Friday, January 21, 2011

Final Meeting of PSS Boundary Advisory Committee Concludes With Votes

The meeting of the PPS Boundary Advisory Committee at Sabin School on Thursday night, Jan. 20th, for all its length, had no surprises. After spending the first two-thirds of the time talking through details of options and plans the BAC had privately considered a day or so ago, ten of the twelve BAC members, with various degrees of reluctance, voted for the so-called “orange” plan with modifications, one voted for the “blue” plan, and one, Alameda representative Scott Rider, declined to vote for either plan on the grounds they were far too rushed for decisions of this scale.

Marshalled to their task by the extremely skilled independent consultant hired (we presume) by the PPS to see the BAC complete their assignment, the BAC members deserve a round of grateful applause for their valiant efforts to do their job. But it was like watching a trial with only a prosecuting attorney serving as judge. It was readily admitted that the statistics used for the demographics were years old, some from the 2000 census, student estimates based on current student enrollment not the number poised to enroll. Undisclosed authorities had declared that some sections on the district provided map of Alameda/Beaumont could not be considered. So the BAC dutifully limited their inquiry to the sections of Alameda (and a piece of Irvington) that were presented for surgery.

Some of the BAC felt more concern for the dicing of the grand old Alameda Neighborhood than others. But all (except one) yielded to the coaching of the consultant who assured them they owed it to the Superintendent to recommend not only one of the two plans, but a basis for cutting a new boundary.

In the final third (plus overtime) of the meeting, the consultant adroitly led the group to consider each of the segments that were helpfully labeled by the district for possible movement to the Sabin School boundary, and to decide the priority the Superintendent should use in determining which segments should be included to obtain the requisite number of students. Much discussion was devoted to deciding where the Tri-Met bus runs through Alameda. Perhaps Tri-Met has information about students-to-be that PPS lacks. The final series of votes were taken by having the BAC members show four fingers if they agreed, three if they agreed reluctantly, two if they had questions, and one finger if they declined to vote. Scott was polite, and it was suggested to him that he voted with the wrong finger.

It was hard to hear which segments were finally chosen for the prioritization, so that information will be posted Friday after consultation with our representative.

11 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Someone is editing out the comments they don't like, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I respect Scott's criticism of the process and data, but it was clear that in an effort to protect section E, the BAC failed to follow the requirement to consider proximity as a significant factor in their determination. Unfortunately E (even the parts closer to Sabin) are considered more "Alameda-ish" than others. So some families will face close to a mile walk so others - who live closer to Sabin - are protected. Scott commented at the end of the January 9th meeting at Freemont Church that he didn't want to break up E or M because he considered them to be the core of the Alameda neighborhood. I would have hoped that he would have felt it his responsibility to represent the entire Alameda neighborhood not just what he deemed it's core. If there was fair representation on the BAC I'm sure the outcome would have been different.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This process is sad. Those people on the BAC have been set up to fail. Raise a white flag, and call foul on the process. You have done a valiant job in the attempt to get the info and structure you need.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anyone who attended the meeting would know that I did call foul on the entire process. I feel I was very clear in my criticism of PPS, timing, inclusion/representation, and the process. Additionally, I voted against including zones A, B, and C in a boundary redraw, not just E as some would imply. I was the only vote that stood up for anyone in these zones. I'm sorry if the results are unacceptable, as they are for me too, but I spent nearly 100 hours away from my family in the past 7 weeks standing up for all of these families and fought for you to the end.

    Thank you for the opportunity to serve as your representative.

    Scott

    ReplyDelete
  8. re the deletes- I deleted my own comment because of a spelling error. Then I decided to just link to the article to the alameda pdx page. I'm pretty sure only the authors have deleted their own posts.

    second - Scott is right. He is the only one who called foul on the whole process, abstained in voting for any color option because he didn't think the process was fair, and voted with one finger (!) for A,B,C and E, if I remember the "finger votes" correctly.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I wish the Oregonian let you edit your comments. shux

    ReplyDelete
  10. Who has the new map? with a link?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Scott, thank you for wrestling with this crazy process. Glad to hear you called them out on the flaws and bias.
    Can you imagine how much more bitter incoming families would feel if you hadn't printed those fliers in December?
    Get some well-deserved rest.
    Amy

    ReplyDelete