Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Livonianeighbors.com. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. To ensure your privacy, never use personal information in your screen name or email address ("janedoe@hotmail.com" or "Billysmom" for example).

Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Asset Utilization Committee; Update?
Topic Started: Feb 1 2008, 04:41 PM (662 Views)
Xena
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Major Card Player
Feb 1 2008, 12:15 PM
Yes, and we all know how many parents were clamoring for a K-4, 5/6, 7/8 configuration. This district has really proven itself to be really concerned with what parents care about hasn't it??? Please.

Randy said long ago that we did not have the bldg. size to accomodate a k-8 configuration. While that may or may not be true, he is the super and it's really all about what he and the other staff wants.

The idea of a K-8 discussion is much like the whole AUC thing--nothing more than PR move to placate the public at the time.

The fact is a k-8 discussion was talked about at a board meeting. Ms. Markarian showed alot of interest in it. But Dr. Liepa pretty much shot her down, said there was not time to implement a program for the coming school year. Of course they didnt have a problem closing 7 schools , moving everything to the other buildings and getting all those new bus routes figured out in time for the new school year. A simple email or letter sent out to determine if there is alot of interest in k-8 would have be a good first step. But as we all know if it doesnt come from someone on the BOE(besides Steve KIng) or CO NOTHING happens. We could all send emails, go before the BOE and request this be looked at, but really why waste our time and energy if nothing will come of it? What parents want doesnt seem to matter in this district as was proven by the passing of the LI.
By the way what HAS happened with the AU committee recently?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Xena
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Thats part of the problem, LPS always has excuses for NOT doing whats right. So what if 2 people critized how things were going on that committee. That is the excuse to stop doing anything? They should be used to hearing criticism by now.
Will Riley EVER get the proper size playground equipment? Someone wrote a letter about that to the Observer, is THAT why nothing is being done, because someone had the NERVE to bring it to the publics attention? If there was communication going on between parents and LPS administration as they promised would indeed happen, none of these letters would have been written.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dazed and confused
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Renee Chesney
Feb 1 2008, 04:34 PM
Xena
Feb 1 2008, 03:41 PM
Major Card Player
Feb 1 2008, 12:15 PM
Yes, and we all know how many parents were clamoring for a K-4, 5/6, 7/8 configuration.  This district has really proven itself to be really concerned with what parents care about hasn't it???  Please.

Randy said long ago that we did not have the bldg. size to accomodate a k-8 configuration.  While that may or may not be true, he is the super and it's really all about what he and the other staff wants. 

The idea of a K-8 discussion is much like the whole AUC thing--nothing more than PR move to placate the public at the time.

The fact is a k-8 discussion was talked about at a board meeting. Ms. Markarian showed alot of interest in it. But Dr. Liepa pretty much shot her down, said there was not time to implement a program for the coming school year. Of course they didnt have a problem closing 7 schools , moving everything to the other buildings and getting all those new bus routes figured out in time for the new school year. A simple email or letter sent out to determine if there is alot of interest in k-8 would have be a good first step. But as we all know if it doesnt come from someone on the BOE(besides Steve KIng) or CO NOTHING happens. We could all send emails, go before the BOE and request this be looked at, but really why waste our time and energy if nothing will come of it? What parents want doesnt seem to matter in this district as was proven by the passing of the LI.
By the way what HAS happened with the AU committee recently?

It is too bad that those two people who sent editiorials into the Observer regarding the AUC ruined it. There are people who sit on the AUC who did not agree with those two and their version of the truth. So if they prefer to duke it out in the paper versus in an AUC meeting then why bother.

How the hell did they ruin it? Is it because they saw through the smoke screen? And made it public that certain things were not suggested or wanted by the majority of the members? Or, was it they knew they were being used like labratory rats? No one really cared about that group, it's so apparent it's not even funny. <_< Maybe it's time for another editorial about the so called AUC. ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renee Chesney
Veteran
dazed and confused
Feb 1 2008, 05:05 PM
Renee Chesney
Feb 1 2008, 04:34 PM
Xena
Feb 1 2008, 03:41 PM
Major Card Player
Feb 1 2008, 12:15 PM
Yes, and we all know how many parents were clamoring for a K-4, 5/6, 7/8 configuration.  This district has really proven itself to be really concerned with what parents care about hasn't it???  Please.

Randy said long ago that we did not have the bldg. size to accomodate a k-8 configuration.  While that may or may not be true, he is the super and it's really all about what he and the other staff wants. 

The idea of a K-8 discussion is much like the whole AUC thing--nothing more than PR move to placate the public at the time.

