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 (663 Views)
Elvis
Member
[ *  * ]
Melanie Ricketts
Feb 2 2008, 12:50 PM
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.

Once again Melanie your statement is false. You are saying that the issues discussed within the editorial were never discussed during any AUC meeting. Read the article again. Furthermore, these issues were discussed directly with Dr.Liepa, Mr. Hosman and/or Ms. Levesque at numerous times by numerous AUC members.

So, at this point, how many times would you like me to bang my head against the wall before I decide to join my other AUC members (5 who disagreed with our group) and write our editorial? You were there during the discussions, but those discussions were so trivial to you, they were dismissed and you do not even remember. Maybe as a “common courtesy” you could consider everyone’s point of view?

As for approaching you separately - Shall I be under the assumption that you would have listened to me more than you have during the AUC meetings. Obviously not since you can’t remember the discussions in the first place. Shall I assume that after your negative comments to me personally after attending numerous LPS community discussion meetings concerning anti-bullying issues you now would be civil? Shall I assume that after you attend a CFLF meeting reading to claw our eyes out because you didn’t like what you heard, you would be civil? If I need a class in “Common Courtesy”, you can come too! We’ll ride together!

Furthermore, No one went behind any ones back. I have my questions to Mr. Hosman in writing as does Bill and Tim I believe. As for Steve resigning, there was minimal discussion of him leaving the AUC. No wedge was created by him leaving. His choice! He saw through the issues and said Bye-Bye.

The AUC is still an active committee. I am in hopes of having a meeting soon to discuss the numerous vacant and vandalized buildings. Maybe Mr. Freeman could possibly share the senior housing inquiry with us. Might be a great option for a sale of land to occupy a vacant building. By the way, I have a copy of that letter and have had it since February of 2007. See, I can keep a secret! Just wanted to see how long the game would go on. . . .

As for the group continuing, we are still active. The administration put a stop to our meetings, not our editorial. That may have been a convenient excuse for some. There are numerous tough issues that must be openly discussed before the district regains trust from the residents. One of those issues is our school land and how the sell/swap it. You research the history, I have.

As far as flinging accusations and name calling. Again, no disrespect was meant to you or any other employee/etc. personally. Maybe you do not see the big picture of how the administration utilizes its assets (employees) to create committees to do want they want and then blame the committee for its choices. Did you proof a copy of the AUC report before it went to the BOE?

Let’s just quit while we are ahead. We just disagree. I’m okay with that.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Elvis
Member
[ *  * ]
Extra Olives
Feb 2 2008, 12:11 PM
Melanie Ricketts
Feb 1 2008, 10:09 PM
[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.




Well then, you misunderstood. Have you discussed any of this with the owner of the daycare? "It is my understanding" you have not.

Maybe a little "common courtesy" would have been in order before making accusations? I guess, once again, there was no research done on her part. Must have heard that "fact" from the administration.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Melanie Ricketts
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Elvis
Feb 2 2008, 02:22 PM
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.

I don't think I said that you have an agenda, I have however been accused of having an agenda and was clarifying the fact that I did not. I was responding to al dente, and no where do I see that I accused anyone of having an agenda.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill Williamson
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Melanie Ricketts
Feb 2 2008, 12:50 PM
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.
-
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.

Hi Melanie,
I agree with your thoughts of courtesy. That is why prior to the June 25th
presentation of the AUC report to the board, my concerns were sent to all
of the committee members.
-
The May 10th AUC web site notes state: "It was also suggested we put the
process chart on our web page. After everyone has a chance to review the
chart it will be added to the website." Although the AUC report contained a
decision flow chart provided by LPS staff, it was not reviewed or approved
by our committee. This flow chart is still posted on the LPS web site and does
not contain provisions for community input.
-
In early July the committee received my concerns that agenda and meeting
notes, after March, were not posted on line. In late July I spoke to the Board
regarding concerns about how some of our Asset Utilization Committee issues
continued to be incomplete. At that time I was informed that the AUC's charge
was complete and that no meetings were to be scheduled for the near future.
Neighborhood meetings were to start after the start of school.
-
AUC meeting Agendas and notes are placed on line for public record. LPS made
no attempts to schedule an AUC meeting to review, as a group, ongoing issues.
LPS did not provide us the opportunity to meet and resolve our issues. Thus the
August OE publication included my concerns along with the thoughts of others.
Albeit an unconventional way to get issues out as public record, the Op Ed did
just that. Feelings were hurt and for that I am sorry.
-
In September, LPS informed only families within a 1000 foot radius of the
properties being looked at, opportunities to provide direction for their use. The
whole LPS community needs an opportunity to provide input as to the use
of these assets. It is a shame that efforts to get community involvement
resulted in this valuable committee being shelved.
-
The AUC charge states: "The school district is looking to gather information on
its properties and to determine options for their potential use and or disposition.
The committee will be charged with developing this information. It may also be
asked to do additional research and/or analysis." 8 months has past since we
last met. Research and analysis of LPS assets need to continue. Provisions for
community input needs to be included in the decision flow chart.
-
I last met with Dr Liepa on December 14th. At that time his thoughts were that
no further AUC meetings are needed until the Perrinville relocation is complete
and the need for Food services is reevaluated by LPS administration. Individual
efforts have been made to convene the AUC. It appears, I'm sad to say, that
it's still months away.
-
Each month that passes keeps us a month behind making new progress.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Elvis
Member
[ *  * ]
Bill Williamson
Feb 3 2008, 02:53 AM
Melanie Ricketts
Feb 2 2008, 12:50 PM
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.
-
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.

