fyi

[Douglas Rushkoff]

Hey All

I'm Douglas Rushkoff. I was asked to post that note from "Friends of Reynolds Field" to the Google group. I forwarded that letter. This means it wasn't from me, but rather passed on by me to the group. 

If you're interested in hosting a sign, click on the email address in that letter, rather than responding to me.  I am not the writer of that post, nor the keeper of the signs. According to the letter, people interested in hosting a sign or contributing are supposed to send an email to in...@savereynoldsfield.org

I know this email list stuff gets confusing, but I hope that was clear. Here is the email again, from the Friends of Reynolds Field.  (And just so you know, there's many many people who have emailed me since this morning, when I forwarded the email from Friends of Reynolds field to this Google Group. 

Friends and Neighbors, 

As strong opponents of the plan to spend millions of tax dollars to massively reconfigure Reynolds field and install a new, untested form of artificial turf, we have spoken loud and clear at Board of Education meetings and to the individual Board members. Despite that, they have chosen to go ahead with their plan, and are putting it to a vote on October 22.. Our only option at this point is to vote this destructive plan down and ask them to come back with a more sensible solution. When they do, we will have a chance to debate which aspects of the plan we may or may not support, such as the new track and tennis court configuration. Our first order of business is to defeat the bond vote. This is going to take a major effort to make Hastings residents aware of the plan and to get out the vote. 

As someone who has expressed concern about this issue we hope you are still on board with the effort to help save Reynolds Field and preserve the character of Hastings. We are planning a major campaign before the vote and have two questions for you: 

1. Are you willing to “host” a yard sign? It will say: 

SAVE REYNOLDS FIELD 
NO TO PLASTIC TURF 
NO TO HIGHER TAXES 
VOTE NO ON SCHOOL BOND 
10/22/13 
www.savereynoldsfield.org (Active by 9/7/2013) 

2. Are you willing to go door to door for a few blocks in your neighborhood to distribute flyers? If so, please give us a sense of how many hours you are willing to devote to this, and which blocks in Hastings you would like to cover? 

Please let us know via email (in...@savereynoldsfield.org), and let us know your phone number as well. 

The bond issue that is up for a vote will cost $4.32 million for a massive field overhaul, adding large concrete retaining walls, removing trees, dramatically increasing traffic and parking congestion, and replacing natural grass with synthetic turf which many experts conclude is not the best for younger athletes. These proposals would turn Reynolds into a generic, mass-produced field space that would be out of character with the village of Hastings. A modern grass field would give our student-athletes the quality field and playing time they deserve, while preserving this precious Hastings resource, arguably our town commons. We don’t have to destroy the village in order to save it. 

Please forward this message to others who will also be concerned about the drastic proposal for Reynolds Field. 
Friends of Reynolds Field 

---

http://rushkoff.com
http://twitter.com/rushkoff

[David Skolnik]

Dear Douglas, and RFG Group,
It was rather lonely in the audience of last night's Board of Ed meeting.  Whatever subsequent wrath I may direct at the Board, I truly wonder why no one seems to care, not just about Reynolds, but the whole education endeavor.   You/we are poised to give Carte Blanche to a Board that is doing what it wants because, it seems, there's nothing to stop it.  Should this bond proposal succeed, the Board will be off the hook.  The decision will have been made by 'the voters'. 

Between now and the vote, I will test Douglas's, and your own patience.  Any relevant correspondence sent to the School Board or administration will be Cc'd to this list.  As always, Doug has the right to protect you from my myopic self-centeredness (or poor grammar), and you have the freedom to ignore, but I feel liberated and motivated.

So why is it that no one seems to care?

David Skolnik
47 Hillside Ave.
(914) 231-7565

[Douglas Rushkoff]

Maybe we save the "why-no-one-cares" discussion for later? It could end up being a distraction from the thing we are trying to care about - and have so little time and space to do it. We vote for a Board so that they can spend the time figuring all this out. When the Board asks us to vote on something, we do have to spend a bit of time to research and make up our own minds. That's our responsibility as a community. If it weren't, we wouldn't have to vote to approve this thing. 

I am going to schedule an alternative information meeting at James Harmon, so that people have a chance to get some information biased less toward passage of the bond. 

The main two issues that seem to be confused or left out are: 

1. Money.  Capital expenditures are counted differently than teacher salaries. But the bond asks us, as a community, to value the creation of a turf field over the creation or upgrading of science facilities, art studios, the auditorium, bathrooms, media labs, computer labs, and so on. Opinion: I personally believe the arts and sciences are in greater disrepair than our football program. I think the ratio of sports facilities money to academic/arts facilities money is skewed inappropriately in this bond, as a result of strong lobbying by sports-interested families who are not living around this field. 

2. Field Use. An artificial field can take a whole lot more abuse than a grass one. But, if a grass field were properly installed and maintained (which is cheaper than artificial turf), and if Reynolds field use were balanced appropriately with Burke fields, we would actually have less hours use than Irvington does on their properly maintained grass fields. We should consider hiring their grounds people before destroying the field. 

I was initially against the field, on principle. Then I began considering it, based on organic fill and my sympathy for athletes who want an elite sports program. But once I talked to educators in the community who are struggling to meet modern academic standards in obsolete arts and science facilities, I began to question an expenditure of this size weighted this heavily toward sports. 

I am currently looking at a Sunday afternoon for the alternative information session. Do people think that's a good time? 

[Jared Levin]

Sunday afternoon seems like a good time. Thank you.

--
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.

[Jim Nolan]

Sounds great.

Anybody like these lines for yard signs? Let's show that this expenditure is an either/or for our school community, and show what's at risk. Just a thought. 

Science Labs are Not a Luxury.

Plastic Field Is.

Vote No on School Bond.

More Math, 

Not Plastic Fields.

Vote No on School Bond.

Modern Science Labs, 

Not Plastic Fields.

Vote No on School Bond.

Higher SATs,

Not Plastic Fields.

Vote No on School Bond. 

--
Jim Nolan

917.494.0935 mobile

914.478.3097 home

blog: http://www.jimnolansblog.com

twitter.com/jimnolan

[Ellen Golds]

Like them!

Ellen Golds

914.629.3253

[Victor Waldron]

Nice Jim. See if you can squeeze "we need" at the beginning.

All this fits more appropriately under the intent of the state's building aid program........."free money" for science labs :-P

[Jared Levin]

Earlier it was stated this would be the wording on the signs:

 

SAVE REYNOLDS FIELD
NO TO PLASTIC TURF
NO TO HIGHER TAXES
VOTE NO ON SCHOOL BOND
10/22/13

 

I thought this was good, as it hits the important points, appeals to those who don't want their taxes raised (some of whom probably don't care that much either way about Reynolds Field), and provides instructions on how and when to vote (maybe include the location of the voting?).

On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Jim Nolan <jimn...@gmail.com> wrote:

How about:

Hastings Isn't Plastic.

On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Iris Hiskey Arno <his...@gmail.com> wrote:

How about something like:

Keep Reynolds Field Green

Vote No on the School Bond.

[Jim Nolan]

Might be a good button.

On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Iris Hiskey Arno <his...@gmail.com> wrote:

Great one! (Good to have a sense of humor in all this!)

On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Jim Nolan <jimn...@gmail.com> wrote:

How about:

Hastings Isn't Plastic.

On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Iris Hiskey Arno <his...@gmail.com> wrote:

How about something like:

Keep Reynolds Field Green

Vote No on the School Bond.

On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Jim Nolan <jimn...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Jared Levin]

Wow, using "Yes to Reynolds Field" seems like classic misdirection. Intended to fool people into thinking voting Yes to the bond is voting to protect the current Reynolds Field.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jim Nolan <jimn...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 11:19 AM
Subject: Re: The Home Stretch?
To: Victor Waldron <vict...@gmail.com>
Cc: Jared Levin <jkle...@gmail.com>, reynol...@googlegroups.com

Since our opposition is saying "Yes to Reynolds Field," maybe we should word it like this:

Yes to more math.  (Yes to higher SATs)  (Yes to modern science labs, etc) 

No to the school bond.

A $1.9 million plastic field is a luxury our students can't afford.

[Jim Nolan]

Since our opposition is saying "Yes to Reynolds Field," maybe we should word it like this:

Yes to more math.  (Yes to higher SATs)  (Yes to modern science labs, etc) 

No to the school bond.

A $1.9 million plastic field is a luxury our students can't afford.

[Iris Hiskey Arno]

Great one! (Good to have a sense of humor in all this!)

On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Jim Nolan <jimn...@gmail.com> wrote:

How about:

Hastings Isn't Plastic.

On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Iris Hiskey Arno <his...@gmail.com> wrote:

How about something like:

Keep Reynolds Field Green

Vote No on the School Bond.

[Iris Hiskey Arno]

How about something like:

Keep Reynolds Field Green

Vote No on the School Bond.

On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Jim Nolan <jimn...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Jim Nolan]

How about:

Hastings Isn't Plastic.

On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Iris Hiskey Arno <his...@gmail.com> wrote:

[davids...@optonline.net]

Sorry to be a spoil-sport. It's not about buttons or catch phrases, or, for that matter, a sense of humor, as there's nothing funny about what's happening. The Board is in full control of the narrative. They are here, as well as at every school-related event between now and the vote, and, forgive me Wendy, they have no intention of accommodating an alternative narrative.
Watch the meeting, whenever it gets posted. Call district clerk Jeanine Genaro,or stay tuned here, as I'll post notice as soon as I see it.

Meanwhile, they presumably have scheduled an 'information session' at the Orr room of the library for this Sunday. You shouldn't be hearing it from me.

David Skolnik

On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Jim Nolan <jimn...@gmail.com> wrote:
Since our opposition is saying "Yes to Reynolds Field," maybe we
should word it like this:
Yes to more math.  (Yes to higher SATs)  (Yes to modern science
labs, etc) No to the school bond. A $1.9 million plastic field is a
luxury our students can't afford.

On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Victor Waldron wrote:
Nice Jim. See if you can squeeze "we need" at the beginning.
All this fits more appropriately under the intent of the state's
building aid program........."free money" for science labs :-P On Sep

12, 2013 9:54 AM, "Jim Nolan" wrote:
Sounds great.
Anybody like these lines for yard signs? Let's show that this
expenditure is an either/or for our school community, and show
what's at risk. Just a thought. 

Science Labs are Not a Luxury.Plastic Field Is.Vote No on School Bond.
More Math, Not Plastic Fields.Vote No on School Bond.
Modern Science Labs, Not Plastic Fields.Vote No on School Bond.
Higher SATs,Not Plastic Fields.Vote No on School Bond. 

On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Jared Levin wrote:
Sunday afternoon seems like a good time. Thank you.

(914) 231-7565 [5]

--
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 .
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out [7].

--
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 .
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out [9].
--
Jim Nolan917.494.0935 [10] mobile914.478.3097 [11] home
blog: http://www.jimnolansblog.com [12] twitter.com/jimnolan [13]

--
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 .

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out

[15].
--
Jim Nolan917.494.0935 mobile914.478.3097
homeblog: http://www.jimnolansblog.com [16] twitter.com/jimnolan [17]

--
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

[18].
Links:
------
[5] http://atmail.optimum.net/tel:%28914%29%20231-7565
[7] https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out
[9] https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out
[10] http://atmail.optimum.net/tel:917.494.0935
[11] http://atmail.optimum.net/tel:914.478.3097
[12] http://www.jimnolansblog.com
[13] http://twitter.com/jimnolan
[15] https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out
[16] http://www.jimnolansblog.com
[17] http://twitter.com/jimnolan
[18] https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out

[Douglas Rushkoff]

You're not sorry to be a spoil sport, David.  

What's your best idea for me to support? How can I get your vision realized? What do you want, except for people to watch videos on the web? Or is that the main thing? Do you want help publicizing the BoE videos? 

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Robin Herbert]

I hadn't seen Jared's email when I wrote what I just sent. I agree with some variant of what he sent.

But - I just realized I'm not quite sure of the distribution of this discussion - Doug - is this your group?

[Robin Herbert]

Jim - I like the format of your 1st sample best. I like the use of the term luxury.

But, we need to reach voters with  a range of priorities: math, science, and literacy, lowering taxes, better arts programs, environmental issues. 

Although I'm personally passionate about math & science, many are not & we may inadvertently be tapping into unconscious anti-science biases.

What about a message along the lines of:


No to plastic fields
Protect our taxes for education

Protect the environment

VOTE NO TO THE BOND

Robin

[zcod...@aol.com]

Hi everyone.

I'm Lisa Litvin, a resident of South Calumet.  First, full disclosure, I believe my family is in the minority of our local neighbors, as we support the bond.  (I'm happy to explain our reasons, if anyone wants.)

But I'm writing as I have done in the past, to clarify what I believe may be some misinformation below.  I am Co-President of our PTSA (though I don't write with that hat on now, just as a citizen).  But through my position, I know much of the school workings quite well.  

I saw the proposed lawn signs below, and while they are catchy and funny, I believe they are based on information that isn't accurate, or at least, of which I'm unaware.  I offer some information below, and I pose some questions as well.  Also, I fully support robust debate on an issue that our community members feel so deeply and so divided about.  I think the more accurate information we have, the better we all are, and hopefully the better we can come back together as a community when the bond vote is over, regardless of the outcome.

So here're are my concerns re: the proposed lawn signs:

1.Science Labs are Not a Luxury.

Plastic Field Is.

Vote No on School Bond.

Modern Science Labs, 

Not Plastic Fields.

I have heard no complaints about the science labs.  To the contrary, my understanding is that all high school science labs have been renovated within the past 10 years.  Also, Doug, I'd be very interested to learn what educators said about obsolete science facilities - can you provide names or details?

2.  More Math, 

Vote No on School Bond.

Not Plastic Fields.

Vote No on School Bond.

Has anyone heard that there's not enough math?   I've never heard that, but please let me know if I'm incorrect.  In fact, starting in 8th grade most students accelerate and jump a year in math.  Some even super accelerate and jump two grades.  In high school, kids can take several math classes at a time.  Our son, a senior, is currently taking AP Calculus and AP Statistics.  

3. Higher SATs,

        Not Plastic Fields.

        Vote No on School Bond. 

Our SAT scores are outstanding, and they've been increasing each year (as have our ACT scores).  Last year we AVERAGED 1808, which I believe puts our AVERAGE in the top 20 % of the nation!  Also, we are off the charts so far as National Merit Semifinalist Recognition, which is based soley on PSAT scores.  Last year we had 6 semifinalists -- which I believe was more than the other Rivertowns combined!  And this year we have 4, again, a number that over schools just don't see (more disclosure - our son is a semifinalist!).  So again, I'm not sure where the concern over raising SAT scores is coming from.  And personally, I'd hate to see more pressure on these kids about their standardized test scores.

4.  Plastic field

My understanding is that the field will comprise cork and coconut husk, not plastic.  Is that incorrrect?

I hope this is helpful.  Again, full discussion can only be a help, and I wanted to help clarify what I thought might be misinformation.

One final note -- with my PTSA hat on this time.  Obviously, money and taxes are a huge part of this debate, and I'd like to suggest that when the bond vote is over, that some of you consider working with us on our PTSA advocacy work, where we are fighting to mitigate and end the plethora of unfunded mandates that Albany throws at us.  That is the greatest threat we have - huge expenses that we have no say over and must pay, coupled with a 2% percent tax levy cap that will indeed force the cutting of staff and really up the class the class size, just to mention one harm.  Here's an example -- all standardized testing is to be done on computer in the next year or two (called the PARCC system for anyone who wants to google) -- just consider how much it will cost to buy all those computers!

Best,

Lisa

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Nolan <jimn...@gmail.com>
To: Iris Hiskey Arno <his...@gmail.com>
Cc: Jared Levin <jkle...@gmail.com>; Reynol...@googlegroups.com <reynol...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Sep 12, 2013 12:47 pm
Subject: Re: The Home Stretch?

[Douglas Rushkoff]

I started the Google Group, but it's not mine. It's everyone's. 

I have "moderator" privileges, to eliminate spam and - if necessary - calm disputes. 

[Victor Waldron]

The actual "grass" fibers are synthetic, the infill is cork, etc. The infill is what makes the surface playable (less impact on the body).

 

I think what you articulate at the end is exactly why the bond needs to be voted down and reconsidered. From a budget standpoint we don't know what's coming down the road, costs keep rising, aid is going down, so the direct impact on us will get larger. If there is really such a huge rush to take advantage of "building aid" then why not do an update of the capital plan and identify and fund needs that are shortly beyond 2015/16? I realize the capital plan was done three years ago, but I think a responsible proposal would have included the most current information on capital needs going forward. So much energy (and money) has gone into studying the needs of the athletic department, it would be good to have reports available from the various academic departments of their needs and facility upgrade priorities. The board is selling this whole thing as an "opportunity" because of the state aid, but the fact that over half bond money (52 pct) is for athletic facilities is a disservice to the non-athletes in the student body.

 

 

On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 12:54 PM, <zcod...@aol.com> wrote:

4.  Plastic field

My understanding is that the field will comprise cork and coconut husk, not plastic.  Is that incorrrect?

[alan golds]

hi.......

i'm alan golds, on south drive.

to address item 4 in the note below:

the 'grass blades' in GeoTurf are plastic, although the website takes great pains to hide that fact.  and the backing is polyurethane.  it is only the infill, which is used to make the plastic blades stand up straight, that is coconut husk and cork.

so the idea that the field is 'organic' is false.  it is a plastic, polyurethane carpet.   and in his talk sponsored by the hastings conservation council in june, dr. joel forman said that it is the plastic blades in all artificifial turf fields which are most responsible for the high heat generated on the field on sunny days, and for the skin burns which some athletes have suffered.  (by the way, to repeat earlier notes:  dr. forman also said he would not recommend artificial turf for a 'mixed-use' facility, which accomodates both competitive sports and community recreation--which is precisely what reynolds is.)

the possibly  widespread perception that GeoTurf is some sort of organic field, comparable in any way to grass, is a triumph of disinformation on the part of the school board.

incidentally:  there have been NO independent scientific studies on the health risks or environmental impacts of GeoTurf.

thanks,

alan

On 09/12/13, zcod...@aol.com wrote:

 

Hi everyone.

I'm Lisa Litvin, a resident of South Calumet.  First, full disclosure, I believe my family is in the minority of our local neighbors, as we support the bond.  (I'm happy to explain our reasons, if anyone wants.)

But I'm writing as I have done in the past, to clarify what I believe may be some misinformation below.  I am Co-President of our PTSA (though I don't write with that hat on now, just as a citizen).  But through my position, I know much of the school workings quite well.  

I saw the proposed lawn signs below, and while they are catchy and funny, I believe they are based on information that isn't accurate, or at least, of which I'm unaware.  I offer some information below, and I pose some questions as well.  Also, I fully support robust debate on an issue that our community members feel so deeply and so divided about.  I think the more accurate information we have, the better we all are, and hopefully the better we can come back together as a community when the bond vote is over, regardless of the outcome.

So here're are my concerns re: the proposed lawn signs:

1.Science Labs are Not a Luxury.

Plastic Field Is.

Vote No on School Bond.

Modern Science Labs, 

Not Plastic Fields.

I have heard no complaints about the science labs.  To the contrary, my understanding is that all high school science labs have been renovated within the past 10 years.  Also, Doug, I'd be very interested to learn what educators said about obsolete science facilities - can you provide names or details?

2.  More Math, 

Vote No on School Bond.

Not Plastic Fields.

Vote No on School Bond.

Has anyone heard that there's not enough math?   I've never heard that, but please let me know if I'm incorrect.  In fact, starting in 8th grade most students accelerate and jump a year in math.  Some even super accelerate and jump two grades.  In high school, kids can take several math classes at a time.  Our son, a senior, is currently taking AP Calculus and AP Statistics.  

3. Higher SATs,

        Not Plastic Fields.

        Vote No on School Bond. 

Our SAT scores are outstanding, and they've been increasing each year (as have our ACT scores).  Last year we AVERAGED 1808, which I believe puts our AVERAGE in the top 20 % of the nation!  Also, we are off the charts so far as National Merit Semifinalist Recognition, which is based soley on PSAT scores.  Last year we had 6 semifinalists -- which I believe was more than the other Rivertowns combined!  And this year we have 4, again, a number that over schools just don't see (more disclosure - our son is a semifinalist!).  So again, I'm not sure where the concern over raising SAT scores is coming from.  And personally, I'd hate to see more pressure on these kids about their standardized test scores.

4.  Plastic field

My understanding is that the field will comprise cork and coconut husk, not plastic.  Is that incorrrect?

I hope this is helpful.  Again, full discussion can only be a help, and I wanted to help clarify what I thought might be misinformation.

It was rather lonely in the audience of last night's Board of Edmeeting.  Whatever subsequent wrath I may direct at the Board, Itruly wonder why no one seems to care, not just about Reynolds, but thewhole education endeavor.   You/we are poised to give CarteBlanche to a Board that is doing what it wants because, it seems, there'snothing to stop it.  Should this bond proposal succeed, the Boardwill be off the hook.  The decision will have been made by 'thevoters'. 

Between now and the vote, I will test Douglas's, and your ownpatience.  Any relevant correspondence sent to the School Board oradministration will be Cc'd to this list.  As always, Doug has theright to protect you from my myopic self-centeredness (or poor grammar),and you have the freedom to ignore, but I feel liberated andmotivated.

[Douglas Rushkoff]

I don't know if the art, music, and science teachers with whom I have interacted over the past couple of years feel so free to share their names and views publicly. And I don't even feel particularly comfortable discussing the widely perceived decline of our school system on a public list. 

It may or may not be true, but it's certainly a topic of discussion on the various parents' boards - many of which people use to choose where they move. Again, this is a discussion I think is better suited to real life. The gist of it is that academic and arts programs are being tightened, art in the elementary school has been curtailed, and parents or teachers who complain are being told to raise money through the Hastings Foundation. Meanwhile, when we see an expenditure of this size, it of course raises questions about why the other programs are underfunded. 

I do know there's a several-year plan for facility updates, and don't know how the later year ones - media, music, auditorium - would be approached after this one is approved. That's something I intend to ask about at one of the meetings. 

But I agree that signage should be accurate, rather than scorched earth. 

[Victor Waldron]

On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Douglas Rushkoff <rush...@gmail.com> wrote:

I do know there's a several-year plan for facility updates, and don't know how the later year ones - media, music, auditorium - would be approached after this one is approved. That's something I intend to ask about at one of the meetings. 

 

 

If there's the feeling that the building aid program won't be available in the near future then why not spend the extra $5 mil now if we're supposedly getting 42 cents on the dollar from the state?

 

V

[Douglas Rushkoff]

That is the logic, here. And it has a lot to do with why there's an urgent push to move this forward. 

The discussion I originally intended to foster here was to create the time and space to consider it. Were I in charge, I might spend the funds differently. 

[David Skolnik]

Doug -
As you know, by now, the BOE has scheduled their first info session for Sunday afternoon, from 3:30 to 4:30, at the Library.  Even though it's extremely late notice, I would expect to be there, to hear the kinds of questions asked, and how they are answered.  At last Wednesday's BOE meeting, I expressed (or attempted to express) my deep discomfort for the way in which they have elected to structure these 'information' events -  as 'informal' question and answer sessions.  Let's not mince words as to what this is, or rather, what it is not, which would be a chance for the public to be hear an updated presentation of both sides of the issue.  The Board should be called on this level of manipulation, by a broader representation of the public than myself, however, in the absence of such, I have no problem with persisting in doing so.

I will be happy to attend any additional session that you can arrange, though you might want to look a bit past Sunday, just to be able to give enough people enough notice.

I'll address other issues in your post separately.

David Skolnik

--
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.

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3408 / Virus Database: 3222/6660 - Release Date: 09/12/13

[Douglas Rushkoff]

I wasn't thinking to schedule a public meeting for this Sunday. When I was asking the group if they thought a Sunday afternoon would be a good time, I meant Sunday afternoon as a general time - not a specific Sunday. Sorry for any confusion. 

David: I think criticizing the BoE's process could be a constructive path - as long as it points simply and directly to why people should vote a particular way on the bond. Discussions of process and manipulation can easily backfire, as they can confuse/disillusion/alienate people, or distract from the issues at hand. 

[David Skolnik]

Thank you for the clarification.

The following does not completely conform to your call for simplicity, but I continue to try:
 
The challenge in discussing these issues is that attempting to simplify, for the sake of stimulating an action-response (vote) and avoiding confusion, has its own pitfalls, foremost of which is the march, headlong, into meaninglessness.  The ultimate incarnation of such meaninglessness is the presentation of the bond itself.  YES or NO. We are allowed - forced - to reduce whatever the complexities it may actually contain, and the total, unfettered discretion it conveys to the Board, to  'Yes or NO'. To me, 'Yes or No' is the ultimate simplifying insult, and it -the bond- should be rejected for that reason alone.   Cake or Death.  (Iris asked for some levity...that's about as much as I can muster).

We've spoken before, about the nature of this list, and I fully accept your superior acuity in understanding its  broader pulse, as well as my own capacity to confuse or alienate some (make that 'many').   I suppose the 'simple meta-cognitive' question the list's participants might want to ask themselves, is whether they want to understand, or simply be told what to do.  Understanding takes a lot more work.

Your own simplification goes to the heart of the challenge this, and all communities face:

We vote for a Board so that they can spend the time figuring all this out.

We elect a Board because we are legally required to do so.  Past that, the degree to which we relinquish our own understanding of the content and administration of the education process, in all its forms, is up to us.  Make no mistake...I acknowledge and appreciate the service the members of the Board provide to this community.  These are not just words.  I've watched them at work for a number of years.  They devote an enormous amount of their time, for which they go unremunerated, save for their comradery, however, they ought not to be viewed, or used, as our surrogates.   As soon as we allow ourselves that time-saving luxury, our capacity to decide becomes limited to the trappings of presentation: the slicker presentation or prettier label.

Read the article and letters in the Enterprise this week.  Let's see if we can have any meaningful discussion based on those.

David Skolnik

[Douglas Rushkoff]

I think you are saying we should vote against the bond because it has bundled together too much stuff - and that the field should be voted separately. 

[Victor Waldron]

Our BOE wouldn't want to allow "choice" in case this were to happen:

 

http://www.bethlehemspotlight.com/news/2013/jan/11/board-splits-bond-vote/

 

http://bethlehemschools.org/budget/bondvotehistory.htm

 

I get the whole state building aid thing, but if you read the accounts from districts across the state adding in multi-million dollar athletic field projects is a huge money grab. The talking points are nearly all the same. The consultants are all making the same recommendations (or the consultants themselves are the same). It would seem from reading the program guidance that it violates the spirit of the program if not having a giant loophole you can drive a truck through.

[Bass, Richard]

I believe Carmel had several combined BOE votes, until the last one, which was split between the football field and the other school facilities; the field lost and the other bond vote won.  http://www.theexaminernews.com/carmel-boe-re-considers-bond-referendum/

______________________

Richard Bass, AICP, PP
Chief Planning and Development Specialist
Herrick, Feinstein LLP
2 Park Avenue
New York, NY  10016
212-592-6144
212-545-3305 (Fax)
917-886-1326 (Cell)
rb...@herrick.com

Subscribe to Herrick's Land Use and Environmental Blog: www.herrick.com/ZONE

The information in this message may be privileged, intended only for the use of the named recipient. If you received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail and delete the original and any copies. To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this communication (and its attachments), unless expressly stated otherwise, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matter(s) addressed herein.

[Ted Mason]

All,

 

My name is Ted Mason.

 

When I was active with the Hastings Tax Payers Alliance I was the one that put up the big signs – one at the RR station and one on Farragut Ave. Of course I had help, a committee decided on wording and Jim Metzger printed out the material. I still have both sign structures – but weathered and outdated messages.

 

I just saw out of the corner of my eye a big sign when going to the RR station this morning – vote for the bond.

 

Is there an appetite to put up a sing to vote against the bond.

 

Sorry for being largely absent from these communications – a bit over committed.

 

Comments, observations?

 

Regards, Ted

 

 

 

 

 

From: Reynol...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Reynol...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jared Levin
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 12:13 PM
To: reynol...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The Home Stretch?

 

Earlier it was stated this would be the wording on the signs:

[Andrew Ratzkin]

Hello, this is Andy Ratzkin--sorry for the delayed response.

In furtherance of Alan's response to Lisa, I wanted to supply this cite to the GeoTurf url provided by the board.  You can see in the schematic two layers that are presumably synthetic--the backing mat and the geopad.  http://www.geoturfusa.com/g/installations/installation-process/  I did not find a statement on the site regarding the material used in these layers, but they are not cork/coconut, which rests on top.  Also not clear to me if the BOE's proposal includes the geopad option.

I also wanted to add that, just the other week, the JV soccer team had an away game cancelled due to heat conditions on the hosting team's synthetic field.  One aspect I think that has not been considered is the effect of projected increases in seasonal temperatures over time that would tend to increase the number of days with excessive heat conditions for synturf fields, and allow the use of grass fields earlier in the spring as the growing season moves up in the calendar year.

Another major concern for me is that I have not seen an apples to apples life cycle cost comparison between grass and synthetic turf.  To be accurate, such a comparison would have to account for the periodic disposal and replacement of the synthetic turf (estimated to be every 8-10 years).  A prior cost comparison, no long on the District web, showed a savings of 18,000/year for synturf, but this did not account for the periodic disposal and replacement costs associated with synthetic fields.  I am concerned that the District and its taxpayers may get locked into large recurring costs that have not been adequately assessed or fully understood.  At least in any document that I have seen.

Last, I have attached a letter I sent to the BOE in July that raises these (in additional detail) and some other questions that remain unanswered for me, particularly regarding the diligence of the analysis that was done to assess the viability of state-of-the-art grass vs. synturf.  If anyone believes the questions in the letter have been addressed, I would be interested to hear.

Regards,

Andy

[David Skolnik]

Andrew -
Both your email and letter are good, though some of the questions contained in the July 11th letter might have either received some response or might otherwise need some revision.  There are people on this list, including, I think Alan G, and Victor who might be able to supply some of that information.  Anything that remains unanswered should certainly be placed to the BOE, either at one of the remaining info sessions, the next being tomorrow, Monday, 9/23, at 7:00 PM in the Russell Lecture Room.  I am not aware of BOE plans to record this meeting so only the 35 or so (max seating) that are in the room would benefit from hearing the question, and response, but, since Board members have previously responded to comments here, on this list, I don't know why these questions would deserve any less notice.

David Skolnik

Content-type: application/pdf; name=BOE--Reynolds--7-11-13.pdf
Content-disposition: attachment; filename=BOE--Reynolds--7-11-13.pdf
X-Attachment-Id: f_hlvdnr7p0

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 2013.0.3408 / Virus Database: 3222/6688 - Release Date: 09/21/13