The fact is a k-8 discussion was talked about at a board meeting. Ms. Markarian showed alot of interest in it. But Dr. Liepa pretty much shot her down, said there was not time to implement a program for the coming school year. Of course they didnt have a problem closing 7 schools , moving everything to the other buildings and getting all those new bus routes figured out in time for the new school year. A simple email or letter sent out to determine if there is alot of interest in k-8 would have be a good first step. But as we all know if it doesnt come from someone on the BOE(besides Steve KIng) or CO NOTHING happens. We could all send emails, go before the BOE and request this be looked at, but really why waste our time and energy if nothing will come of it? What parents want doesnt seem to matter in this district as was proven by the passing of the LI.
By the way what HAS happened with the AU committee recently?

It is too bad that those two people who sent editiorials into the Observer regarding the AUC ruined it. There are people who sit on the AUC who did not agree with those two and their version of the truth. So if they prefer to duke it out in the paper versus in an AUC meeting then why bother.

How the hell did they ruin it? Is it because they saw through the smoke screen? And made it public that certain things were not suggested or wanted by the majority of the members? Or, was it they knew they were being used like labratory rats? No one really cared about that group, it's so apparent it's not even funny. <_< Maybe it's time for another editorial about the so called AUC. ;)

Would you want to work with someone on a committee who prefers to air their preceived problems with the committee with the newspaper only versus discussing them with the entire group before they write what they think is the truth? It would have been common courtesy to vent with the whole committee before just firing off a letter to editor. Their fellow committee members took their task seriously and what was done to them was uncalled for. Obviously those two were out for their own personal interests and didn't really want to be a part of "committee"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Queen of Hearts
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Sounds to me like the committee was full of people who weren't team players. I heard that one of last May's losing school board candidates quit the committee right after the election.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Micki
I love teaching.
Queen of Hearts
Feb 1 2008, 05:23 PM
Sounds to me like the committee was full of people who weren't team players. I heard that one of last May's losing school board candidates quit the committee right after the election.

It appears there isn't a committe to quit from.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LPS Reformer
Member Avatar
The schools exist to educate, not employ.
Renee Chesney
Feb 1 2008, 05:15 PM
dazed and confused
Feb 1 2008, 05:05 PM
Renee Chesney
Feb 1 2008, 04:34 PM
Xena
Feb 1 2008, 03:41 PM
Major Card Player
Feb 1 2008, 12:15 PM
Yes, and we all know how many parents were clamoring for a K-4, 5/6, 7/8 configuration.  This district has really proven itself to be really concerned with what parents care about hasn't it???  Please.

Randy said long ago that we did not have the bldg. size to accomodate a k-8 configuration.  While that may or may not be true, he is the super and it's really all about what he and the other staff wants. 

The idea of a K-8 discussion is much like the whole AUC thing--nothing more than PR move to placate the public at the time.

The fact is a k-8 discussion was talked about at a board meeting. Ms. Markarian showed alot of interest in it. But Dr. Liepa pretty much shot her down, said there was not time to implement a program for the coming school year. Of course they didnt have a problem closing 7 schools , moving everything to the other buildings and getting all those new bus routes figured out in time for the new school year. A simple email or letter sent out to determine if there is alot of interest in k-8 would have be a good first step. But as we all know if it doesnt come from someone on the BOE(besides Steve KIng) or CO NOTHING happens. We could all send emails, go before the BOE and request this be looked at, but really why waste our time and energy if nothing will come of it? What parents want doesnt seem to matter in this district as was proven by the passing of the LI.
By the way what HAS happened with the AU committee recently?

It is too bad that those two people who sent editiorials into the Observer regarding the AUC ruined it. There are people who sit on the AUC who did not agree with those two and their version of the truth. So if they prefer to duke it out in the paper versus in an AUC meeting then why bother.

How the hell did they ruin it? Is it because they saw through the smoke screen? And made it public that certain things were not suggested or wanted by the majority of the members? Or, was it they knew they were being used like labratory rats? No one really cared about that group, it's so apparent it's not even funny. <_< Maybe it's time for another editorial about the so called AUC. ;)

Would you want to work with someone on a committee who prefers to air their preceived problems with the committee with the newspaper only versus discussing them with the entire group before they write what they think is the truth? It would have been common courtesy to vent with the whole committee before just firing off a letter to editor. Their fellow committee members took their task seriously and what was done to them was uncalled for. Obviously those two were out for their own personal interests and didn't really want to be a part of "committee"

It's called free speech.

The answer to Speech is more Speech not less.
“Child Abuse” means different things to different people....
----Randy Liepa 8/9/12
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LPS Reformer
Member Avatar
The schools exist to educate, not employ.
Queen of Hearts
Feb 1 2008, 05:23 PM
Sounds to me like the committee was full of people who weren't team players. I heard that one of last May's losing school board candidates quit the committee right after the election.

Why all this hatred for people speaking out? Can't your ideas stand the light of day?
“Child Abuse” means different things to different people....
----Randy Liepa 8/9/12
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
al dente
Member
[ *  * ]
They should just choose random everyday parents for that committee instead a bunch of people with agendas. Choose them randomly and then ask for their participation. If they are not interested keep choosing (randomly). The "volunteers" on that committee are way too invested. They could also ensure that one person from each school area and grade level is included.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dazed and confused
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
al dente
Feb 1 2008, 06:23 PM
They should just choose random everyday parents for that committee instead a bunch of people with agendas. Choose them randomly and then ask for their participation. If they are not interested keep choosing (randomly). The "volunteers" on that committee are way too invested. They could also ensure that one person from each school area and grade level is included.

You don't seem to understand how LPS works. It was all set up to make it look like it was an important commitee, but was just a whole bunch of bulls*@&. Their going to do what they want to do and just blame it on the commitee. Sound familiar?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Melanie Ricketts
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
LPS Reformer
Feb 1 2008, 06:18 PM
Renee Chesney
Feb 1 2008, 05:15 PM
dazed and confused
Feb 1 2008, 05:05 PM
Renee Chesney
Feb 1 2008, 04:34 PM
Xena
Feb 1 2008, 03:41 PM
Major Card Player
Feb 1 2008, 12:15 PM
Yes, and we all know how many parents were clamoring for a K-4, 5/6, 7/8 configuration.  This district has really proven itself to be really concerned with what parents care about hasn't it???  Please.

Randy said long ago that we did not have the bldg. size to accomodate a k-8 configuration.  While that may or may not be true, he is the super and it's really all about what he and the other staff wants. 

The idea of a K-8 discussion is much like the whole AUC thing--nothing more than PR move to placate the public at the time.

The fact is a k-8 discussion was talked about at a board meeting. Ms. Markarian showed alot of interest in it. But Dr. Liepa pretty much shot her down, said there was not time to implement a program for the coming school year. Of course they didnt have a problem closing 7 schools , moving everything to the other buildings and getting all those new bus routes figured out in time for the new school year. A simple email or letter sent out to determine if there is alot of interest in k-8 would have be a good first step. But as we all know if it doesnt come from someone on the BOE(besides Steve KIng) or CO NOTHING happens. We could all send emails, go before the BOE and request this be looked at, but really why waste our time and energy if nothing will come of it? What parents want doesnt seem to matter in this district as was proven by the passing of the LI.
By the way what HAS happened with the AU committee recently?

It is too bad that those two people who sent editiorials into the Observer regarding the AUC ruined it. There are people who sit on the AUC who did not agree with those two and their version of the truth. So if they prefer to duke it out in the paper versus in an AUC meeting then why bother.

How the hell did they ruin it? Is it because they saw through the smoke screen? And made it public that certain things were not suggested or wanted by the majority of the members? Or, was it they knew they were being used like labratory rats? No one really cared about that group, it's so apparent it's not even funny. <_< Maybe it's time for another editorial about the so called AUC. ;)

Would you want to work with someone on a committee who prefers to air their preceived problems with the committee with the newspaper only versus discussing them with the entire group before they write what they think is the truth? It would have been common courtesy to vent with the whole committee before just firing off a letter to editor. Their fellow committee members took their task seriously and what was done to them was uncalled for. Obviously those two were out for their own personal interests and didn't really want to be a part of "committee"

It's called free speech.

The answer to Speech is more Speech not less.

Reformer I would agree with you except for the fact that the people who went to the newspaper with their perception of the truth never extended the courtesy to the group to discuss what they took to the paper. Maybe some of those misconceptions could have been avoided if this would have been hashed out within our group instead of trying to make things into something that they were not. I for one was truly disappointed in that op/ed piece in the Observer since I believed that we were making progress with that committee and that we truly had some great ideas that we were working on, but when they told their version of the truth to the paper and none of those things were ever discussed as a group, that really drove a wedge into the group. Of course it didn't help either when immediately after the May election one of our members resigned when their bid for school board was unsuccessful. Made many of us wonder what that persons agenda was. But we were still willing to meet. Until the op/ed piece hit, I think they owed the group the courtesy to discuss that with the group and not the newspaper.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Elvis
Member
[ *  * ]
LPS Reformer
Feb 1 2008, 06:18 PM
Renee Chesney
Feb 1 2008, 05:15 PM
dazed and confused
Feb 1 2008, 05:05 PM
Renee Chesney
Feb 1 2008, 04:34 PM
Xena
Feb 1 2008, 03:41 PM
Major Card Player
Feb 1 2008, 12:15 PM
Yes, and we all know how many parents were clamoring for a K-4, 5/6, 7/8 configuration.  This district has really proven itself to be really concerned with what parents care about hasn't it???  Please.

