|
New GUHSD bond language
contains high school stipulation
By Lori Bledsoe
The Alpine Sun
EL CAJON — Tensions were high at the
Grossmont Union High School District board of trustees meeting,
as members discussed and voted on the upcoming bond issue that
Superintendent Bob Collins proposed to be placed on the November
ballot.
GUHSD community members, staff and previous board
members made their thoughts known on this very intense matter.
Many of the speakers present were in favor of the new bond
issue, with an exception, that the Alpine High School be removed
from the language.
Declining enrollment has been an ever-looming problem
for all the school districts throughout San Diego County, and
GUHSD is no different. With the presentation of last month’s
demographic study, many on the board, as well as many in the
community, are concerned that demographically, we do not have
the population to fill a 12th high school. Because of these
issues, many spoke to the board on July 31, pleading to proceed
with the bond, which will increase property taxes for everyone
in the Grossmont district by approximately $29 per 1,000 square
feet of home. Many however, would only support this bond issue
if the board removes the building of the Alpine high school.
Jim Panknen from the Citizen’s Bond Oversite Committee
spoke first, wanting to go on record as reporting, “The projects
in Prop H cannot be completed with funds that are available in
Prop H and another source of funds is required to finish those
projects.”
Alana Levins-Craig stepped up to the podium to let the
board know that she is pleased with the work that has been
completed thus far, but she is skeptical of the new bond’s need
to build a 12th high school in the environment of declining
enrollment.
“I am concerned with the way Grossmont has gone about
spending money, she said. “I feel that as an elected school
board you have the responsibility to be fiscally responsible
with taxpayers’ money.”
She continued saying that the demographic study results
indicate that the district will have declining enrollment for
the next 10 years. Even if the board were to take SANDAG’s
recommendations as the best case scenario, Alpine will have
growth up to 1,100 students and will begin declining from there.
If the district builds a school in Alpine, the school will take
away up to 700 students from neighboring schools.
Craig’s statements were echoed by many of those present
who stood up to address the board members. Gary Cass, a former
GUHSD board member said that he would support a clean-up bond
measure, without the Alpine High School. Aaron Landau, former
GUHSD teacher said that he was interested in the well-being of
high schools and would support this bond. He waved a check made
out in the amount of his first tax increase, over $60,
exclaiming that he would give this to the board as soon as they
supported placing this bond on the ballot.
Theresa Kemper, the principal of Grossmont High School,
made her plea for the complete renovation of her school. She
reported that teachers and students are happy with the work that
was done, but she repeated many times, it’s not enough.
Al Haven, from Alpine, who worked on the Blue Ribbon
Committee, approached the board with disappointment, saying, “I
am delighted that people up here are ready to throw Alpine out,
but I am hear to ask you to keep it in.” Haven went on to
reiterate the need for an Alpine High School.
“In defense of Alpine, they helped us pass the bond,”
said Christine Balderas. “We owe it to them to include them in
this bond. Maybe we can’t build them a huge school but maybe a
school for 600 or 800 students.”
Superintendent Collins spoke again about the proposed
bond issue. He cited all the work that had been completed under
the current Prop H bond, and then began to show what still
needed to be addressed.
Collins said that the new bond will address new
vocations and industrial arts programs, facility renovations,
gaps in safety issues, and the need to address the remaining
American’s with Disabilities Act violations. He also stated that
he made his recommendation to the board to place a high school
in the Alpine/Blossom Valley area, noting his support of the
12th high school.
“We can move forward together, united as a team,” he
said.
The floor opened up the discussion to the board, and
Jim Kelly was the first to make his address. He thanked all
present, citing their patience. However, despite his great
respect for all the people who have been working for a new high
school in Alpine, he did not feel that it was the time to build
it.
Kelly said that the board’s first priority is to the existing
GUHSD campuses. He said that the priority to ensure the safety
of the campuses.
“I believe that we should not build any new school
until all our campuses are fixed,” he said.
Kelly then proposed a change to the bond language that
would only let the 12th high school be built when the enrollment
in the district reached 25,000 students, saying that this would
be a clear indicator that there is a true need for the 12th high
school.
Robert Shields said that he believed in the community’s
support to finish the job that was began under Proposition H,
but he had to concur with member Kelly, as the district was
already under capacity at many of the existing high schools.
Priscilla Schreiber was clearly upset with this turn of
events. She argued that this was not the time to continue to
neglect a community that deserves a high school.
“We need to assure Alpine that we are in this with them
as they are in this with us,” she said. “I think Alpine deserves
a choice in the matter. They deserve a high school in their
community.”
Dick Hoy made his thoughts known, saying that he didn’t
believe the measure would pass if Kelly’s amendment were to be
included in the bond language.
Larry Urdahl said that with the construction of West
Hills, and then again with Steele Canyon, Alpine lost out on the
construction of a high school.
Kelly addressed his fellow members saying that the
original Prop H bond issue intended to build the 12th high
school to relieve overcrowding in the existing district high
schools, however, he said that overcrowding is no longer the
case. He also said that his amendment did not exclude the
building of the high school, it just put it on hold until the
time that enrollment justifies its construction.
Kelly also pointed out that without his support; the
bond carried a much weaker message to the ballot. He also
reminded the board that this bond had to pass with at least four
supporters, indicating that without his support they had to
guarantee everyone else’s support.
Shields supported Kelly’s statements, and became terse
with the attendants when they tried to object. Shields’ apparent
support of Kelly’s amendment sent the message that he would side
with Kelly and would not support the issue if the amendment was
not present in the bond language, which would basically kill the
bond.
Schreiber reiterated that she felt that taking the
Alpine high school out of the bond language was wrong and she
did not like being pigeonholed in this manner.
Before tensions became any worse, a recess was called.
Board members filed out, heavily in thought and talking amongst
themselves. Upon their return, attitudes changed, raising
concerns amongst attendees that meeting conduct violations had
taken place with back room discussions and dealings.
Shields proposed that the amendment change the number
of enrollees to 22,500 students, before the 12th high school is
built. Amazingly, Urdahl was now commending Kelly’s decision to
cooperate with unity on the board, and all were in appreciation
of Kelly support of the bond if it had his amendment in place.
Schreiber addressed the attendees at the meeting,
apologetically saying that she knew that it was going to appear
that they had once again failed Alpine, but they had no choice.
When the vote took place, the amendment was added to
the bond language, and the newly revised bond was voted onto the
November ballot, 5-0.
 E-mail
the Editor
|
