— from Music Advocacy Group —
The reduced scope of the 2017 School Construction Bond has relegated the Multi-purpose/Music Room to the ‘Alternate’ category, in are-prioritized list of projects for a new bid package. There is a serious possibility that the Multi-purpose/Music Room may be dropped. The School Board will open new bids for the revised scope of the 2017 Bond Construction project on Tuesday, December 18, at 2 pm in the school cafeteria. On the same day, the final decision on the scope of the construction will be made at the Tuesday School Board meeting at 5 pm in the school library. Both events are open to the public and we urge interested school music supporters to attend.
The following letter from the Music Advocacy Group has been sent to the School Board.
December 14, 2018
OISD School Board
Dear School Board members,
The Music Advocacy Group and our music supporters are deeply concerned that the Multi-Purpose/Music Room has been relegated to the category of ‘Alternate’. This is the third time that the desperately needed music room for the string program may be dropped. The existing classroom that Pamela Wright uses for the string program is inadequate for space and sound quality. For example, she has to fit thirty-two 5th and 6th grade string players in her classroom. Because her classroom is also used by all elementary music students, the setup and take down time for her larger string classes limits actual teaching time. It is not possible to share the current band room because band and string groups at each grade level meet at the same period.
The Orcas community has consistently expressed strong support for the completion of the Music Wing since it was dropped in the first bond. In the latest bond, the music room was a popular motivator that drove voter interest. We were elated that the Bond passed with the Multi-Purpose/Music room intact! This latest turn of events is of serious concern, not just for MAG but also for our community of music supporters who have helped sustain the school music program for over two decades. We ask that the completion of the Music Wing remain a part of this bond construction.
Sincerely,
Music Advocacy Group (MAG)
- Miriam Ziegler, President
- Jim Shaffer-Bauck
- Jan Ehrlichman
- Doug McTavish
- Sharon Ho
- Brian Moss
- Margie Bangs
I don’t have a “dog in this fight” since I do not have children attending school here on Orcas. For what it’s worth I think Orcas does a pretty good job of raising/nurturing kids since the ones I do meet seem terrific. However, I do (and did) have reservations concerning the recent Bond: seemed too much like the track/athletics tail wagging the academic dog. That concern has only increased with this suggestion to 86 the “Music Room.” Reviewing the documents presented at the September 27th School Board Meeting, it looks to me like the athletics slice of the Bond pie, which was already in excess of 50%, has now increased to just short of 2/3. From Bond Budget to the Construction Document phase the costs associated with the Music Room have increase by 0.3%, while those associated with the track and gym improvements have risen by 20%. And yet the Music Room is being cut (personal experience suggests that “alternates” rarely get built)!
In school I was neither athletic nor musical, focusing on academics, but now 40 years later I wish that I had taken up a musical instrument of some sort … anything. For life long enjoyment there are few things which I believe match that provided by the ability to play a musical instrument, even if only for ones own satisfaction.
I concur with everything MAG has said. It is so discouraging, after all this time, and all this work, that the music room stands in jeopardy of being cut once again. When the music room was first planned, my daughter was in grade school, and I had high hopes she’d get to move from the inadequate space the kids are currently in – to a new music space in high school. She’ll be off to college next year, and still no new room. Please, school board, please don’t let this happen.
A couple thoughts on what the Bond/Levy have presented to OISD as well as the Community.
It is important to remember that the “Track” item and all associated work related to the fields was removed from the bond issue and was approved as a separate levy. It is a stretch to say that that athletics is the tail waging the dog when according to the manner in which the bond and levy were approved, the track should be having ZERO impact on the cost of construction of the other elements. (note also that the track is in no way associated with the district athletic program) The included work on the Old Gym is less about athletics and more about asset preservation (due to 50 years of deferred maintenance) and a portion of that work is related to completing the expansion of the band space built with the last bond.
In terms of the information that the District should be clear in conveying to the public, they should be providing information on the projects as separate issues. If, in the final analysis, the cost of ground-work and field reconstruction that were promised as part of the levy exceed the approved levy, then that should be handled on a levy specific basis. The public should insist that bond-approved funds not be intermixed into the levy project.
I would ask that the district look back at why the bond failed originally and what additive elements were subsequently included that allowed for its approval. The public, including those like myself who opposed the original bond, asked that the district INCREASE the scope and deal with the nagging issues of the past 30 years.
If, it is determined that deferred maintenance items need to be cut from the scope of work, I would encourage the district to finally take responsibility for properly funding a robust maintenance program. The cans that have been kicked down the road by administration for the last 30 years cannot continue to take second-fiddle to expansion. We cannont continue to build out what we already dont allocate the funds to care for.
Hi Justin, I’m afraid that page 8 (of 37) in the document
“Updates Of Bond/Levy Projects as of 09.27.18” does not make the distinction as clear between athletic vs other improvements as you indicate. If I have misconstrued what the dollar figures on that page actually represent my apologies. Perhaps it is just the condensed manner in which the information is presented. In the table the costs certainly appear to be lumped together as a single project. The items which are not associated with the gym or the track (e.g., water, multi-purpose/music room, parking) appear to be coming in 20% under the original budgeted amount (“Bond Budget” vs CD in the table). And yet it is there were cuts are being proposed.
https://orcasislandschools.org/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=16816357
Ken,
Making sense of the numbers is difficult at this point as even the scope of work presented in the September document was different than what was pitched in the bond as passed. No need to apologize – the entire thing is a bit mind bending. The September document at this point is generally worthless as it applies to the current situation because the numbers included in it are at least 20% off of reality based on the bids received.
The problem with analysis of the latest rejected bid is that the bids are received as lump-sum numbers. Not fully broken down for good analytics.
In terms of what is considered academic v. athletic v. music that is an entirely subjective analysis. As a parent of numerous children past and present at the school, I would argue that each component is a contributor to their success. And future successes.
I know that I, and many others, voted favorably — Specifically For The Music Room!!! — a la multipurpose/music room…if it’s not included, and there’s a perception of promises broken, imho it’ll be difficult to get future bonds or support from us. Music education is a Priority folks! And not in a closet.
I really can’t imagin the music room not being compleated.. So, do what’s nessacerry and fulfill what you have projected.. you have the tools and resources.
Ken and Justin have a good conversation going here and show the seeds of figuring out what went wrong. It would greatly assist if the authors would state clearly what went wrong, or at least their theory…directly (if at all possible). Being wrong, off a little, or right on point—either way it moves us towards corrective action.
Music and athletics should both be adequately funded. My property tax dollars can go to seeing this done; competence in the administration of collected funds would be much appreciated.
Also, I share Ken’s personal note about wishing he had picked up an instrument when he was a young lad—so do I. Take note parents.
How disappointing! Didn’t people vote for this tax levy, expecting that the music room issue would be addressed?
For the record, last night the school board voted unanimously to accept a bid which includes construction of the Multipurpose/Music room. If all goes well, substantial completion will be in August 2019.
Hooray! Thank you Janet, and thank you school board.