The Beachcomber’s editorial of June 15 appears to insinuate and allege actions suggesting the school board may have engaged in some deception and created public “distrust” now that it is considering a totally new high school rather than the bond-issue-passed renovation. No hard evidence is cited therein, nor in the related news article.
The general contractor (Skanska) appears to have acted on its own initiative in questioning the cost/benefit soundness of the original renovation decision.
Skanska’s legitimate question occurred because the board established an early, good faith working relationship with the major stakeholders in bringing the project to fruition within budget. This would appear to be good management and applauded.
If the board elects to go with Skanska’s recommendation, benefits include: $70,000 less in costs; eight months shorter construction period; recycling of demolition materials; more space-efficient design; and energy savings of $18,000 a year. Significant, unknown costs when considering renovations of an old, deteriorating structure also must be accounted for — that’s why they’re frequently called “money pits.” The only reason for choosing renovation over a new build is because the structure has cultural or historical value — not attributes of the current high school.
Yes, the board may indeed have made a “strategic” decision relative to proposing the renovation versus a build new. Given the goal of obtaining the bond’s passage, there is nothing unethical about that decision, understanding that it was openly made with information available at the time. If new information becomes available, governance and management have a responsibility to reconsider the original decision. Given the previously noted benefits, the board would be negligent and abrogating its legal due diligence and fiduciary responsibilities to not do so.
Given the above, I believe the board acted in good faith, with transparency and without engaging in public deception. To suggest otherwise (especially without hard evidence), only sows dissention and potentially provides ammunition to the anti-school bond issue voter who recoils at public monies being used for anything “new” vs. “just fix it.”
— Jim Otis
