Take Your Pick
In the past when I've advocated for a certain matter related to education, I have made it a habit to stop writing about it after a final decision has been reached, unless I can say something more that I see as being helpful. This reflects my view that, in church and community decisions, participation is a good thing, particularly in matters that directly concern one's calling and responsibility. I am not averse to some fairly vigorous interchange leading up to a decision, as some of you will be relieved to know is the case also with some of my critics who weigh in privately. Sometimes I wonder if someone installed a lightening rod on the top of my head while I wasn't paying attention.
Almost a week and a half ago, we got an announcement and a ballot regarding the matter of constructing a new auditorium at the new Pilgrim school site (at the old Elreka site). The ballot is due on July 6. I wish, at the very least, for a delay in the voting deadline till a number of things can be further clarified publicly, and, in some cases, till misleading information can be corrected. We know now that no one is aiming for the facility to be ready by this fall, so we do have time to not rush to a decision with far-reaching consequences for years to come. While I totally understand people's wish to avoid having to think too much about a matter that has complicated elements and potential for discord, I beg people to stay engaged in the process of learning, considering, discussing and praying for a good outcome.
In this post, I'm using the first person pronoun "I" a lot, in conflict with advice I've given to my students about the use of the word "I" in their writing. Doing this doesn't really sound good to my "critiquing ears," but I'm trying to acknowledge by doing so that I'm not speaking for everyone, and what I'm saying is how I see things, as opposed to my words being unarguable objective truth.
Clarifications and Corrections I'd Like to See Preceding a Vote
1. Voting thresholds. I'm not sure of the best way to word what I mean, so please bear with me while I try to explain by using an example. If only 51 % of the people who vote are in favor of building an auditorium, will the auditorium be built? I would like this question settled ahead of the vote. After the vote, I'd like for the percentages to be announced publicly. In our legislative government branches at the state and national level, only a 2/3 (66 2/3 %) vote can overturn a president's or governor's veto, although a simple majority can advance a bill before the governor or president signs it. Here, in the past, in our churches, for major changes, a 2/3 majority in favor was required if a change was to be made. In the facilities matter, if a case is eventually to be made for everyone being responsible to help pay for any building projects that are undertaken, a case could certainly be made now for a sizable majority to be in favor of the construction--certainly more than 51 %.
I learned recently that a past vote on whether school facilities should be built in connection with a church facility or on a neutral site passed in favor of building on a neutral site by only 54% voting in favor. I see this slim majority as a fairly weak indicator of preference for major construction as opposed to additions to existing church structures. I especially do not see in that narrow vote a strong mandate for elaborate construction. I see it as reflecting a lot of ambivalence, at least, and perhaps serious reservations.
The vote cleared the way for the purchase of the Elreka facility when that possibility became an option, and I see this purchase as a positive development. I'm reminding us all, however, that using this vote as a mandate for major additional construction on the Elreka site would not be very defensible from the standpoint of only 4% over half of the people being in favor of any construction at all apart from a church site.
2. Dollar amounts for various options. Granted, the amounts would have to be estimates, but credible estimates are possible, at least for purposes of comparison. In the handout, we saw a $200,000 figure for an auditorium inside an insulated steel building with a concrete floor. Heating and cooling costs are not included in this figure. Surely initial purchase and installation costs of a heating and cooling system could be given. Even an online search might produce a credible estimate. Estimated ongoing utility costs could be given too, at least based on current rates. This is "story-problem" math. Restroom and kitchen costs have not been given either. If the area is to be used as an auditorium, surely restrooms will be needed, and I'd like to see that cost estimate given. Kitchen costs should be included too, even if there is some uncertainty at this time about whether or not it would be added. If it was worth mentioning the option, it would be worth mentioning the associated cost of pursuing that option.
While we're talking about dollar amounts, the cost of purchasing land from MHN was never mentioned publicly either that I know of.
3. Definition of terms. We now have a Feasibility Committee and a Renovation Committee since the agreement was made for the purchase of the old Elreka facility. I'm not positive what the relationship between those two committees is (except one common member), but I suspect that the Renovation committee is to organize and oversee the work that the Feasibility Committee decides on. "Renovation" is just a word, but let's be clear about what the word means. Something tells me that the committees themselves may not be clear on this definition.
The online Free Merriam-Webster dictionary has this main definition for renovate:
"to make changes and repairs to (an old house, building, room, etc.) so that it is back in good condition"
As a transitive verb, the word means the following:
"1: to restore to a former better state (as by cleaning, repairing, or rebuilding)
2 : to restore to life, vigor, or activity"
When our ballot offers people a chance to vote yea or nay on the construction of a new structure costing in excess of $200,000.00, we're not talking anymore about renovation, but something else instead. It appears to me that the committee either needs a new name or an agenda adjustment.
