Update on The Sensible Solution:

When our team started this effort, we expected the worst (dismissal) and hoped for the best (a work session with independent experts). Our target was to develop a conceptual plan to show that we COULD meet the requirements of the district at a lower cost and provide the same educational opportunities. We used the districts 60% design as a baseline. The guidance from Sue Werner (SCASD board president) was that ANY two building design REQUIRED a building to building connector. We were told to filter all requests for information via the SCASD (Dr. Best) and not to contact teachers, administrators, students, or booster clubs directly. We followed the SCASD’s rules and asked them for all of the materials that they used to make a decision (requirements, wants/needs, inputs, restraints, limitations, etc.). On January 22nd, we presented to the SCASD board and requested four things 1) A work session, 2) A comparative analysis, 3) A vote by the board based on the analysis to prepare detailed design documents by independent sources, 4) That no bids be released until these actions are completed. The SCASD board agreed to none of these requests and instead placed the Sensible Solution as an information item for the next board meeting.

We contacted the SCASD several times to offer assistance and provide clarification on our plan after our report was released. We wanted to explain in detail items like our cost model, how the flooding was addressed, etc. Our offer was never accepted. On February 2nd, we delivered the following letter to the SCASD (Dr. Best) asking how we could be prepared for the review of the Sensible Solution at the next SCASD board meeting as we expected a dialog to occur during this meeting. On February 10th and 11th, the CDT released three great articles/editorials on giving the Sensible Solution a proper analysis (021007 Article, 021007 Editorial, and 021107 Editorial).

On February 12th, the CDT reported that the "District blasts Paterno proposal". We suggest you read our plan and then read the district's document and draw your own conclusions. This is our initial reaction to the district's review of the Sensible Solution.

We were told on the afternoon of February 12th (Monday), that we would only have five minutes to speak and that the board may ask us questions. After the board meeting last night, our team was extremely disappointed that the SCASD team presented an initial one sided superficial analysis rather than working with our team to help analyze and compare the plans. Our position is that this lack of professionalism and objectivity does a disservice to the students, teachers, and taxpayers in our district.

From the CDT on February 13th, Dena Pauling summarized the board meeting and the CDT editorial staff once again agreed that a fair and open discussion/analysis was warranted (No Thanks, Mr. Paterno). We ask that all concerned members of the community take the following action if you support an honest, fair, and independent analysis of the Sensible Solution:

1) Attend board meetings and ask for an independent analysis
2) Write the SCASD board to express your concerns
3) Write a letter to the CDT (250 words or less)
4) Sign and send in our letter of endorsement

We want to remind all members of the community to remain focused on discussing the merits of the options...not the people!