your seat on the Board - there shouldn't be a problem.
Imagine the fun you could have with your boss. Imagine the new policies you could put in place. Every workroom could have an espresso machine. Every meeting could be catered (again). Every Friday could end with happy hour in the Board Room. Every conceivable bell and whistle could be put in place and you still wouldn't come close to overtaking the foolhearty choices made by the current regime.
A suggestion to Bruce Williams' replacement and Ann McMurray: Don't get comfortable. I anticipate a lengthy list of "qualified" candidates will be filing with Snohomish County in 2009 - with a resounding endorsement from the District's legal team.
Friday was a monumental day in District administration and the implementation of management strategies. I have received word that the hard drive I had used for a few years has been sent off to the forensic team (at considerable cost, no doubt) for a complete data dump and evaluation.
Since the District is unable to convincingly demonstrate a legitimate reason for constructively terminating me, they have resorted to digging through a hard drive in an attempt to justify an administrative move already made. The ubiquitous "Shoot first. Ask questions later" mantra. Hilarious. In this case, they are hopeful the silly questions will yield something to bolster their preposterous assertions.
What the District is actually doing is defining a threshold - across which no other District employee can pass. Once they establish a standard, anyone and everyone will be picked off at will. The District may claim that I wrote one too many emails to my friends and family. How many is too many? They may claim that ten visits to Criag's List in a year may be too many. How many is too many? They may claim that 30 minutes a year on the Herald's website is too long. How many minutes constitutes "too long"? I would be very interested to know.
Once this new standard is defined, we can then comfortably apply it to everyone. Any member of the public could make a public records request for this sort of information and then demand equitable treatment. So, for those of you that remain on the District's payroll - be advised. Anyone tagged by the District for termination will be shot on sight. They can start looking afterwards for a reason.
Who buys property in a seller's market - especially this one? Real estate is cyclical. The only reason for the District to purchase property is if they have no alternative.
But the District had alternatives. They could have waited for a down turn in the market, which has arrived, or they could have sold the Cedar Valley property to Raskin and taken advantage of inflated prices. He made an outrageous profit, why couldn't the District? After all, the District owned the street frontage.
Scriber Lake High could have been moved to Old Melody Hill. It is leased, but just how much money is the District making from their on-going investment the building's systems?
And what about the old administration site on Alderwood Mall Parkway? It’s been on the market for years and there still isn’t a ground-lease. Why not concentrate on marketing that parcel? Or build a high rise with retail on the bottom floor and District offices on the upper floors? The offices could be leased later when a more suitable property is found.
Why not wait until the Lynnwood High School property is ground-leased and real money starts coming in?
The District seems to have taken the same stance of many government agencies. Spend now and let future tax payers live with the consequences.
Claire Olsovsky, MA (Biology), MS (Environmental and Occupational Health)
The following is another snippet from the District's legal counsel. The entire letter will appear on the Public Records Repository in the near future.
The District believes that during the time you were employed with the Edmonds School District you violated the District's Internet Use Agreement by improperly using the District's resources to conduct personal business [Do you mean a real estate business, personal tasks and activities, or perhaps the infrequent email messages to friends and family?]. The District has recovered more than 6,000 personal documents [or files?] from the computer you used while employed [really?], and is working on obtaining countless more documents that were intentionally encrypted [You have a vivid imagination, Duncan] and then deleted from your [you mean the District's] hard drive shortly before your [yet-to-be-proven] resignation. The District is investigating [at considerable expense, no doubt] whether you destroyed public records necessary to conduct District business [competent employees are necessary to conduct District business], and whether you were using confidential or proprietary District information to benefit your personal business [Dear Mom, Student enrollment is falling]. Such conduct would have resulted in immediate termination from employment.
I find this paragraph to be especially amusing. Notice the use of language. The District "believes" is supposed to make the statement more intimidating. Well, the District also "believes" their new administration site is not contaminated. The District "believes" the Nobles are not violating District policy. The District "believes" Powerful Partners should not have to pay for their use of District resources. The District "believes" many things that everyone else has a hard time accepting.
This legal drivel is not an effective use of District resources. Suggesting that encryption of documents took place shows how seriously incapable District staff must be at retrieving documents. I suspect that when the District eliminated my account nearly a week before my last day, they inadvertently complicated their future detective work. Perhaps what the District stumbled upon was stray files related to all of the domain space I was providing at no charge - back when esd15.org had another purpose.
The "such conduct would have resulted in immediate termination from employment" is also entertaining fiction. The District believes that you may have downloaded plans to build a dirty bomb. The District believes that you may have been planning to detonate this dirty bomb. The District believes that your actions would have harmed many people and would have constituted an illegal act and therefore would have resulted in immediate termination from employment. What the District chooses to believe says more about their tenuous grip on hope and less about the reality of their current circumstance.
Or My Mental Musings While Sitting in Lynnwood Traffic.
Development of a brownfield is not an impossible undertaking; it’s just a costly one. I have been contemplating what economic incentives would compel the current District leadership into purchasing a brownfield, especially since two previous Superintendents and School Boards considered the exact same property in 1991 and in 1998 and rejected the proposal. What has changed?
As I write, the District moves forward with its “early site grading package.” But does that include the installation of sewer line I observed? I have never heard of laying pipe referred to being part of site grading. Maybe it falls under the “other site preparation” activities Marla alluded to in her email.