Hi Melanie,
I agree with your thoughts of courtesy. That is why prior to the June 25th
presentation of the AUC report to the board, my concerns were sent to all
of the committee members.
-
The May 10th AUC web site notes state: "It was also suggested we put the
process chart on our web page. After everyone has a chance to review the
chart it will be added to the website." Although the AUC report contained a
decision flow chart provided by LPS staff, it was not reviewed or approved
by our committee. This flow chart is still posted on the LPS web site and does
not contain provisions for community input.
-
In early July the committee received my concerns that agenda and meeting
notes, after March, were not posted on line. In late July I spoke to the Board
regarding concerns about how some of our Asset Utilization Committee issues
continued to be incomplete. At that time I was informed that the AUC's charge
was complete and that no meetings were to be scheduled for the near future.
Neighborhood meetings were to start after the start of school.
-
AUC meeting Agendas and notes are placed on line for public record. LPS made
no attempts to schedule an AUC meeting to review, as a group, ongoing issues.
LPS did not provide us the opportunity to meet and resolve our issues. Thus the
August OE publication included my concerns along with the thoughts of others.
Albeit an unconventional way to get issues out as public record, the Op Ed did
just that. Feelings were hurt and for that I am sorry.
-
In September, LPS informed only families within a 1000 foot radius of the
properties being looked at, opportunities to provide direction for their use. The
whole LPS community needs an opportunity to provide input as to the use
of these assets. It is a shame that efforts to get community involvement
resulted in this valuable committee being shelved.
-
The AUC charge states: "The school district is looking to gather information on
its properties and to determine options for their potential use and or disposition.
The committee will be charged with developing this information. It may also be
asked to do additional research and/or analysis." 8 months has past since we
last met. Research and analysis of LPS assets need to continue. Provisions for
community input needs to be included in the decision flow chart.
-
I last met with Dr Liepa on December 14th. At that time his thoughts were that
no further AUC meetings are needed until the Perrinville relocation is complete
and the need for Food services is reevaluated by LPS administration. Individual
efforts have been made to convene the AUC. It appears, I'm sad to say, that
it's still months away.
-
Each month that passes keeps us a month behind making new progress.

I think the time has come for the AUC to meet and discuss the vacant vandalized buildings around Livonia. The Administration should be thinking of ways to occupy these buildings before they lose their functional utility. I would think the consideration of a senior housing facility might be a viable choice for a sale of land. We shall see.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Melanie Ricketts
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Make a call to Randy and tell him you would like to meet again, let me know and I will work it in to my schedule.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renee Chesney
Veteran
Elvis - please put my vote down for total bulldozing of the sites and making them into park lands.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Elvis
Member
[ *  * ]
Renee Chesney
Feb 5 2008, 08:48 PM
Elvis
Feb 5 2008, 08:38 PM
Renee Chesney
Feb 5 2008, 05:00 PM
Al Beabak
Feb 5 2008, 04:57 PM
Renee Chesney
Feb 5 2008, 04:42 PM
Al Beabak
Feb 5 2008, 04:25 PM
Administrator
Jan 31 2008, 03:47 PM
No reason to delay sharing lawsuit

A school board member who is elected to represent the community in overseeing the operations of a school district shouldn't be delayed or restricted in getting a copy of a lawsuit against that district.

The fact that Livonia Public Schools Trustee Steve King is named in a whistle-blower lawsuit, and therefore could be called as a witness, adds even more validity to the fact that he should be provided a copy, without hesitation.

Instead, school board President Lynda Scheel required King to file a Freedom of Information Act request, saying all board members who want their own copies of the suit must fill out such a request. The FOIA process has taken well over two weeks. In addition, copies of the suit would be provided, Scheel said, when the board meets in a future closed session to discuss the lawsuit.

The merits of the lawsuit notwithstanding, it seems that the elected board members should know the details of the claims against the district and its administrators as soon as possible. They represent the community and they should be given the time to fully digest the details of those claims, as they face potential decisions regarding those claims.

There seems no legitimate reason for the board president not to immediately share this public information with an elected board member - rather than requiring board members to jump through hoops and wait more than two weeks.


http://www.hometownlife.com/apps/pbcs.dll/...INION/801310373

Well it seems it took an ordinary citizen to get a personal copy of the lawsuit into the hands of a Trustee. Imagine that, not from your Board President, but from a constituent.

Ordinary person? :lol: Attorney, President of the CFLF, SK supporter..........
Maybe some acting classes from someone in the CAPA program would be in order.

You are only partially correct, but always placing yourself in the wrong.

What? Is he no longer President of the CFLF? Is that because he is running for school board and has passed the torch to LB? Or have y'all decided to change your name for the next election?

Why would CFLF change the name? Have they changed the name in the past? There is nothing or no one to to hide from. Has Mr. Spence filed to run for a trustee position or are you just making stuff up? Where are the facts when you make allegations? That would include the board's own written policy involving Steve King's right as a trustee to have a copy of the lawsuit for his review. That right would also include protecting LPS assets from court costs.

You tell me - you guys seem to have all the flipping answers.

Ya think. Maybe the facts just speak for themselves.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renee Chesney
Veteran
Elvis
Feb 5 2008, 08:53 PM
Renee Chesney
Feb 5 2008, 08:48 PM
Elvis
Feb 5 2008, 08:38 PM
Renee Chesney
Feb 5 2008, 05:00 PM
Al Beabak
Feb 5 2008, 04:57 PM
Renee Chesney
Feb 5 2008, 04:42 PM
Al Beabak
Feb 5 2008, 04:25 PM
Administrator
Jan 31 2008, 03:47 PM
No reason to delay sharing lawsuit

A school board member who is elected to represent the community in overseeing the operations of a school district shouldn't be delayed or restricted in getting a copy of a lawsuit against that district.

The fact that Livonia Public Schools Trustee Steve King is named in a whistle-blower lawsuit, and therefore could be called as a witness, adds even more validity to the fact that he should be provided a copy, without hesitation.

Instead, school board President Lynda Scheel required King to file a Freedom of Information Act request, saying all board members who want their own copies of the suit must fill out such a request. The FOIA process has taken well over two weeks. In addition, copies of the suit would be provided, Scheel said, when the board meets in a future closed session to discuss the lawsuit.

The merits of the lawsuit notwithstanding, it seems that the elected board members should know the details of the claims against the district and its administrators as soon as possible. They represent the community and they should be given the time to fully digest the details of those claims, as they face potential decisions regarding those claims.

There seems no legitimate reason for the board president not to immediately share this public information with an elected board member - rather than requiring board members to jump through hoops and wait more than two weeks.


http://www.hometownlife.com/apps/pbcs.dll/...INION/801310373

Well it seems it took an ordinary citizen to get a personal copy of the lawsuit into the hands of a Trustee. Imagine that, not from your Board President, but from a constituent.

Ordinary person? :lol: Attorney, President of the CFLF, SK supporter..........
Maybe some acting classes from someone in the CAPA program would be in order.

You are only partially correct, but always placing yourself in the wrong.

What? Is he no longer President of the CFLF? Is that because he is running for school board and has passed the torch to LB? Or have y'all decided to change your name for the next election?

Why would CFLF change the name? Have they changed the name in the past? There is nothing or no one to to hide from. Has Mr. Spence filed to run for a trustee position or are you just making stuff up? Where are the facts when you make allegations? That would include the board's own written policy involving Steve King's right as a trustee to have a copy of the lawsuit for his review. That right would also include protecting LPS assets from court costs.

You tell me - you guys seem to have all the flipping answers.

Ya think. Maybe the facts just speak for themselves.

The facts or your editiorial opinon of the who, what, when and why surrounding the facts?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
al dente
Member
[ *  * ]
Renee Chesney
Feb 5 2008, 08:52 PM
Elvis - please put my vote down for total bulldozing of the sites and making them into park lands.

They might as well. Thinking they are going to lease all these buildings out in this economy is a pipe dream.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mmmmkay?
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
al dente
Feb 5 2008, 11:34 PM
Renee Chesney
Feb 5 2008, 08:52 PM
Elvis - please put my vote down for total bulldozing of the sites and making them into park lands.

They might as well. Thinking they are going to lease all these buildings out in this economy is a pipe dream.

Mothballing & renovations, if not being used for leases, are still cheaper than new construction. Additional open spaces would be nice, but the cost to build again on those lands is increasing exponentially.



mmmmkay?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2112
Newbie
[ * ]
Melaine, The AUC was making progress with the future of LPS and the city in mind.
The troulbe starts here, You are blaming Elvis and others for the real problem.
Lets look back at the issues at hand. I thought that LPS learned their lession after the LI and the AUC was formed with some great people to work together with a common goal. I thought Randy and the BOE wanted to reach out to the community and to the right thing.

We is in Elvis, myself and a couple of other people found a letter written to Mr Freeman about a senior housing complex interested in land. We received a copy of this letter and asked Mr. Freeman several times and Mr. Freeman denied any letter any time we asked.

With a little digging we found out that Lil Tots were told that they were moving, We were told Lil Tots wanted to move.
I was at the Taylor/Clay meeting and the owner was happy with the move only because she was forsed to, I could see that in her eyes talking to her after the meeting.

The problem is that a elected offical on the AUC was holding valuable information from the group.
Is this because the AUC was just a smoke screen to cover up ideas already in place?

Look at the big picture to find out that Elvis and the Memphis Mafia were not the AUC`s problem`s. We were trying to get to the bottom of the issues and got no awnsers from anybody. I think you might haved missed the meeting when this was shared with the rest of the AUC.

There are 3 sides to very storie, We caught some people in a lie and had now idea how to get out of it.
We should have had many discussions about these items as a group, But got shot down every time we brought them up.

That was the only wedge I saw and maybe you are getting misconceptions mixed up with the truth.

So if you want to get mad at somebody go to the source and give Mr. Freeman a call.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Melanie Ricketts
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
2112
Feb 8 2008, 04:19 PM
Melaine, The AUC was making progress with the future of LPS and the city in mind.
The troulbe starts here, You are blaming Elvis and others for the real problem.
Lets look back at the issues at hand. I thought that LPS learned their lession after the LI and the AUC was formed with some great people to work together with a common goal. I thought Randy and the BOE wanted to reach out to the community and to the right thing.

  We is in Elvis, myself and a couple of other people found a letter written to Mr Freeman about a senior housing complex interested in land. We received a copy of this letter and asked Mr. Freeman several times and Mr. Freeman denied any letter any time we asked.

With a little digging we found out that Lil Tots were told that they were moving, We were told Lil Tots wanted to move.
I was at the Taylor/Clay meeting and the owner was happy with the move only because she was forsed to, I could see that in her eyes talking to her after the meeting.

The problem is that a elected offical on the AUC was holding valuable information from the group.
Is this because the AUC was just a smoke screen to cover up ideas already in place?

Look at the big picture to find out that Elvis and the Memphis Mafia were not the AUC`s problem`s. We were trying to get to the bottom of the issues and got no awnsers from anybody. I think you might haved missed the meeting when this was shared with the rest of the AUC.

There are 3 sides to very storie, We caught some people in a lie and had now idea how to get out of it.
We should have had many discussions about these items as a group, But got shot down every time we brought them up.

That was the only wedge I saw and maybe you are getting misconceptions mixed up with the truth.

So if you want to get mad at somebody go to the source and give Mr. Freeman a call.

Once again everything I said had a different spin on it. I give up! I did think we were making some good progress. I distinctly remember Mr. Freeman saying at one of the meetings that there was a letter from a senior housing group that was interested in one of our vacant buildings. However, when I said that on this blog before I was told by a number of people that I was absolutely wrong, now Elvis tells me that I'm not wrong, and that she has had a copy of it for a long time. Exactly who lied on that one. The people that were telling me I was wrong were getting their information from someone, and I doubt it was Freeman. I am not trying to lay blame. The AUC report was basically written as a group the last night that we met. Kim and Bill were either not there or left early. Yes, Lisa did formally write up the report based on things we told her to say the last night. It was then circulated via e-mail to everyone and Bill circulated his suggestions for changes to it, which I have a copy of both, and they are remarkably similar. I also felt that we were making progress and that the gap was being bridged, and then to be blindsided with an op/ed piece was truly disheartening to me. That's what I was most upset about, and saw no point in meeting if members felt this way. But to the best of my recollection there were only 3 names signed to the op/ed piece not 5. I felt that it was a good group of people who could put aside differences, not necessarily see eye to eye, but talk about differences of opinion in a mature way. Now apparently Kim tells me I was rude to her, I don't recall that, but I also can't change her mind. Just an FYI for anyone who wants to attack me here, have at it, be my guest but don't expect a response. If anyone that was on the AUC would like to communicate with me, you may PM me I would be happy to share my private e-mail address with you to correspond privately, and since it was my LPS e-mail address used for the AUC you can't contact me at that address. I really don't have the time for reading the blog everyday. Hopefully, you can understand where I am coming from.

As for the letter that was talked about, I obtained a copy of it and forwarded it to Jimid and he posted it on the old blog. I went back and looked for it and here is the link to the PDF assisted living
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · Livonia Neighbors Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply