The Field

[Kate Ashby]

The condition of the field is being allowed to deteriorate. It has not been
watered for over a week, despite dry weather and daily use. Today a TV
camera was there, I expect to document the poor state of the field and to
justify the 'need' for an artificial field.

The fact that the school refuses to maintain the field, especially during
the football season, is a disgrace, and only evidence that they will do
anything to support their agenda of replacing the grass with an artificial
surface. If the field were well managed this would not be necessary.

Kate Ashby

[Isabella Bannerman]

I agree that the field has been neglected, and to do this in the middle of an active sports season is unconscionable.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ReynoldsField" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ReynoldsFiel...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Isab...@optonline.net

www.isabellabannerman.com

http://www.isabellabannerman.com/Isabella_Bannerman.html

[Isabella Bannerman]

We need to get across the idea that with the proper drainage and care - a real grass field could be "Twice as good as what we have now" (the words of a school employee).

Isab...@optonline.net

www.isabellabannerman.com

http://www.isabellabannerman.com/Isabella_Bannerman.html

[zcod...@aol.com]

I (Lisa Litvin) just mentioned this to my daughter and this is her response:

From Janey: I am a Hastings High School student. I walk to school every day by crossing through Reynold's field, and I can say that all this week, I've seen the sprinklers watering the entire field at around 8:00 a.m. 

Best,

Lisa and Janey

[Ellen Golds]

A little too late on the watering... we hear the sprinklers may not be covering the whole field (maybe were broken at some point?) maybe Janey can take a look and see if the sprinklers are missing a few spots?

Ellen Golds

914.629.3253

[David Skolnik]

Sprinklers have had major malfunctions.  They should not have been on at 8:00AM.  Parts are old. System is old.  I have seen numerous instances where they been protruding in the daytime hours, creating trip hazard. Any assessment of the merits of synth over grass based on conditions here are fallacious.

David Skolnik

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4142 / Virus Database: 3604/6710 - Release Date: 09/30/13

[Douglas Rushkoff]

I think the main argument here is that there IS NO GRASS FIELD. 

What we have now is an improperly conceived, constructed, drained, and maintained piece of dirt with crabgrass. For less expense than plastic, we could build a grass field. 

Yes, there may be some doubt as to whether the grass would be durable enough for the kind of play people want to do on it. But I don't know that there's any harm in trying. They can always switch to plastic if it turns out that a grass field wont' work. 

Unless we try grass, we'll never know. 

[Douglas Rushkoff]

And no - this is not to cast any aspersions on the current grounds crew, who all have the highest expertise when it comes to maintaining a field. 

They simply don't have the opportunity to exercise their tremendous expertise. They do not have a proper field on which to work. It would need to be built, and then grass (sod) would have to be put there. 

[David Skolnik]

Dear Douglas and Reynolds Google Group

I am posting this, somewhat lengthy letter, to this list for reasons that should be apparent.  There have been relatively few people attending these info-sessions, and many, like myself and Norbert Sander are repeat visitors.  To me, this is would seem an indication that most people are already either fully informed of the issues, or perhaps so totally bewildered as to be beyond information.  I suspect the latter.  As always, the Board members who have engaged with this list are free to do so again, as regular citizens.
ds

This letter is not confidential, and is intended for distribution beyond the noted addressees.

To the members of the Board of Education, Hastings on Hudson,

The Information Meeting you hosted in the Russell Lecture Room on 10/2 was a public meeting, albeit not a Regular BOE business meeting.  As such, there was no video, nor official minutes recorded.  To provide context for my subsequent comments,  I am quoting from Dr. Montesano's responses to my preliminary inquiries:

the meeting last night was not an "official" board of education meeting where decisions or action took place. The meeting was an information session specific to the referendum, that was advertised as such and open to any member of the public. Board of education members were present at the meeting, but their presence does not make it an "official" board meeting.

and

I understand your position on the public aspect of the meeting and yes, indeed it was a public meeting. My point was that it was not considered an official BOE meeting as there is a distinction

It is not my intention to make legalistic argument at this time, though I won't it rule out sometime hence.  The fact remains that, whether this was recorded or not, attended by 10 members of the public or 100,  the rant, directed at me by Ms. Meyer, was as outrageous and inappropriate as was Ms. Baecher's refusal to allow me a reasonable opportunity to respond. Consider if this had, in fact, been video recorded, a suggestion I had posed to you at a previous, official, BOE meeting.  What distinction are you choosing to make; what allowance, that would, in any way permit you to believe that I am not due a public apology?    I didn't know all the people in that room, nor apparently, did you.  What if the press had been present, and, by right, reported on the incident?  Did Ms. Meyer quickly assess the risks?  I doubt it.  While I have gotten somewhat used to the sometime-combative nature of my relationship with the BOE, others there were not, and were considerably disturbed.   If for no other reason, I am demanding an apology so that, going forward, others will not hesitate to stand before the Board to ask questions, even challenging ones.

Ms. Meyer may have been expressing what all, or most of you would like to have said. Had she availed herself of the opportunity I offered, to take the conversation outside of the room, it would have been totally within her right to doff her official BOE cap, and express herself. I would have done similarly, and that would have been it, but she did not.  She insisted on making public accusations, in a setting that any reasonable individual would have perceived as exuding 'official-ness' : location, presentation by BOE, attendance of all BOE members, including Superintendent and the Treasurer, and clearly, controlled enough by the BOE President to obstruct my right to respond.

Ms Meyer's attack was precipitated, apparently, by her perception of innuendo in the tone and content of a question I asked, regarding a level of detail about the Reynolds track that, perhaps, she felt went beyond what a reasonable citizen ought to want to understand.  While I will fully acknowledge that I have been an active critic and have persistently challenged the information provided by the BOE, there was no tone and no innuendo intended in that question.  With no video, however, we'll never know.  The fact is, I had every right, no, every responsibility, to fully understand why the present track is truly unsalvageable, rather than simply accepting a summary explanation that provides no tangible data or authorship.  Is there a legal reason why the names of installers or company involved, or communications between school and vendors are unavailable?   It's not a matter of my suggesting that something untoward might have taken place.  It is my  persistent perception that data relevant to actual understanding is often made inaccessible.

The fact is, I am outraged by what you have perpetrated, which, should it pass, you will glowingly attribute to the 'democratic process'.  It would have been far more appropriate for me to have been shouting at you.  I am one of the residents of this Village who will be most directly affected by the consequences of this proposal.  I will have to live with every aspect: the smell, the lights, the increased usage (to help 'rest' the Burke fields), the change in access (make no mistake, a fence here and there changes things), and, most of all, the loss of organic life, right behind my house, not to mention the actual construction process. You have never, once, in all of this, acknowledged the impact this will have on the surrounding residential community, other than to attempt to minimize it, perhaps tacitly concurring with Mr. Sander in his opinion, expressed in an early Enterprise letter, that the local residents, in our moving next to a school, 'should have known'.
It always fascinated me that this same "should have known" seemed not to apply to those newer residents who came before the Board, in support of the project... complaining of the poor condition of the facilities that, to their great surprise and dismay, greeted their arrival.    What's easier?  To see what's in front of you, or to know how a few people have plans, 5 years down the road, to dramatically change or destroy it?

Ms. Meyer should feel defensive, as should you all.  I don't have to resort to innuendo.  The inconsistencies that have attended this process are there for anyone, who has the time and endurance to engage with the materials, to see.  From the beginning, and by that, I mean as far back as discussions that took place from 2004 and in 2008, with the emergence of the Field Study Committee, (which included, among others, Norbert Sander, Steve Cunningham and Steve Tuber, Ms. Meyer's husband, and Elliot Weiner, Ms Naidich's husband), (doc. attached) this has been a process framed by specific, narrow interests, couched in terms of the benefit of the children, and veiled from larger public attention, until its 'birth', as recently as the February public meeting, at which the  public attendance was overwhelmingly comprised of the athletic community. 

You have divided this Village, or, more accurately, you are attempting to capitalize on the divisions that have always existed, mostly coexisted, albeit in ever changing forms.  Your strategy has been to reduce the complexities of this issue - turf/grass, lights, 4 lane/6 lane, use of Capital Reserve, Reynolds/Burke, lights - to YES or NO.  Actually, you've gone further.  The real, and only choice you've presented is: TRUST US!

For all your competence, commitment, personal sacrifice, and dedication to maintaining the high standards of education of the children of this village, on this issue, I do not trust you. You do not act in my interest, nor, in my view, the interests of many in this Village. It is as much my right and responsibility to vigorously express this as it is yours to lobby and advocate for your proposal, as you have been doing.  
 
And, yes, I am due an apology.

Sincerely,

David Skolnik
47 Hillside Ave.
Hastings on Hudson, NY