Archive for the 'Correspondence' Category

Confused over the Hampton Elementary addition? You’re not alone.

confusion-new.jpg

 

County officials told the Baltimore Sun today that Hampton Elementary School parents were misinformed that the addition to their school would begin construction this fall. But it appears that parents weren’t the only ones confused.

Don Mohler, a spokesman for County Executive Jim Smith, said the project has always needed taxpayer approval. The county’s portion of the funding will be included in a bond issue in November, and construction would then begin in the spring or summer of next year.

Hampton administrators, however, were unaware of this fact, and continued to believe it was scheduled to begin now. They, along with parents, wondered why the grounds behind the school hadn’t been cleared over the summer, as they expected.

What’s more, even some key Baltimore County Public Schools officials said they did not know why the project appeared delayed. Towson Families United chair Cathi Forbes spoke with the system’s chief financial officer and its director of operations on August 10, and neither could provide an answer why the addition was not funded by the state. All they said at the time is that it is hard to tell why the state pays for some projects, and not others.

The county executive added to the confusion in an Aug. 26 interview with ABC2 News, in which he appeared to blame the state for not funding the addition, and reportedly said it would be at least two years before the project breaks ground.

County officials now say the project will be complete in two years, in time for a fall 2012 opening.

The addition is paid for by both the county and the state. David Lever, head of the state’s school construction program, has told Towson Families United that the state was ready to fund the project last spring, but it ”would not be supported by the County Government in this fiscal year.”

Lever said his office was told this by BCPS officials, some time before April 20.

So it appears that at least one person at BCPS did, in fact, know as early as April that the project was not immediately moving forward.  But that information was not passed along to other BCPS officials, Hampton administrators, or parents.

Lever said even though the state will not release funds for a project that does not yet have county funding in place, the county could have still built the project, and received the state money later.  Called “forward funding,” this is the process by which an addition to Parkville High School was built, and how a new Dundalk High School and an addition at Millford Mill Academy are being paid for.

The county is not forward funding the Hampton addition, despite it being the most overcrowded school in Baltimore County.

“I thought the county government and the school system were on the same page,” TFU chair Forbes told the Sun today. “I thought they understood how dire the situation was.”

Lever has been sharply critical of communication between the county executive’s office and the school system in the past.  In an April 22, 2008 letter, he wrote:

“It appears that communication between the local government and the (Local Education Authority) is very poor, resulting in miscommunications, hasty changes of scope and lack of direction on major projects.“

Read more about Lever’s concerns in this TFU blog post from that time.

Read today’s entire Sun article here.

Published by Towson Families United
September 6th, 2010 in Correspondence, Media coverage
0 Comments

STATE OFFICIAL AT ODDS WITH COUNTY EXECUTIVE OVER LACK OF FUNDING FOR HAMPTON ADDITION

 ph2008032803542.jpg

The head of the state’s school construction program today indicated that County Executive Jim Smith was not accurate when he said the decision to stop an addition at Hampton Elementary was due to a lack of state funding.

In an email late Friday to Towson Families United, David Lever, executive director of Maryland’s Public School Construction Program, wrote that the state was ready to fund the project, but county officials said they would not support it.

“Although the project became eligible for funding on March 11, 2010…it was not recommended for funding in the FY 2011 CIP because we learned through communication with the school system that the project would not be supported by the County Government in this fiscal year,” Lever wrote in his email.

Yesterday, County Executive Smith told ABC2 News that the project would unfortunately not break ground for at least two years.  “A lot of that’s driven by the recession, a lot of that’s driven by the state’s contributions,” he told the reporter.

The ABC2 reporter reinforced Smith’s statement about a lack of state funds at the end of his newscast.

Lever wrote that the Hampton project was approved for state funding March 11 of this year.  And on April 15, 2010, Smith said in his budget address to the County Council,”$12.8 million dollars in county funds has been provided for a 330-seat addition and renovation of Hampton Elementary School.”

So Smith may have well known that he wasn’t planning on funding the project, despite touting it in his budget address.

Lever said without county support, it skipped over the Hampton addition and instead funded other projects lower on the school system’s list of priorities.

Based on this, it is clear funding was available for other school construction projects.  The county simply chose to fund other projects and ignore the school system’s list of priorities.

The information that the Hampton addition would not be funded this year took parents and administrators at the school by surprise this summer.  They were told construction would begin this fall.  The architectural plans and engineering studies have been completed.

Obviously, Baltimore County School officials knew much earlier that the county would not be supporting this project, despite it being one of the school system’s top priorities.

The addition is the second part of a three-part solution offered by BCPS to alleviate Towson’s elementary school overcrowding problem.  Hampton has a state-rated capacity of 307 students.  It will open at close to 500 students.