4. Creative options. I'm certain that more options exist than the ones we were offered in the handouts, including some options that could radically alter what people see as being workable within the existing building footprint. I've heard new ones from others recently--including from people who are trusted leaders, but whose viewpoint has not been publicly heard. More of these options need to be considered in the public arena before a vote is taken.
5. Support cited. In the handouts, the wording about who was consulted and who strategized together and who favored what was sometimes too vague, and sometimes not accurate, in my opinion. For example, the following wording says:
"The Renovation Committee and PCHS representatives favor using the current learning center (former auditorium) for the High School Learning Center." Whoever these representatives were, I will have to say they were not acting in a truly representative function (more on that later), and I have reason to believe that what they actually said was not represented accurately (more on that later too).
I am not assigning nefarious motives to anyone here. I have implicit trust in the integrity of my authorities at school. I believe, for example, that it's quite possible that what was taken as the "official word" from the high school wasn't even given with the intention of being the official word. I think the official word would surely have been preceded by more staff discussion than ever occurred. That's what I mean by PCHS representatives not acting in a true representative function, and I'm acknowledging that it may have happened unintentionally.
One of the presumed PCHS representatives said only in the past few days that he does not feel strongly about where the high school learning center should be located. That tells me that if he expressed any preference, it was only a slight one--not a decided opinion that the gym is what he favors as a learning center location. That's not what the handouts suggested, but there also, I'm willing to acknowledge that the problem may be more of a problem of missing subtleties and nuances than a problem of nefarious motives.
The idea from the handout that the idea of building an auditorium came out of strategizing sessions between school staff and the Renovation Committee is just not accurate, as I see it. In anything in which the school staff might have weighed in supportively, it would have been on the question of a gym, not an auditorium, given the far more direct relevance of the gym question for the school. Even on the gym question, I did not hear staff support for new construction of a gym. I feel confident in saying that any "stubborn surfacing" of the auditorium question did not occur on the school staff side of things.
"Pastoral counsel" was cited in the decision of the Feasibility Committee to reach an agreement with MHN to purchase an additional 3.8 acres of land adjacent to the Elreka lot. I have big questions about the actual level of pastoral support for this decision. Who was asked and what did they say? The suggestion in the handout that the ministers favored this move flies in the face of what I know about where the majority of my pastors' preferences lie--unless things have changed recently more than I know.
Yammering, yada yada and blathering, or thoughtful discourse, sober examination of facts and accurate presentation? How do you see what you've just read? Take your pick. I don't need to know. Might not want to know. I've prayed for the latter, and proceeded in faith and now I'm ever so glad to be able to go on to something else for the time being.
Almost a week and a half ago, we got an announcement and a ballot regarding the matter of constructing a new auditorium at the new Pilgrim school site (at the old Elreka site). The ballot is due on July 6. I wish, at the very least, for a delay in the voting deadline till a number of things can be further clarified publicly, and, in some cases, till misleading information can be corrected. We know now that no one is aiming for the facility to be ready by this fall, so we do have time to not rush to a decision with far-reaching consequences for years to come. While I totally understand people's wish to avoid having to think too much about a matter that has complicated elements and potential for discord, I beg people to stay engaged in the process of learning, considering, discussing and praying for a good outcome.
In this post, I'm using the first person pronoun "I" a lot, in conflict with advice I've given to my students about the use of the word "I" in their writing. Doing this doesn't really sound good to my "critiquing ears," but I'm trying to acknowledge by doing so that I'm not speaking for everyone, and what I'm saying is how I see things, as opposed to my words being unarguable objective truth.
Clarifications and Corrections I'd Like to See Preceding a Vote
1. Voting thresholds. I'm not sure of the best way to word what I mean, so please bear with me while I try to explain by using an example. If only 51 % of the people who vote are in favor of building an auditorium, will the auditorium be built? I would like this question settled ahead of the vote. After the vote, I'd like for the percentages to be announced publicly. In our legislative government branches at the state and national level, only a 2/3 (66 2/3 %) vote can overturn a president's or governor's veto, although a simple majority can advance a bill before the governor or president signs it. Here, in the past, in our churches, for major changes, a 2/3 majority in favor was required if a change was to be made. In the facilities matter, if a case is eventually to be made for everyone being responsible to help pay for any building projects that are undertaken, a case could certainly be made now for a sizable majority to be in favor of the construction--certainly more than 51 %.
I learned recently that a past vote on whether school facilities should be built in connection with a church facility or on a neutral site passed in favor of building on a neutral site by only 54% voting in favor. I see this slim majority as a fairly weak indicator of preference for major construction as opposed to additions to existing church structures. I especially do not see in that narrow vote a strong mandate for elaborate construction. I see it as reflecting a lot of ambivalence, at least, and perhaps serious reservations.
The vote cleared the way for the purchase of the Elreka facility when that possibility became an option, and I see this purchase as a positive development. I'm reminding us all, however, that using this vote as a mandate for major additional construction on the Elreka site would not be very defensible from the standpoint of only 4% over half of the people being in favor of any construction at all apart from a church site.
2. Dollar amounts for various options. Granted, the amounts would have to be estimates, but credible estimates are possible, at least for purposes of comparison. In the handout, we saw a $200,000 figure for an auditorium inside an insulated steel building with a concrete floor. Heating and cooling costs are not included in this figure. Surely initial purchase and installation costs of a heating and cooling system could be given. Even an online search might produce a credible estimate. Estimated ongoing utility costs could be given too, at least based on current rates. This is "story-problem" math. Restroom and kitchen costs have not been given either. If the area is to be used as an auditorium, surely restrooms will be needed, and I'd like to see that cost estimate given. Kitchen costs should be included too, even if there is some uncertainty at this time about whether or not it would be added. If it was worth mentioning the option, it would be worth mentioning the associated cost of pursuing that option.
While we're talking about dollar amounts, the cost of purchasing land from MHN was never mentioned publicly either that I know of.
3. Definition of terms. We now have a Feasibility Committee and a Renovation Committee since the agreement was made for the purchase of the old Elreka facility. I'm not positive what the relationship between those two committees is (except one common member), but I suspect that the Renovation committee is to organize and oversee the work that the Feasibility Committee decides on. "Renovation" is just a word, but let's be clear about what the word means. Something tells me that the committees themselves may not be clear on this definition.
The online Free Merriam-Webster dictionary has this main definition for renovate:
"to make changes and repairs to (an old house, building, room, etc.) so that it is back in good condition"
As a transitive verb, the word means the following:
"1: to restore to a former better state (as by cleaning, repairing, or rebuilding)
2 : to restore to life, vigor, or activity"
When our ballot offers people a chance to vote yea or nay on the construction of a new structure costing in excess of $200,000.00, we're not talking anymore about renovation, but something else instead. It appears to me that the committee either needs a new name or an agenda adjustment.
4. Creative options. I'm certain that more options exist than the ones we were offered in the handouts, including some options that could radically alter what people see as being workable within the existing building footprint. I've heard new ones from others recently--including from people who are trusted leaders, but whose viewpoint has not been publicly heard. More of these options need to be considered in the public arena before a vote is taken.
5. Support cited. In the handouts, the wording about who was consulted and who strategized together and who favored what was sometimes too vague, and sometimes not accurate, in my opinion. For example, the following wording says:
"The Renovation Committee and PCHS representatives favor using the current learning center (former auditorium) for the High School Learning Center." Whoever these representatives were, I will have to say they were not acting in a truly representative function (more on that later), and I have reason to believe that what they actually said was not represented accurately (more on that later too).
I am not assigning nefarious motives to anyone here. I have implicit trust in the integrity of my authorities at school. I believe, for example, that it's quite possible that what was taken as the "official word" from the high school wasn't even given with the intention of being the official word. I think the official word would surely have been preceded by more staff discussion than ever occurred. That's what I mean by PCHS representatives not acting in a true representative function, and I'm acknowledging that it may have happened unintentionally.
One of the presumed PCHS representatives said only in the past few days that he does not feel strongly about where the high school learning center should be located. That tells me that if he expressed any preference, it was only a slight one--not a decided opinion that the gym is what he favors as a learning center location. That's not what the handouts suggested, but there also, I'm willing to acknowledge that the problem may be more of a problem of missing subtleties and nuances than a problem of nefarious motives.
The idea from the handout that the idea of building an auditorium came out of strategizing sessions between school staff and the Renovation Committee is just not accurate, as I see it. In anything in which the school staff might have weighed in supportively, it would have been on the question of a gym, not an auditorium, given the far more direct relevance of the gym question for the school. Even on the gym question, I did not hear staff support for new construction of a gym. I feel confident in saying that any "stubborn surfacing" of the auditorium question did not occur on the school staff side of things.
"Pastoral counsel" was cited in the decision of the Feasibility Committee to reach an agreement with MHN to purchase an additional 3.8 acres of land adjacent to the Elreka lot. I have big questions about the actual level of pastoral support for this decision. Who was asked and what did they say? The suggestion in the handout that the ministers favored this move flies in the face of what I know about where the majority of my pastors' preferences lie--unless things have changed recently more than I know.
Yammering, yada yada and blathering, or thoughtful discourse, sober examination of facts and accurate presentation? How do you see what you've just read? Take your pick. I don't need to know. Might not want to know. I've prayed for the latter, and proceeded in faith and now I'm ever so glad to be able to go on to something else for the time being.
posted by Mrs. I (Miriam Iwashige) at
8:48 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home