Randy said long ago that we did not have the bldg. size to accomodate a k-8 configuration.  While that may or may not be true, he is the super and it's really all about what he and the other staff wants. 

The idea of a K-8 discussion is much like the whole AUC thing--nothing more than PR move to placate the public at the time.

The fact is a k-8 discussion was talked about at a board meeting. Ms. Markarian showed alot of interest in it. But Dr. Liepa pretty much shot her down, said there was not time to implement a program for the coming school year. Of course they didnt have a problem closing 7 schools , moving everything to the other buildings and getting all those new bus routes figured out in time for the new school year. A simple email or letter sent out to determine if there is alot of interest in k-8 would have be a good first step. But as we all know if it doesnt come from someone on the BOE(besides Steve KIng) or CO NOTHING happens. We could all send emails, go before the BOE and request this be looked at, but really why waste our time and energy if nothing will come of it? What parents want doesnt seem to matter in this district as was proven by the passing of the LI.
By the way what HAS happened with the AU committee recently?

It is too bad that those two people who sent editiorials into the Observer regarding the AUC ruined it. There are people who sit on the AUC who did not agree with those two and their version of the truth. So if they prefer to duke it out in the paper versus in an AUC meeting then why bother.

How the hell did they ruin it? Is it because they saw through the smoke screen? And made it public that certain things were not suggested or wanted by the majority of the members? Or, was it they knew they were being used like labratory rats? No one really cared about that group, it's so apparent it's not even funny. <_< Maybe it's time for another editorial about the so called AUC. ;)

Would you want to work with someone on a committee who prefers to air their preceived problems with the committee with the newspaper only versus discussing them with the entire group before they write what they think is the truth? It would have been common courtesy to vent with the whole committee before just firing off a letter to editor. Their fellow committee members took their task seriously and what was done to them was uncalled for. Obviously those two were out for their own personal interests and didn't really want to be a part of "committee"

It's called free speech.

The answer to Speech is more Speech not less.

There were actually three AUC members that signed the editorial. There was a fourth, but he was out of town at the time. As an editorial spot in the Observer is not just given to those who have “opinions” to express, it is given to those that offer “opinions” appealing to the community at large. It’s called freedom of speech. The editorial was actually printed after months of discussions concerning the legitimacy of the AUC (Commission committee? Open to the public? Open Meeting Act? Recorded minutes?). Your comments imply I (Kim Naccashian) and my fellow AUC members are delusional and confused by the events occurring during the AUC sessions.

From the very first session (November 2006) these questions and more were addressed and discussed among all AUC members. One of the most discussed issues was that of OPEN COMMUNICATION. The AUC must proceed with all residents concerns in mind. Offering public hearings BEFORE transactions were made. Not a repeat of the Legacy fiasco. The editorial was not to disrespect our fellow AUC members. The editorial was to communicate to the public at large the issues not being addressed by LPS Administration concerning the AUC. One must first understand who is “leading” the AUC. The AUC report was written by the administration. The decisions were predetermined. In my opinion.

As far as being a “team player”, it would truly depend on your team and your rule book. If you are on the Red team, the issues are easy to understand due to a valid lack of trust for the LPS Administration. If you are part of the Blue team, there are no issues of substance within the editorial for you to understand. As a member of the Blue team, you hardly feel our concerns are valid.

Fortunately, this comparison is similar to a democracy. You know Republicans. Democrats. Elections. Freedom of Speech. It’s that thing our country was founded on. Its how communication works, even when it gets uncomfortable.

The editorial was not easy for us to write. Many discussions were had by a number of AUC members concerning the lack of public input. If you had your facts in order, you would know that Little Tots did not know they were moving. They were not asked to move, they were told. The district is lucky we did not lose a 20+ year tenant over the disrespect to Little Tots.

If our efforts resulted in any community input before the final transactions were complete, we achieved our mission. I take my position on this committee seriously. I am not there to “fight” the Blue team. I have no time for that. If my comments make you uncomfortable, write your own editorial and explain your position and/or your concerns with the AUC.

To further address the “team Player” issue, I recently met with Dr. Liepa to request an update of the AUC in November. That update was addressed in December to all AUC members. He was very kind. I have successfully been working with both Coolidge and Riley principals to address Legacy issues (anti-bullying, ICHAT, playground equipment, new parking lot) within these schools. I am a member of the LPS Anti-bullying and Substance Abuse Steering Committee at the request of the Student Services Director where I will be submitting an $11,000 grant to the district on Monday. It’s been 27 months that I and my fellow Red team members have helped to pick up the pieces of the Legacy fiasco. I will continue that effort even when it gets “uncomfortable”. You should give it a try. Standing up for your own convictions is very liberating.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Melanie Ricketts
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Elvis
Feb 1 2008, 09:57 PM
LPS Reformer
Feb 1 2008, 06:18 PM
Renee Chesney
Feb 1 2008, 05:15 PM
dazed and confused
Feb 1 2008, 05:05 PM
Renee Chesney
Feb 1 2008, 04:34 PM
Xena
Feb 1 2008, 03:41 PM
Major Card Player
Feb 1 2008, 12:15 PM
Yes, and we all know how many parents were clamoring for a K-4, 5/6, 7/8 configuration.  This district has really proven itself to be really concerned with what parents care about hasn't it???  Please.

Randy said long ago that we did not have the bldg. size to accomodate a k-8 configuration.  While that may or may not be true, he is the super and it's really all about what he and the other staff wants. 

The idea of a K-8 discussion is much like the whole AUC thing--nothing more than PR move to placate the public at the time.

The fact is a k-8 discussion was talked about at a board meeting. Ms. Markarian showed alot of interest in it. But Dr. Liepa pretty much shot her down, said there was not time to implement a program for the coming school year. Of course they didnt have a problem closing 7 schools , moving everything to the other buildings and getting all those new bus routes figured out in time for the new school year. A simple email or letter sent out to determine if there is alot of interest in k-8 would have be a good first step. But as we all know if it doesnt come from someone on the BOE(besides Steve KIng) or CO NOTHING happens. We could all send emails, go before the BOE and request this be looked at, but really why waste our time and energy if nothing will come of it? What parents want doesnt seem to matter in this district as was proven by the passing of the LI.
By the way what HAS happened with the AU committee recently?

It is too bad that those two people who sent editiorials into the Observer regarding the AUC ruined it. There are people who sit on the AUC who did not agree with those two and their version of the truth. So if they prefer to duke it out in the paper versus in an AUC meeting then why bother.

How the hell did they ruin it? Is it because they saw through the smoke screen? And made it public that certain things were not suggested or wanted by the majority of the members? Or, was it they knew they were being used like labratory rats? No one really cared about that group, it's so apparent it's not even funny. <_< Maybe it's time for another editorial about the so called AUC. ;)

Would you want to work with someone on a committee who prefers to air their preceived problems with the committee with the newspaper only versus discussing them with the entire group before they write what they think is the truth? It would have been common courtesy to vent with the whole committee before just firing off a letter to editor. Their fellow committee members took their task seriously and what was done to them was uncalled for. Obviously those two were out for their own personal interests and didn't really want to be a part of "committee"

It's called free speech.

The answer to Speech is more Speech not less.

There were actually three AUC members that signed the editorial. There was a fourth, but he was out of town at the time. As an editorial spot in the Observer is not just given to those who have “opinions” to express, it is given to those that offer “opinions” appealing to the community at large. It’s called freedom of speech. The editorial was actually printed after months of discussions concerning the legitimacy of the AUC (Commission committee? Open to the public? Open Meeting Act? Recorded minutes?). Your comments imply I (Kim Naccashian) and my fellow AUC members are delusional and confused by the events occurring during the AUC sessions.

From the very first session (November 2006) these questions and more were addressed and discussed among all AUC members. One of the most discussed issues was that of OPEN COMMUNICATION. The AUC must proceed with all residents concerns in mind. Offering public hearings BEFORE transactions were made. Not a repeat of the Legacy fiasco. The editorial was not to disrespect our fellow AUC members. The editorial was to communicate to the public at large the issues not being addressed by LPS Administration concerning the AUC. One must first understand who is “leading” the AUC. The AUC report was written by the administration. The decisions were predetermined. In my opinion.

As far as being a “team player”, it would truly depend on your team and your rule book. If you are on the Red team, the issues are easy to understand due to a valid lack of trust for the LPS Administration. If you are part of the Blue team, there are no issues of substance within the editorial for you to understand. As a member of the Blue team, you hardly feel our concerns are valid.

Fortunately, this comparison is similar to a democracy. You know Republicans. Democrats. Elections. Freedom of Speech. It’s that thing our country was founded on. Its how communication works, even when it gets uncomfortable.

The editorial was not easy for us to write. Many discussions were had by a number of AUC members concerning the lack of public input. If you had your facts in order, you would know that Little Tots did not know they were moving. They were not asked to move, they were told. The district is lucky we did not lose a 20+ year tenant over the disrespect to Little Tots.

If our efforts resulted in any community input before the final transactions were complete, we achieved our mission. I take my position on this committee seriously. I am not there to “fight” the Blue team. I have no time for that. If my comments make you uncomfortable, write your own editorial and explain your position and/or your concerns with the AUC.

To further address the “team Player” issue, I recently met with Dr. Liepa to request an update of the AUC in November. That update was addressed in December to all AUC members. He was very kind. I have successfully been working with both Coolidge and Riley principals to address Legacy issues (anti-bullying, ICHAT, playground equipment, new parking lot) within these schools. I am a member of the LPS Anti-bullying and Substance Abuse Steering Committee at the request of the Student Services Director where I will be submitting an $11,000 grant to the district on Monday. It’s been 27 months that I and my fellow Red team members have helped to pick up the pieces of the Legacy fiasco. I will continue that effort even when it gets “uncomfortable”. You should give it a try. Standing up for your own convictions is very liberating.

If your op/ed piece was not meant to disrespect your fellow AUC members then, why was this not addressed to all members before it went to the paper? Everyone on the committee had contact e-mail addresses and phone numbers for everyone on the committee.

It was my understanding that Little Tots knew they were moving, but an employee of Little Tots was left out of the loop. When the owner appeared at the Taylor/Clay neighborhood meetings she seemed to have no problem with the concept.



Nice work on the grant, I look forward to hearing the details.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Elvis
Member
[ *  * ]
Melanie Ricketts
Feb 1 2008, 10:09 PM
Elvis
Feb 1 2008, 09:57 PM
LPS Reformer
Feb 1 2008, 06:18 PM
Renee Chesney
Feb 1 2008, 05:15 PM
dazed and confused
Feb 1 2008, 05:05 PM
Renee Chesney
Feb 1 2008, 04:34 PM
Xena
Feb 1 2008, 03:41 PM
Major Card Player
Feb 1 2008, 12:15 PM
Yes, and we all know how many parents were clamoring for a K-4, 5/6, 7/8 configuration.  This district has really proven itself to be really concerned with what parents care about hasn't it???  Please.

Randy said long ago that we did not have the bldg. size to accomodate a k-8 configuration.  While that may or may not be true, he is the super and it's really all about what he and the other staff wants. 

The idea of a K-8 discussion is much like the whole AUC thing--nothing more than PR move to placate the public at the time.

The fact is a k-8 discussion was talked about at a board meeting. Ms. Markarian showed alot of interest in it. But Dr. Liepa pretty much shot her down, said there was not time to implement a program for the coming school year. Of course they didnt have a problem closing 7 schools , moving everything to the other buildings and getting all those new bus routes figured out in time for the new school year. A simple email or letter sent out to determine if there is alot of interest in k-8 would have be a good first step. But as we all know if it doesnt come from someone on the BOE(besides Steve KIng) or CO NOTHING happens. We could all send emails, go before the BOE and request this be looked at, but really why waste our time and energy if nothing will come of it? What parents want doesnt seem to matter in this district as was proven by the passing of the LI.
By the way what HAS happened with the AU committee recently?

It is too bad that those two people who sent editiorials into the Observer regarding the AUC ruined it. There are people who sit on the AUC who did not agree with those two and their version of the truth. So if they prefer to duke it out in the paper versus in an AUC meeting then why bother.

How the hell did they ruin it? Is it because they saw through the smoke screen? And made it public that certain things were not suggested or wanted by the majority of the members? Or, was it they knew they were being used like labratory rats? No one really cared about that group, it's so apparent it's not even funny. <_< Maybe it's time for another editorial about the so called AUC. ;)

Would you want to work with someone on a committee who prefers to air their preceived problems with the committee with the newspaper only versus discussing them with the entire group before they write what they think is the truth? It would have been common courtesy to vent with the whole committee before just firing off a letter to editor. Their fellow committee members took their task seriously and what was done to them was uncalled for. Obviously those two were out for their own personal interests and didn't really want to be a part of "committee"

It's called free speech.

The answer to Speech is more Speech not less.

There were actually three AUC members that signed the editorial. There was a fourth, but he was out of town at the time. As an editorial spot in the Observer is not just given to those who have “opinions” to express, it is given to those that offer “opinions” appealing to the community at large. It’s called freedom of speech. The editorial was actually printed after months of discussions concerning the legitimacy of the AUC (Commission committee? Open to the public? Open Meeting Act? Recorded minutes?). Your comments imply I (Kim Naccashian) and my fellow AUC members are delusional and confused by the events occurring during the AUC sessions.