Lever, the state school official, has criticized Baltimore County in the past for deficient school funding requests.  In an April 22, 2008 letter to state schools Superintendent Nancy Grasmick, Lever said his office would  closely “monitor” county expenditures “to determine if the State’s funds have been used efficiently.”  He also said Baltimore County’s school construction requests were taking up an inordinate amount of his office’s time.

Lever and his office report to the Board of Public Works, the three-member funding authority that includes Governor Martin O’Malley, Treasurer Nancy Kopp and Comptroller Peter Franchot.

Based on the Lever email today, Towson Families United will be formulating a plan of action to assure that funding for the promised Hampton addition happens as quickly as possible.

Published by Towson Families United
August 27th, 2010 in Correspondence, Media coverage
0 Comments

JUDGE: “The Court is not persuaded”

Below is a copy of Judge Michael Finifter’s ruling against the four Ruxton homeowners trying to stop construction of West Towson Elementary.  Click on the small square in the top right of the document to read an enlarged version of the court order. Thanks to Bryan Sears of the Towson Times for posting the link to this document.

Dryer v BOE IV - Memorandum and Order

Published by Towson Families United
June 3rd, 2009 in Correspondence
0 Comments

Those suing school board ask for finanicial aid

In their latest unconscionable act, the four Ruxton residents who are suing to stop construction of West Towson Elementary School are asking for financial aid from a large, umbrella neighborhood association — a group that even includes some families with children attending Rodgers Forge.

The Ruxton-Riderwood-Lake Roland Area Improvement Association sent an email to its entire membership today, asking for their “feedback” on whether the association should contribute to the plaintiffs’ legal expenses.  Members were asked to reply “Yes” or “No” to the organization, which has already taken an official position against the new school.

Here is the email in full:

Dear Member,

You are probably aware that Baltimore County Public Schools (BCPS) is planning to build a second school on the Ridge Ruxton School site on N. Charles Street.  For over a year, our  board members have been monitoring the need to solve the overcrowding in area  elementary schools, the Baltimore County Public School’s decision to build, and the legal complaint filed last week by adjacent homeowners.  The basis of the lawsuit cites the failure of BCPS to follow its own policies and procedures in reaching its decision to build, and the result is damaging the personal property of our community members.  The residents who have filed suit have requested a small amount of financial assistance from RRLRAIA to pursue their case.  Before making a decision with regard to that request, we thought it best to survey our members for their input in that decision.

The lack of process by the school board and BCPS, including the avoidance of community input, is the type of issue that RRLRAIA has a long history of working to correct.   Although the needs of the children in crowded schools weigh heavily, and is a matter of great importance, the failure of the BCPS to follow required procedures and guidelines in the process of deciding where to place the school, and not taking into consideration the effect of the placement of the school at the Ridge Ruxton site upon the adjoining neighborhood, could have long-term implications for our community.   The failure of governmental agencies to follow procedures enacted to protect communities from decisions made without seeking community input or considering the effect of a project upon a community’s future, could negatively impact us in the future, when in a non-school context, the county were to ignore the opinions of and effect upon a community with regard to a different project.

We are asking for your feedback on this issue.  Please reply to this email message by May 15 to tell us your position.  Please include your name and address so we can verify membership (we will not divulge individual responses).

Type “Yes” in the subject line if you approve of using RRLRAIA funds to protest the lack of policies and procedures by BCPS in addressing the school overcrowding situation. Type “No” in the subject line if you do not support the use of RRLRAIA funds  for this purpose.

We would also like to hear from you if you do not have a strong opinion one way or the other–simply type “No Opinion” in the subject line.

Sincerely,
Kathleen Frederick Palencar
President
Ruxton-Riderwood-Lake Roland Area Improvement Association

Published by Towson Families United
May 1st, 2009 in Correspondence
0 Comments

Some call it “finesse.” We call it “meddling.”

Well-known political columnist Barry Rascover recently speculated about County Executive James T. Smith’s future in this article from the June 4 Community Times. The county executive, Mr. Rascover wrote, demonstrated a good deal of “finesse” in his handling of Towson’s school overcrowding issue.

That was just too a little too much to swallow for TFU Vice-Chair Alyson Bonavoglia, who wrote this rather pointed response to Mr. Rascovar’s column:

Barry Rascovar’s interpretation of recent events relating to Towson schools overcrowding reads like a fantasy in which County Executive Jim Smith’s heavy-handed and thoughtless meddling in the school system’s business is interpreted as political finesse.

Rascovar states, “The school overcrowding issue illustrates Smith’s finesse. He pushed for the least expensive approach before he let the school board come up with its own solution, one that appeased most parents.”

Since when is it the county executive’s job to “push” for any school construction project?

Baltimore County Public Schools, the experts we pay to build and run our schools, had in the fall of 2007 presented a well-researched solution to Towson elementary schools’ overcrowding problem. This solution, to build a new special education school in Mays Chapel and convert the Ridge Ruxton School back to Ruxton Elementary School, was approved by the Board of Education and supported by the community. It died by Jim Smith’s hand.

The solution he offered was to build a 400-seat addition for elementary school students onto Ridge Ruxton, a special education school with 127 medically fragile students, 10 of whom can walk. Ridge Ruxton parents filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights on the grounds that the addition would violate their children’s rights to be educated in a public separate day school.

Here are more examples of Jim Smith’s finesse. The 2007 county auditor’s report revealed that Smith inserted school construction projects into the county budget, bypassing Baltimore County Public Schools.

Members of the Board of Education have been told by Smith that if they don’t vote for his pet school construction projects they will lose county money and their board seats.

Smith’s interference in school business has so bungled the county’s request for state school construction money that the director of the Interagency Committee on School Construction has said that his office would need to meet with school and county government officials this summer to explain the process for future funding requests, and that he would be carefully monitoring how the county spends the state money it has received for fiscal ’09 “to determine if the state’s funds have been used efficiently.”

This is not the kind of “finesse” Marylanders look for in a statewide officeholder.

Alyson Bonavoglia
Towson

Published by Towson Families United
June 12th, 2008 in Correspondence, Media coverage
0 Comments

STATE SCHOOL OFFICIAL BLASTS “POOR” RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SMITH AND BCPS

james-smith.jpgseal_md.jpgjhairston.jpg

The official responsible for recommending state funding for county school construction projects has sharply criticized the “poor” communication between county school officials and Baltimore County Executive James T. Smith, Jr.

In an April 22 letter to state school Superintendent Nancy Grasmick and four others, David Lever, executive director of Maryland’s Interagency Committee on School Construction (IAC), calls the county’s most recent request for funding “very deficient”  and replete with errors.  Portions of the letter were read out loud yesterday at a Board of Public Works meeting in Annapolis, at which the county attempted to make its case for state funding of projects including a controversial 400-seat addition to Loch Raven High School.

The IAC falls under the jurisdiction of the Board of Public Works, the three-member panel that includes the governor, comptroller and treasurer.

Writing about the county’s FY ‘09 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) request, Dr. Lever’s letter continues:

The CIP was replete with scope and calculation errors; with late project submissions; with continuing changes of scope; with projects of undetermined local status; and with lack of documentation…More important, it appears that communication between the local government and the (Local Education Authority) is very poor, resulting in miscommunications, hasty changes of scope and lack of direction on major projects.

The Loch Raven addition took both the community and the school system by surprise, as the county executive placed funding for it into his budget without alerting school officials.

Dr. Lever writes that sorting out the problems between Mr. Smith’s office and BCPS has taken an inordinate amount of time, which should have been spent on other counties’ funding requests. Dr. Lever said the problems were so bad, his office would have to meet with school and county government officials this summer to explain the process for future funding requests, and show them the requests from other, more organized school systems.

And, he said his office would be carefully monitoring how the county spends the state money it has received for FY ‘09 “to determine if the State’s funds have been used efficiently.”

Dr. Lever’s letter reports on county funding requests throughout the state. Read the full text of the Baltimore County portion of the letter here. 

The Washington Times today also writes about this letter.  Click here to read that article. 

Published by Towson Families United
May 22nd, 2008 in Correspondence, Media coverage
0 Comments

State lawmakers attempt to block funding for Loch Raven High School addition

head_mid_left.jpg

Senator Jim Brochin and Delegates Susan Aumann, Bill Frank and Steve Lafferty will attend a Board of Public Works meeting in Annapolis Wednesday in an attempt to thwart state funding for a controversial addition to Loch Raven High School.

Last week, the bipartisan delegation from the 42nd District sent a letter the governor, comptroller and treasurer, the three people who make up the Board and must approve requests for funding. The letter asked the Board to withhold funding at least until Baltimore County allows for public input on the proposed addition.

County Executive James T. Smith, Jr. added money last year to his FY ‘08 budget for an addition to the school. The school system did not recommend the project; in fact, they weren’t even aware it existed until they saw the county executive’s budget. Community members say they weren’t aware of the project, either, until it was too late to comment on it.

And on April 14, the county won approval from the Development Review Committee for the project to proceed without any community input. The county won’t even have to show plans for the addition to community members.

School officials have long hoped to build a new high school in the northeast part of the county that would alleviate overcrowding at Towson, Perry Hall and Loch Raven high schools. In 2003, a BCPS-commissioned study recommended constructing a new high school in that area. Since then, parents in Perry Hall have been pushing the county to at least buy the land necessary for a new high school, before it was lost to developers.