But what if the District and the City of Lynnwood entered into an Interlocal Agreement to install the sewer? Not unheard of, and not a bad deal. The City’s budget is impacted, not the District’s, and they can recoup the costs from taxing tenants on the District’s ground-leased properties. But does the cost of the sewer line mitigate the increased costs of the purchase price of the property and its subsequent pricey development? Probably not. In the end, City of Lynnwood dollars are still tax dollars, so overall there are no savings for the public.
There is still the issue of the fill on the property. Even if it is within regulatory levels for chemical contamination, building on it will incur added costs. Pin piles can be driven into the ground to support the foundation of the building, but what about the parking lot? Digging out all the debris, testing each load to ensure proper disposal, then backfilling with substantial material to support the load of a 100+ buses rated over 10,000 pounds each is expensive. Maybe that is part of the “other site preparation” activities occurring right now. There is an awful lot of excavated soils stockpiled on the property and staged backfill material.
The District “protected” itself by purchasing additional insurance to pay to mitigate any soil contamination found on the site during construction. But what are their premiums over the next three years and what are the terms of the policy? No insurer would knowingly go into a contract with known contaminated land without a loop hole. After all, they must make money. For most pollution contracts they’ll pay out for one event. Will the insurance company only respond to one claim and restrict it to a specific encounter on the site?
The District has a new funding strategy. It plans to ground-lease the Maintenance and Transportation site along with LHS to fund the remaining phases of the New Administration site. But how many successful ground leases have they executed at this time? None. Not even their most valuable property right next to the mall.
Perhaps prospective tenants realize the ground water problem at LHS is not going to go away. Even if they build on the wooded area, they may not be able to optimally use the site. It is a given that an exceptional drainage system is needed to manage the ground and surface waters where the current buildings sit.
Then there is the cost for the clean up of the Transportation Site so they can vacate and ground-lease it. After all, the whole purpose of the new property is to consolidate District operations and move Transportation and Maintenance to the New Administration site. Who knows what it will cost and how many years it will take to get this old property ready for lease? Just when will all the rent money come rolling in to pay for the rest of the New Administration Site?
None of these observations and speculations bolsters the argument that the purchase of the New Administration site is a wise one. It makes me wonder about the capability of the current Board. Are they so different from the previous leadership? They seem just as bright and articulate as their predecessors.
I think the change may be a cavalier attitude in spending tax money. One has to ask, if the Board members and Marla were going to buy a property for their own business, would they have purchased the property?
I do not think so. I wouldn’t. Would you?
When I bought my first house, I read the mortgage documents rather closely. I was fully aware of what I was getting into and have taken great comfort in knowing that my loan was committed to writing. I knew that if there was ever an issue to be debated, everyone would look closely at what was written down.
What would have happened if my mortgage broker told me that the loan documents were just suggestions and didn't actually mean anything? Of course, such a statement may have been made in conjunction with the purchase of my first home, but since it was not committed to writing, I would have zero expectation that such a statement would be honored.
One could draw the same conclusion with meetings involving District management. While they hand you a Letter of Direction preparing you to be terminated, they schedule another meeting where they tell you the Letter of Direction doesn't mean anything. What is an employee to do? I was severely cautioned - in writing - that any communication prepared on behalf of the District must be approved by management in advance. Failure to have done so would have resulted in the end of my career.
The current position of the District is that I attended meetings with Marla Miller and Brian Harding where they told me the letter was just constructive guidance and shouldn't be taken literally. Gee, was I supposed to believe them? Afterall, it felt a lot like I was being encouraged to get myself fired. I asked Marla many times to rescind or revise the Letter of Direction - if the original terms were unintended. Was I then supposed to sit in a meeting with her and do something other than smile and nod? How simple does she think District employees are? I mean, other than the ones she may have had a hand in hiring.
The following is the last portion of a letter from the District's attorney. Of course, they started off on the wrong foot with their continual use of the term "resignation" but I appreciate the attempt at creativity.
Finally, since your resignation, the District believes you have engaged in a number of improper acts, some of which the District may choose to pursue through further investigation or legal action.
First, the District believes you have deceptively accessed District e-mail by assuming the names of other District employees and then sent harassing e-mails to people under the assumed names. [Have I accessed email by using names of District employees or actively hacked into their account? I don't quite understand but would love to find out what you discover.]
Second, the District believes you have sent harassing e-mails to District employees and to their families. [Whoa. I think someone is reaching on this one. Again, I look forward to your discoveries. I think you may be disappointed by what you uncover. More than likely, District staff and parents are reading the blog and seeking to share it with friends and family. I am sorry the District feels harassed by the content on the blog.]
Third, the District believes you have misused King County computer resources by generating harassing e-mails to District employees. [I think you are using the term "harassment" too frequently and perhaps are relying upon the emotional reaction it may evoke. The District would be well-advised to look after the conduct of their current employees and leave out-of-county staff alone. If you want to keep tabs on how the public sector works just watch television.]
Fourth, the District believes you have used confidential District information when taking on property-related "clients" with interests adverse to the District. [I think you might mean my request for a document you continue to claim does not exist. If it does not exist, then how could its contents be confidential. This sounds like an admission that the document you destroyed has a copy somewhere in Edmonds.]
Fifth, the District believes that after you resigned, you obtained certain records from a District consultant without informing him that you had left District employment. [The District should run an ad in the newspaper. Am I forbidden from asking questions? I asked and was provided an answer immediately. I didn't have to wait thirty days or be ignored by a public servant. Maybe the private sector is more efficient. Maybe they should have asked me why I was asking them.]
To my faithful readers and to all of you that have been writing letters of support. I sincerely thank you for your heartfelt communication.
Mark Zandberg
Parents and Voters,