From the very first session (November 2006) these questions and more were addressed and discussed among all AUC members. One of the most discussed issues was that of OPEN COMMUNICATION. The AUC must proceed with all residents concerns in mind. Offering public hearings BEFORE transactions were made. Not a repeat of the Legacy fiasco. The editorial was not to disrespect our fellow AUC members. The editorial was to communicate to the public at large the issues not being addressed by LPS Administration concerning the AUC. One must first understand who is “leading” the AUC. The AUC report was written by the administration. The decisions were predetermined. In my opinion.

As far as being a “team player”, it would truly depend on your team and your rule book. If you are on the Red team, the issues are easy to understand due to a valid lack of trust for the LPS Administration. If you are part of the Blue team, there are no issues of substance within the editorial for you to understand. As a member of the Blue team, you hardly feel our concerns are valid.

Fortunately, this comparison is similar to a democracy. You know Republicans. Democrats. Elections. Freedom of Speech. It’s that thing our country was founded on. Its how communication works, even when it gets uncomfortable.

The editorial was not easy for us to write. Many discussions were had by a number of AUC members concerning the lack of public input. If you had your facts in order, you would know that Little Tots did not know they were moving. They were not asked to move, they were told. The district is lucky we did not lose a 20+ year tenant over the disrespect to Little Tots.

If our efforts resulted in any community input before the final transactions were complete, we achieved our mission. I take my position on this committee seriously. I am not there to “fight” the Blue team. I have no time for that. If my comments make you uncomfortable, write your own editorial and explain your position and/or your concerns with the AUC.

To further address the “team Player” issue, I recently met with Dr. Liepa to request an update of the AUC in November. That update was addressed in December to all AUC members. He was very kind. I have successfully been working with both Coolidge and Riley principals to address Legacy issues (anti-bullying, ICHAT, playground equipment, new parking lot) within these schools. I am a member of the LPS Anti-bullying and Substance Abuse Steering Committee at the request of the Student Services Director where I will be submitting an $11,000 grant to the district on Monday. It’s been 27 months that I and my fellow Red team members have helped to pick up the pieces of the Legacy fiasco. I will continue that effort even when it gets “uncomfortable”. You should give it a try. Standing up for your own convictions is very liberating.

If your op/ed piece was not meant to disrespect your fellow AUC members then, why was this not addressed to all members before it went to the paper? Everyone on the committee had contact e-mail addresses and phone numbers for everyone on the committee.

It was my understanding that Little Tots knew they were moving, but an employee of Little Tots was left out of the loop. When the owner appeared at the Taylor/Clay neighborhood meetings she seemed to have no problem with the concept.



Nice work on the grant, I look forward to hearing the details.

I guess it’s how you interpret disrespect. For several members (5 including one that resigned) of the AUC to state that the formation of the AUC with so many LPS ties (employees and/or LPS contracts)creates an environment with too few members free of a conflict of interest to be disrespectful, not truthful, I guess your view is accurate to you. It really wasn’t your choice. The committee was formed by the administration. Kind of resembles the Demographics Committee.

Why would we address this issue any further than what had already transpired during several AUC meetings? Did I miss your concern during previous discussions? Has Mr. Freeman ever shared the Senior Housing inquiry letter with you? It might be a good idea to address this inquiry (it’s been a year now). What is the district doing about the vacant buildings? Why was there such urgency to put in writing the Perrinville, Food Storage and Taylor decisions? We had taken our time discussing matters for so long before hand. I had previously (pre-editorial) discussed in writing my personal concerns directly with Mr. Hosman and Dr. Liepa. I requested in writing a reply to my concerns. I received no reply to those questions. I did receive a reply that stated he could not “trust” what I would do with the answers. I believe the Observer also verified a few of our concerns with Mr. Hosman directly before the article was published. I was requested to verify/validate numerous statements before print.

There we go with the whole “trust” thing. I guess I am completely misguided because I have “trust” issues with my LPS Administration. Do I need counseling? No, I need the truth. I know it’s a concept the administration is not used to dealing with, but we all must move forward. Learn from past mistakes on both teams. I think it’s that new communication thing with the DCT and community meetings. Or maybe it’s the lawsuit and FOIA issues????

After numerous requests for information from previous inquiries concerning LPS land from prior years, I must say the pattern is quite similar. No response. No discussion. No communication. Just no! Remember the violation of the Open Meetings Act of 2003 during the sale of the old Rosedale Elementary School. FOSIL proved their case in court. I guess you need to truly know the history of land sales (no sales for money - just swaps) within the district to know the truth.

I don’t know about you Melanie, but I am more than willing to sit at that table and think of ways to improve our school district and our city. I have been working on developing a Community Task Force aimed at just that. You may not like the fact that some of us feel the 11,000+ residents of this city that signed recall petitions have a right to hear what is going on, but those of us on the Red team do. The Red team has a large network of people still active. We may not be funded by the MEA or have union backers, but we are still united and care about our community.

The district has a long way to go before “trust” is restored. My allegiance lays with those who share my concerns; protecting our home values, our children and the city’s welfare. Is that so wrong? As for an agenda – I’m not running for any office, I own my own business. I do not work for the district receiving any monetary benefit. I have not received one monetary benefit since this all started.

You can call me any time you care to hear of the reasons I have trust issues with the Administration. I do not care to argue those reasons though. They're not up for debate.

Thank you for the compliment on the grant. I am trying to move forward. That doesn’t mean you won’t see another editorial!!!!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
al dente
Member
[ *  * ]
Why were LPS employees even on this AUC committee?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Elvis
Member
[ *  * ]
al dente
Feb 1 2008, 11:50 PM
Why were LPS employees even on this AUC committee?

Obviously, I am disrespectful for discussing the issue. Don't ask me? What's your thought?

You must also understand that technically, not all members are employees of the district. A few lease buildings from the district, are PTA liasons or have other commitments with the district. That is not to say they can not view the equation without a conflict, but. . . .The Demographics Committee comes to mind. . .Why a repeat performance? The committe was developed by the administration from those that submitted applications.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LPS Reformer
Member Avatar
The schools exist to educate, not employ.
Melanie Ricketts
Feb 1 2008, 09:43 PM
[Reformer I would agree with you except for the fact that the people who went to the newspaper with their perception of the truth never extended the courtesy to the group to discuss what they took to the paper.


If you disagree with their Speech, then offer your own, and let the public judge. Your objection seems to be that you did not want them to speak to the public, but rather, be bound by the "concensus".

"Concensus", should not be a means for defacto censorship.

Exersise your own freedom of speech. Do not denounce others for exercising their own.
“Child Abuse” means different things to different people....
----Randy Liepa 8/9/12
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Melanie Ricketts
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
al dente
Feb 1 2008, 11:50 PM
Why were LPS employees even on this AUC committee?

I'm not sure that there were all that many people that volunteered to be on the AUC in the first place, but I was chosen as a parent and resident who had already expressed concerns regarding certain buildings, the fact that I also happened to be an employee was not germain to choosing me. I had nothing to gain as an employee, my concerns came from being a citizen in Livonia. By the way, no longer an employee, I have gone back to what I did before being a stay at home mom.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Melanie Ricketts
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Elvis,

It's not so much a matter of disrespect, but more a matter of common courtesy when serving on a committee and you don't think it's going in the way that you thought it should, if I were in your shoes I would have approached others either in a group or seperately to share my feelings before going public. I don't want to debate your convictions, as I do not want to debate mine. But a little courtesy would have gone a long way, towards possibly being able to maintain the AUC and even working towards the goals for which you lobbied in the paper. When you go behind committee members backs and state things as fact to the general public, when they are not necessarily facts but your opinion, it creates a feeling of animosity where no work could be completed. I truly felt that we were making headway and that we could have come to a consensus as group. By the way, I do, have and will continue to stand up for my OWN convictions and to fight for what I believe is right, just as I would expect you and anyone else to do. I think you and many others misunderstand that those who supported the LI and who continue to support the board do not feel that you are not entitled to your opinions and beliefs, just that maybe there is a better way to go about things rather than flinging accusations and name calling, of which there has been a lot. I respect your right and anyone else's right to disagree with me or anyone else, I would just like that some courtesy returned. You invite me to call you and discuss things, that is what I would have liked before you ran the op/ed piece.

I sincerely mean my congratulations on the grant and truly look forward to hearing all of the details. As I have often thought most of us on both sides of this issue are not as far apart as some would like to think. The emotion just needs to be removed.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Elvis
Member
[ *  * ]
Melanie Ricketts
Feb 2 2008, 12:34 PM
al dente
Feb 1 2008, 11:50 PM
Why were LPS employees even on this AUC committee?

I'm not sure that there were all that many people that volunteered to be on the AUC in the first place, but I was chosen as a parent and resident who had already expressed concerns regarding certain buildings, the fact that I also happened to be an employee was not germain to choosing me. I had nothing to gain as an employee, my concerns came from being a citizen in Livonia. By the way, no longer an employee, I have gone back to what I did before being a stay at home mom.

So as an employee, you have no agenda? I can respect that, but what is my agenda? You can't have it both ways.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Livonia Neighbors Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply