criminal or manipulative
Stinger
1. A June2010 LCPS memo regarding a site contiguous with Hillsboro Elementary stated, “Staff believed it would be more prudent to let the contract expire” What specific benefits does that strategy provide to Loudoun children and taxpayers?
2. Why did LCPS reject offers ranging from $29k/acre to $32k/acre for a 155-acre property (located in feasible range of public utilities) while simultaneously offering $40k/acre and $57k/acre for properties where standalone water and wastewater treatment systems would be required? (Likewise, 2009 contracts for ~$67k/acre were advanced while those near Town for $54k/acre were rejected).
3. Did the School Board authorize LCPS’ multiple rejections of those offers and LCPS’ implied threats to condemn that landowner’s property (see LCPS' Jan2006 letter to Mr. Miller)?
4. Can LCPS show that Board members are expeditiously and fully briefed on all site offers presented?
5. Why did LCPS ignore the potential conflict of interest of the seller’s former attorney representing Loudoun citizens during negotiation of the 2009 Wheatland contract?
6. Why did LCPS ignore the conflict of interest of hiring that landowner’s contractor to conduct the hydrogeologic study, instead of hiring an independent contractor?
7. Why was that developer’s private well selected as a school water-supply well (and were funds spent to upgrade that well?) when the surrounding land was not in the purchase contract? or did LCPS plan to pay that developer for the school’s water, in perpetuity?
8. Why won’t LCPS release the Final Hydrogeologic Study, noted in a Nov2009 $23,100 invoice? What work on that site continued (and funding spent) after Supervisors rejected the site? Why were those funds not available to study the McDonough Assemblage?
9. Why is VDOT not consulted before site acquisition contracts are signed?
10. Are costs for site and road improvements estimated for all prospective school sites? If so, what costs were estimated last year for road upgrades and site work/treatment systems envisioned for the Wheatland Farm three-school complex?
11. Why did LCPS prohibit PTOs from advising parents of community presentations about future schools?
12. Why did LCPS staff: ignore a road alignment recommended by VDOT staff for a prospective school site (on County-owned property); withhold that alignment from the public; and, choose instead to publicly assert that site would require condemnation of a citizen’s home?
13. Why won’t LCPS audio-record School Board closed sessions involving real estate (and keep records confidential until FOIA release allowed) such that future Boards can objectively understand prior Board decisions?
In your email below you stated, "if an LCPS employee was approving payments for services or deliverables that weren't provided, that could also be a criminal act or at least grounds for termination". Therefore, why won’t LCPS just release the Final Hydrogeologic Study, noted in a Nov2009 $23,100 invoice? If staff thinks they already gave it to me, then just give it to me again and end this nonsense now! I will tell you that I absolutely did not receive a new report prepared for LCPS in 2009. The only Wheatland hydro study I have ever been shown is a pre-2009 study EGGI prepared for Mr. Cangiano. I specifically remember looking at that report in Mr. Byard's office last summer and asking for a copy of the cover page and a few pages in an appendix related to nitrate loading. If staff is telling you they already gave me a report prepared by EGGI for LCPS (per the Sept/Nov2009 invoice) I am telling you that is false. If there is no such thing, then what was LCPS billed for? I really don't think EGGI would bill for work they didn't do, so just explain what report they submitted and billed $23,100 to prepare. This is not a hard question to answer. Have you never seen a kid evade answering a question? When many adults see this, it often means the kid is hiding something. Don't you see? being evasive feeds suspicion! Quit feeding our suspicion and just answer the questions for heavens sake.
We don't understand why you and Ms. Bergel, our representatives, continue to evade our questions and totally defend everything LCPS has been done up to this point, instead of setting things straight for the Lovettsville and Hillsboro communities. WHO were you elected to represent? LCPS staff or Loudoun citizens?
Sincerely,
Sarah Stinger, SmallTownSchools
----- Original Message -----From: Thomas ReedTo: StingerSent: Sunday, November 21, 2010 12:08 PMSubject: Re: Did Dr. Hatrick respond?Sarah;I cannot ignore insinuations of criminal acts by LCPS employees or anyone for that matter. All School Board members took an oath to uphold the laws of the Commonwealth and the United States.At both the public meeting at Lovettsville Elementary School about the Wheatland property and your presentation at the School Board there were insinuations by you and others of possible criminal acts. I referred the insinuations at the Wheatland meeting to the County's Commonwealth Attorney and asked him to review the tape made by the County.In your presentation on November 9th, which was recorded but has not been posted on-line yet, I understood you to say something to the effect "how did an LCPS employee finance renovations to their home?". If that isn't an insinuation of a criminal act, I don't know what is. Also, if an LCPS employee was approving payments for services or deliverables that weren't provided, that could also be a criminal act or at least grounds for termination.V/R~TR
9:46 AM >>>Thanks but I'm confused, why referral to the CA?----- Original Message -----From: Thomas ReedTo: StingerCc: Jennifer BergelSent: Sunday, November 21, 2010 9:43 AMSubject: Re: Did Dr. Hatrick respond?Sarah;I've asked the School Board's attorney to review the audit package and make recommendations, including referral to the Commonwealth's attorney.Because the Central Office is closed this up-coming week, I don't expect a response until the following week at the earliest.V/R~TRPlease be aware that correspondence sent to and from a School Board member is subject to Virginia's Freedom of Information Act.Please be aware that correspondence sent to and from a School Board member is subject to Virginia's Freedom of Information Act.