Click on the pdf below to read the letter from the 42nd District delegation.

delegation-letter-re-board-of-public-works-meeting-52108.pdf

Published by Towson Families United
May 19th, 2008 in Upcoming events, Correspondence
0 Comments

School system feasibility contract appears to ignore Board of Ed vote

Despite a Board of Education vote to delete the word “addition” from a contract to conduct feasibility studies of Towson’s school overcrowding, the language remains in the partially revised contract posted on the school system website.

The word was removed by the Board at its April 8 meeting in order to allow a planning consultant, Design Collective, to examine possibilities for solving the overcrowding with more than an addition. Board members emphasized that night that they want the consultants to examine the feasibility of a complete new school in Towson, as well. (See video of the discussion, and subsequent vote, here.)

But while the word “addition” was indeed removed from the title of the document (posted below), the word clearly appears in the “description” section of the contract, which reads:

Description:
Professional architectural/engineering (A/E) services will be required to assist Baltimore County Public Schools (BCPS) with an elementary school addition project. At this time, the services will include negotiating for the preparation of feasibility studies.

On Monday morning, Towson Families United sent an email to Michael Sines, BCPS executive director of physical facilities, asking why the word “addition” was still contained in the contract, when the Board was clear that it should be stricken. We also asked Mr. Sines to explain the parameters of the feasibility studies that have been contracted. These studies, according to Board members, should examine “all possible options.” We asked Mr. Sines for a clarification on what that would include. For instance, would the feasibility studies explore only options that have received support from the county executive? Or would they also explore options for complete schools?

Mr. Sines has not replied to our email.

Towson Families United believes that the search for a solution to our elementary school overcrowding problem should be completely transparent to the public. After all, we are seeking a public school, not a private one. At a time when the independence of our school system has been so publicly challenged, it’s vital for everyone to understand exactly the process involved. Otherwise, we will have no choice but to believe that the county executive is once again forcing his will upon a complacent and complicit public school system.

Our email to Mr. Sines is posted as a Word document below. As is the pdf document containing the BCPS contract (see page 25).

040808exhibits3.PDF

sines-email.doc

Published by Towson Families United
April 15th, 2008 in Meeting reports, Correspondence
1 Comment

TFU challenges Planning Board recommendation

In a letter hand-delivered today to each member of the Baltimore County Planning Board, Towson Families United expressed its objections to a proposal for a poorly thought out addition at Ridge Ruxton School. The letter, from TFU Vice-Chair Alyson Bonavoglia, raises significant concerns over the lack of additional common areas at the school. It also suggests that the addition is in violation of the Ridge Ruxton students’ civil rights, as each of the 127 students there have Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) that specify they be taught at a “public separate day school.”

On March 21 — one week after County Executive Jim Smith helped to put forward the proposal — the Planning Board suddenly recommended the addition. To our knowledge, they consulted with no one at Ridge Ruxton School before making their recommendation.

Click below to read the entire letter.

planningboardapril3.doc

Published by Towson Families United
April 3rd, 2008 in Correspondence
0 Comments

Is the County Planning Board psychic?

sorcerer.jpg

How did they do it? How did the Baltimore County Planning Board manage to recommend an entire school addition — without speaking to anyone at the school! This is truly amazing. So many urban planners today get caught up in “fact finding,” studying “better alternatives,” and gathering “community input.”

But not our Planning Board.

In a March 21, 2008 letter to the county’s Office of Budget and Finance, Planning Director Pat Keller recommends “Full funding and rapid implementation of a Ridge-Ruxton Elementary School addition.” This, despite the fact that no one from the Planning Board had spoken to the school administration, staff or parents there. Nor had anyone at the Planning Board consulted with other community leaders, who have made numerous suggestions for more sensible ways to solve our overcrowding problem.

Imagine that. A Planning Board with an amazing ability to read the minds of hundreds, if not thousands, of people. Think of the money the county must be saving on doing actual research.

The only thing we can’t figure out is…how did the County Executive arrive at the exact same conclusion as the Planning Board a week before the Planning Board wrote its letter to the county’s Office of Budget and Finance? After all, the Planning Board is supposed to be recommending its plans to the county executive, not the other way around.

Wait! Is the county executive psychic too?

Read the possibly supernatural Planning Board letter here: plan-bd-cap-budg-080321.pdf

Published by Towson Families United
March 31st, 2008 in Inspiration, Correspondence
0 Comments

Chamber of Commerce joins the fight.

towsonchamberlogo.gif

The Towson Chamber of Commerce has decided to take a public position on our school overcrowding. And their position is:

It’s bad for business.

“We recognize the value of strong, stable schools to the overall stability and economic well-being of a community,” Chamber Executive Director Nancy Hafford writes in letters being sent today to County Executive Jim Smith and schools superintendent Joe Hairston.

Click below to read the press release issued today by Towson Families United.

chamber-of-commerce-release.doc

Published by Towson Families United
March 6th, 2008 in Inspiration, Correspondence
0 Comments