News-Record.com

The Simkins PAC is right to oppose the school bonds, but they are against it for the wrong reasons.

The whole minority contractors issue is a non-starter. The school system should hire contractors who can 1. Do the job right and 2. Do it for a fair price. That should be their sole criteria for hiring contractors, not the race, gender, religion or national origin of the person doing the work.

The real reason people should oppose the bond is because of the school board's miserable track record in construction. In recent years, the board has overspent to build "Taj Mahal" schools, when neighboring school systems are building schools for far less money. And then there are the construction debacles, such as the Smith High situation, where the final costs were several times the original estimates.

As a result, several items promised to voters on the 2003 school bond didn't come to pass. The school system pulled a bait-and-switch, promising projects they couldn't deliver.

The Guilford County School Board simply can't be trusted to spend our tax money wisely - they've already proven that they can't. That's why voters should reject the school bond.

Sure, this is an emotional issue; bond supporters claim the bonds are "for the kids." But giving this school board a blank check to spend irresponsibly won't do any of us any good, including future generations.

NOTICE TO SIMKINS PAC. and DEANA HAYES

Serving on schoolboards and raising money to build schools and develop community colleges is done for the education of YOUTH. THE EDUCATION OF YOUTH!!! Not ADULTS trying to SCAM CONTRACTS.

REPEAT: NOT FOR ADULTS TRYING TO SCAM CONTRACTS!!!!

Somebody must have dropped all of you on your heads.

There may be other reasons, some of them perhaps valid, to decide not ot vote for educational bonds (ie: (lack of trust in motives or competence of people who will have acess to the bond monies ie Deena Hayes or cynical disgust with the dirty GC machine politics administered by people like Dot Kearns, whose newly designated replacement surrogate running for at-large GC schoolboard -whom nobody on the Simkins PAC even heard of prior to one month ago, but are nevertheless endorsing, of course.), but refusing to endorse bonds for the reason above makes one disgusted and nauseated.

In order for students to see light at the end of the tunnel they must have hope. If the school bond issue is defeated, how will that contribute to hope? It is difficult to see how reducing the amount of construction will provide greater opportunities for minority contractors. Just the opposite wil occur. Less money on the street means less jobs for all--white & black. This is upside down thinking. Hopefully, the BOE will fight back now.

It seems like Michael Mckinney has his fet firmly in the special interest camp in many ways.

i smell corruption!

It seems like Michael Mckinney has his fet firmly in the special interest camp in many ways.

i smell corruption!

Allen,

I see you are doing your bit in support of Skip and Co.

One of the profound ironies of recently local politics is that Skip Alston has become the most powerful voice for the small government crowd. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth, folks. If he happens to come down on the right side of the issue for the wrong reasons, why complain? (I've always had a soft spot for Skip as a kind of honest, entertaining crook, just as I have a soft spot for Billy Yow.)

Similarly, if Simkins has a bad reason--minority set-asides--for opposing the school bonds, so what? Better to do the right thing for the wrong reasons than to do the wrong thing for the right reasons ("the children"). (I explained to my child that she'll just have to suck it up and go to the trailer next year. She understands.)

Needless to say, there are several right reasons to do the right thing: the track record of the BOE, the wierdly luxurious schools, the miniscule amount going to build classrooms, the large number of athletic projects.

Anonymous:
I didn't realize that posting the PAC endorsements (which significantly differ from the News & Record's) for discussion was doing "Skip and Co.'s" bidding.
I thought they were interesting and newsworthy.

Brian:
Maybe we could have saved millions more by plopping down some trailers at A&T, GTCC and UNCG instead of erecting new buildings.
If you daughter understands and can suck it up, surely college students could as well.
Trailers for everyone.

My friend Skeet Club is right. Before February, who ever heard of Michael McKinney? Now, he seems to be the "anointed" front-runner.

Meanwhile, I've been running a progressive grassroots campaign since Dec. 2006. I may not pledge allegiance to Simkins, but I have a good deal of grassroots support behind my campaign, and I think we will do well next week.

The endorsements are certainly newsworthy. But I don't see them in the paper today. Did I miss them?

Anonymous, if you wish to eliminate trailers, then offer a bond to build classrooms economically. It would pass. Coffee bars, atriums, athletic renovations, and dubious promises don't address the problem. Fortunately, NC higher ed has a much better record of spending tax money wisely for new buildings. It's a good thing, because, due to their larger size, college students and their teachers would find trailers uncomfortable.

Brian444,

You hit the nail on the head - "coffee bars".

For those who don't know - the new Northern High School has a coffee lounge for the students to hang out with each other and "chill".

I'm not sure how much physics or calculus is taught in the coffee bar, but I hope it's substantial and makes for a more conducive learning environment.

And that's a perfect illustration of why many of us oppose the current bond referendum.

The Guilford County School Board wants to build overpriced monuments, rather than solid, sensible buildings. A coffee bar at a high school? Come on! I can't imagine the ways the school board will dream up to waste more than $400 million, should the bond pass.

Over in Forsyth County, they recently built two high schools that each cost millions less than Northern Guilford. And these are fine schools. T o use an automotive analogy, they're just good, solid Toyotas and Chevys, not Rolls Royces.

Uh, the anonymous comment on the trailers and newsworthiness was from me. Forgot to sign it.

Allen, although your wording did indicate some type of surprise that the Simkins PAC would support contract handouts over support for education, you may be the last politically-savy person in the county who would feel such.

Do you find it unsettling the the Simkins PAC would advocate as above?

Michael McKinney is another Triad Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition Member otherwise known as the TREBIC CARTEL

The TREBIC CARTEL wants to put it’s stamp on everything in Guilford County. If the people of this county don’t wake up to the unethical and down right influence of the TREBIC CARTEL on rules & regulations , policies and procedures
than anything goes welcome to the TREBIC TRIAD

Look at what Michael “Love to see his TREBIC CARTEL 2008 Campaign Contributions” Mckinney wants to do:

explore outsourcing construction to private developers that build and lease schools to the district

Wonder why he wants to do this it is a part of the TREBIC CARTEL and their influence in Guilford County and Greensboro and High Point’s City Councils.

DO NOT VOTE for another TREBIC CARTEL Member NO to McKinney

SIMKINS INTERVIEW WITH MICHAEL McKINNEY;

SP: Nice of you to come to the mtg tonight. So you want to be the next at-large schoolboardmember?

MM: Ah...

DOT: Yes, he does.

MM: Yes.

SP: Good. How do you feel about minority contracts?

MM: Ah....

DOT: Oh, he loves them. Loves them! L-O-V-E ssssss....THEM!!

MM: Yeah. Like that.

SP: If it came down to getting, good value competent work done vrs. awarding minority contracts, which do you go with?

MM: Ah...

DOT: Minority contracts...No question.

MM: Dot, I...

SP: Let the man answer, Dot!

DOT: Mike , you want to get elected or not?

MM: Yeah, yeah. Okay. Go with the contracts. Yeah.

DOT: So, we good?

SP: Good. What was your name again?

MM: Mike. Mike McKinney

SP: Mike, glad to meet ya.

I agree, This guys connections really stink!

THE RIDE HOME

DOT: ......You're kind of quiet.

MM: It's just...

DOT; Take it easy.

MM: It's just...I could have been like a trained monkey or something and they would have endorsed me.

DOT: People just want to get paid.

MM: But...

DOT: Look. Just win, baby!

MM: Who are you, Al Davis?

DOT: What are you, like twelve?

MM: ....I know.

DOT: Look, do you really think this is any worse than hanging chads or funky voting machines?

MM: Yeah, but...

DOT: Look, somebody has to run the schools. Somebody has to decide who goes to what school, where new schools are built and how much they cost and who gets vending contracts. We're realtors. It might as well be us.

MM: Of course, but.

DOT:....Look, it'll pass. It did for me.

MM: But don't you think people will get sick of it. And not vote for bonds and stuff...

DOT; Well let them run for the schoolboard

MM; Sure, and they'll get endorsed, huh?

DOT: Let it go....Just let it go. Look you'll be down at the couthouse watching those tallies come in. You'll see your name up on the board. There's nothing like it.

MM;....Right

People are obviously free to oppose the bonds for any reason they wish, but comparing the projected costs in Guilford to the costs incurred by Forsyth a few years ago is misleading. It's not an apples-to-apples comparison because something changed since the Forsyth schools were bid out and built: construction costs have increased dramatically.

According to the federal government, the overall cost of construction materials has risen nearly 25% since early 2004. For all I know, it might be higher for the materials needed to build a school. And that 25% doesn't include the cost of fuel and other items, which have also risen a lot since the Forsyth schools were bid out.

So complain about "Taj Mahal schools" if you like, but it'd be good to get some facts as well. The fact is that it's A LOT more expensive than it used to be to build a school.

Fair enough. Here are the facts:

Reagan High School (Forsyth County) - opened fall 2005. Cost: less than $19 million.

Northern Guilford High School (Guilford County) - opened Jan. 2008. Cost: $42 million.

Even with the increases you mentioned, Mr. Brod (which I don't dispute), the costs to build a school didn't more than double in a little over two years. And that doesn't even take into the county the fact the Guilford County School Board wants $80 million to build the new Airport High School. That's almost double of what they spent to build Northern and four times what Forsyth County spent to build Reagan!

But of course, Reagan High doesn't have a coffee bar...

Just Saying:
Andy has a point. Did you read Morgan Josey Glover's excellent comparison of the construction costs for Reagan and Northern and what taxpayers actually got for their money?

Well, let's just go on Mr. Brod's assumption that costs have gone up 25% since '04... fair enough. No one wants to discuss the financial mismanagment of the long standing board members. Just look at the shabby results of the '00 & '03 bonds.

The $80MM Airport Area High School will be $100MM when the additional 25% mismanagement cost of the long standing board members is factored in. That's why no new public money should ever be put in the hands of this School Board.

In which school board's hands should it be placed then?

Here are the members that should not be allowed to be in charge of our money.

Special interest reasons (basically corrupt)
Duncan,
Kearns (McKinney too)
Hayes,

Just not smart enough.
Childs

Too easily influenced by others.

Cooke,
Belton,
Quick.

Allen, I read Glover's piece very closely, and it silently adopted GCS's key premise: that the salient point of comparison was cost per square foot. The actual cost difference, excluding land, was something like $40 million for Northern and $18 million for the one in Forsyth, which had a slightly lower student capacity (something like 100). Per square foot, Glover used ingenious logic supplied to her by the head of GSC building to show that Northern's cost per square foot--about 1.5x higher--wasn't really that big a deal because:

* construction costs had risen 50% in two years(this is what I call a journalist fact, defined as "something someone told a journalist") due to Katrina (this is what I call journalistic causality, defined as "two events not occuring at the same time")

* Guilford county residents demanded bigger football stadiums and bigger classrooms (on the first, we shall see; on the second, it's utterly irrelevant, since what's being defended is cost per square foot, not total square footage)

* Northern built in shell space for future expansion (actually a smart idea, amazingly enough)

So if you buy all of these explanations (for some reason) and buy into Glover's premise, you end up saying (as she does), "Wow, we got a good deal in paying more than twice as much two years later for a school that holds roughly the same number of students."

Nonsense. By the more reasonable measure, cost per student, Northern was ridiculously high in comparison.

Why is this more reasonable, you ask? Because we are educating persons, not space. If our goal were to have the most learned square footage in the state, Glover's standard would be more reasonable.

If you take $18 mil, factor in a 25% increase in construction costs, toss in another 10% for increased capacity and another $5 mil for turrets, coffee bars, and the like, you STILL save $10 million dollars, a 25% reduction in actual costs.

Reasonable people understand this rationally. Intuitive people understand this intuitively. All the GCS-friendly journalism in the county won't change that.

For what it's worth, the 25% figure was just the increase in costs of construction materials. That figure doesn't include other costs of construction, so it's quite possible that that total construction costs rose by more. In addition, it was a national figure, and for all I know costs have risen by a bit more in N.C. And finally, that figure applies to all construction, not specifically for institutional buildings like schools. It's entirely possible that school-construction costs have risen even faster.

I haven't done extensive research in this area, and if I wanted an expert opinion, I'd consult the facilities people at GCS. They're professionals, but unfortunately their expert opinions are blithely dismissed by bond skeptics.

But remember, Mr. Brod, Northern was approved in the 2003 bond, so actual planning, bidding, etc. began back in 2004, before at least some of this inflation.

And Reagan just opened two years ago. It's not like we're comparing a new school with one built in the 1980s. Northern cost more than twice as much to build just two years later. I ask you -- does that pass the common sense test?

I wouldn't say skeptics are "blithely dismissing" the opinions of GCS experts. I'd say we are being prudently skeptical when literally hundreds of millions of tax dollars are at stake.

Good points, Brian.
But space is an issue. Especially if Forsyth has to come right back in a few years and build another addition to Reagan -- probably at considerably higher costs.
Guilford adds 1,300 new students a year. They have to be put somewhere and we should be willing to provide a decent learning environment for them.

Allen,

"Guilford adds 1,300 new students a year. They have to be put somewhere and we should be willing to provide a decent learning environment for them."

Right, so let's look at this. Jamestown Middle has over 1000 students - many in trailers. The board had absolutely no trouble at all moving money from that project to purchase, among other things, the new Smith building. I don't think there are any trailers at Smith High School.

How many students are in that new building? 10, 15????

So the board makes stupid decisions with my tax money.

Call me what you want and be as condescending as you like, but in this country, my vote counts the same as yours and I vote NO to the bonds.

If it's only construction materials that cost 25%, it's likely that that total construction cost increases were lower than that, since labor surely didn't increase by the same amount.

Allen, you point to the evil genius behind this plan. There are more students; therefore, we need to pass the package. On one level, that's irrefutable, but what percentage of the package actually goes toward housing students in a cost-conscious way? I'd say 0%, and even the most fervent advocate would be hard-pressed to put that number at higher than 50%. (Look at the list. Look at the costs.) In order to do something essential, we're being asked to pay around 2x more for inessential projects.

If it's only construction materials that cost 25%, it's likely that that total construction cost increases were lower than that, since labor surely didn't increase by the same amount.

Allen, you point to the evil genius behind this plan. There are more students; therefore, we need to pass the package. On one level, that's irrefutable, but what percentage of the package actually goes toward housing students in a cost-conscious way? I'd say 0%, and even the most fervent advocate would be hard-pressed to put that number at higher than 50%. (Look at the list. Look at the costs.) In order to do something essential, we're being asked to pay around 2x more for inessential projects.

brian444 nails it perfectly. Allen, I understand (and share, believe it or not) your concerns about having good school facilities. But I think you are buying into the bill of goods the Guilford County School Board is trying to sell.

Sure, Guilford County needs more classroom space. No one disputes that. But does that need mean the School Board should be completely unaccountable for how they spend our money? Should we be content to spend $440 million to get $100 million worth of truly needed, worthwhile projects?

The evidence is clear that they haven't spent previous bond money wisely (ex. building extra classroom space at an under capacity Andrews High, the Smith debacle, the inflated costs at Northern, etc.) Why should we think they would start now? And should the legitimate needs justify handing this board a blank check?

Here's what I see on the list:
McLeansville Elementary School: Classroon addition and media expansion.
Southeast High: Classrooms, media center and gym.
Summerfield Elementary School: Classrooms, media and dining expansion.
Allen Middle School: Classrooms and auxiliary gym.
And so on.
These bonds definitely seem to me to address space needs, among others.

Yes Allen there are worthwhile projects on the list. However, the BOE has decided to also add millions upon millions in other projects, maintenance issues, etc. They therefore have jeopardized the bonds. Plus being able to borrow against the principle in the future makes me uncomfortable with the nearly 500 million dollar price tag. Dont get me started on hallway TVs and coffee bars either.

Eastern - YES. Even though I have NEVER received a good answer as to why it was woefully underinsured.

School Bonds - reluctantly no.

Mick, nor will you get a straight answer about the underinsurance. That's just one of those things that happens. It's nobody's fault.

Allen, nobody's questioning whether the bond address space needs, among others. It's the , among others that's the problem. Take this entry:

Grimsley High
Cafeteria addition, renovations
to gym and stadium
$9.8 million

(The sign outside Grimsley says the school will get $11+ million, but what's another million or two?) Here's the actual breakdown of costs (in millions):

$1.4--New sushi bar, wasabe upgrade
$ 1.2--expanded stockade and slaughtering facility for Kobe beef (a Friday tradition)
$ 1.1--ergonomically designed chairs, china embossed with Grimsley coat of arms
$ .3--candles and other table arrangements
$ 1.1--diversity training for cafeteria employees
$ .6--graft, payoffs, embezzlement, who knows what happened to it?
$ 2--skyboxes for alumni donors
$ 1--jacuzzi complex, full-time swedish masseuse
$ .1--new locker room paint scheme

Now, GCS will doubtless trot out heart-wrenching tales of students who didn't get preferred seating at lunch or were forced to eat corn dogs, prestigious alums made to watch football outside, and crippled lacrosse players who, if only they had had a proper massage . . .

But how many classrooms could be built for that money?

Brian:
Can't really argue with you there. We did raise some questions with bond boosters about some athletic facilities.
Cafeterias and other facilities, however, do need to keep with demand for space as much as do classrooms.
Gym roofs that leak ought to be fixed.
Yes, there are other items you could quibble with,
but we still would not oppose the total package on that basis.
That would be throwing out our babies with the bath water.

The real problem is there is way too much bathwater!

Why are not leaky roofs, resurfacing tracks, etc done through yearly budgets? Not how its done? Not how its done here? I really dont know.

Makes it look like padding to me and other cynical types.

THANK YOU SKEET CLUB SAVAGE!

"Serving on schoolboards and raising money to build schools and develop community colleges is done for the education of YOUTH --- THE EDUCATION OF YOUTH!!! NOT ADULTS trying to “SCAM” CONTRACTS!"

WE NEED TO REPLACE MANY BOARD MEMBERS, FOR THE GOOD OF THE FUTURE OF OUR CHILDREN.

WHY WASN’T THERE INSURANCE COVERAGE IN PLACE TO REBUILD EASTERN?

WHY DID THE BOARD SPEND HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PUT “SOD” ON THE NEW NORTHERN FOOTBALL FIELD? HOW DID THAT HELP EDUCATE OUR CHILDREN? HOW MANY BOARD MEMBERS LIVE IN THAT DISTRICT?

WHY DID THEY SPEND TWO MONTHS ARGUING WITH TAXPAYERS ABOUT THE NAME OF THE NEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IN THEIR COMMUNITIES? THE BOARD MEMBERS SHOULD BE CONCERNED WITH WHAT IS GOING ON INSIDE THE SCHOOLS --- WITH STUDENTS, TEACHERS AND PRINCIPALS.

EXACTLY WHAT DOES OUR SCHOOL BOARD DO?

ANSWER: NOBODY KNOWS!

You guys are too sentimental about babies. As the father of two babies in GCS, I urge the voters of Guilford County to throw them out as a means of eliminating this odious bathwater.

My campaign was endorsed by the Rhino Times today.

If you want a school board member who will be a taxpayer watchdog, vote for me. If you want the status quo, vote for...the other guy.

Erik "E.C." Huey
www.hueyforguilfordschoolboard.org

So, Erik, where are you on the bonds?

Allen,

You know about Simkins Pac but not about Eric Huey?

Eric has had the absolute best website for educational issues in GC for over a year now and you ask where is he on the bonds?

Allen, what kind of a journalist are you?

Please dont bother to pull your head out. I already know!

I admit it; I have not yet experienced the wonderfulness of the Huey Web site. But I will. We've concentrated on the candidates in the races we're endorsing for in the primary. The school board isn't among them.

So, what's the answer to my question, Anonymous?

AJ: I'm supporting the EGHS bond, even though it should've never went to a bond, in my opinion. I'm not supporting the $412m mega-bond. It's too much money, and it is simply more money for our elected school board to mismanage. I'm not anti-schools nor am I anti-school construction. We just need to think differently and smarter on school construction in GC and bonds aren't the answer.

Thanks. I'll check out your Web site.

Thats very nice of you Allen.