HB 453 – Oregon Rural Remote/Small School Funding
(3) A school may qualify as a small high school if:
(a) The school is in a school district that has an ADMw of less than 8,500;
and (b) The average daily membership in grades 9 through 12 for a high school teaching:
(A) Four grades is below 350. (B) Three grades is below 267.
Select here for the language of this bill.
CSD is reporting our 9th graders at the middle school,
even though they physically attend the High School.
This practice started under Superintendent Dunton in 2003 ( Now the Director of the Charter School ) and has been continued under Superintendent Trani. Our 9th graders are not physically attending the middle school but we report them there. The Charter is reporting their 9th graders at the high school – where they actually attend.
It appears that if we were to absorb all Charter high school students tomorrow, maybe less 5-10 students, based on the numbers from June 2012 from the district, we could could still qualify for this funding – Assuming we would move the Charter 9th graders into the MS column as we do for our district students. There was a letter from the spring of 2013 sent to the Charter Director, apparently from our school board, regarding the possible non-renewal of his rental agreement. See here for more.
$15 Million Corbett School District GO Bond – Failed
General Obligation bonds (GO Bonds) can be used for what is described on the ballot. In the past GO bonds could not be used for anything but capital improvements. As of 2011 they can now be used for anything with a life of more than one year.
Corbett Schools commissioned a scientific phone survey from the Nelson Group. Results to note from this survey:…
Area tax payers would support approximately 8 million for a new middle school building and seismic upgrades to improve safety for students in the district.
Voters would be more likely to vote for a bond if assurances were made about a limit on bringing in more out of the area students.
If we build it they will come. But who will pay?
The School Board voted 5-2 to place almost twice the amount the community survey results showed the community would support. Select here for notes from this meeting and to read the comments from the board members about how they voted. Select here for a recap of this survey and to see the full survey results as a pdf document.
26-154 Corbett School District - Official
VOTE FOR 1
Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . 633 37.66
No. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,048 62.34
In the report from January 16, 2013, from the Group MacKenzie, as part of the same conditional use application with Multnomah County, it states that currently our district enrolls 1,270 students for the 2012/2013 school year.
According to the Oregon Department of Education ( ODE ) Corbett’s resident ( students actually living in Corbett ) student population has fluctuated between 600 and 700 students for the past 20 years. The current application is asking for 1382 students and 80 staff ( for the main campus only ) and CAPS in Springdale is allowed 268 students and staff.
This would bring the District total allowed/desired number to 1,730 students and staff.
The current conditional use application with Multnomah County, specifically lists that if the buildings were improved ( classrooms added ) on the main campus ( perhaps through the passing of a bond for new construction? ) that the process would need to be revisited to leave the door open for even more students.
The plans presented for improvements for this bond have included more classrooms through the construction of a new high school ( to replace the current middle school ) creating overall more square footage than we currently have, as well as possibly a new gym, a theater and an all weather track. ( The ServPro Building alone is 14,000 square feet. )
There will be a hearing on this conditional use application on October 11, 2013, at 1:00 PM. Select here for more information and to review the application.
“This wording is there to pass the bond & appease the people”
Comments made at board meetings are below. These were mostly from Mr. Bob Lawerence, who was hired to work with the district on the bond, on Superintendent Randy Trani’s recommendations. Comments were in regards to placing a $15 million dollar bond on the ballot, knowing the survey did not support the projects that they wanted that money for:
- “Verbiage change is to disguise the things those surveyed did not seem to want.” …
- “Bill it as gym space and make it whatever you want later on.” …
- “General way to describe it & get voters to approve.” …
- “Acquire land for safe traffic flow, the purpose is not for safe traffic flow but it sounds good & if your buying land you have to state that you are.” … ( This is in reference to the additional plan to purchase the ServPro Building adjacent to the School District to use as a district office, storage and possibly preschool. This building is also very old and would add an additional 12-14,000 square feet of space. )
- Also, mentioned was the concept of contributing to a bond out of the operational fund and disguising it as contributions from out of area student families.
- “This wording is there to pass the bond & appease the people”
Read an opinion piece from a parent and Corbett resident who has been attending and recording these meetings.
October 1, 2013
Letter from the State Historic Preservation Office to both Randy Trani and Charlie O’Neil seems to point to our district and board’s lack of follow through as to laws that have to do with buildings that are publicly owned and can be considered historic. Select here for the full letter and documents sent. It is possible after assessment the district receives permission to tear the building down. On the other hand, it would have seemed prudent to at least find out if demolishing the building was even allowed prior to getting costs/plans to do so and build new structures in its place.
September 3, 2013
Special board meeting for the vote on the upcoming bond.
Select here for meeting notes.
* School board meeting notes from 8/21/2013.
* An open letter from a Corbett Community member who has been attending the meetings, about the upcoming bond.
July 2013 Board Meeting
Notes taken from the board meeting can be found here. ( Including the Survey Results and information/discussions about the recommendations of the Steering Committee. )
June 13, 2013
Notes taken from the board meeting can be found here. Facilities Steering Committee Recommendation to School Board. Select here.
December 3, 2012
The below information came from the special board meeting held on 11-26-12 which was announced on 11-24-12.
1. General Information on General Obligation bonds presented by Mary McPherason, of Seattle NW.2. Presentation from DLR – Asset Management Group 3. Information on PACs and the role of the District in getting a bond. * More information to be added soon.
Mary McPherason, Vice President of SNW - [ Handout from the presentation here - pdf ]
The formula ( page 4 of the above handout ) shows that the bond levy rate is the debt service payment divided by the assessed value. Mary Macpherson was asked why we can get a higher borrowing amount now than when the 1994 bond went out and she said in 1994 the assessed value was $221,000, so the formula was 6.1 million over $221,000.
The assessed value that is being used now is $330,000. So, since assessed value has gone up over $100,000 the borrowing amount can be higher. We can not promise that taxes will not go up, as you don’t vote for a specific payment amount per year, but the total dollar amount of the bond amortized over a specific period of time.
Will taxes remain the same? CSD has made the last full payment from our property taxes, the next payment to finish paying off the Grade School will be at a lower rate so in November of 2013 the tax amount collected will be around $1.56 per assessed thousand, rather than the current $2.35 per assessed thousand.
So, if we say we won’t be raising the tax amount to finance the potential changes, the tax rate would need to stay at $1.56 per thousand– and that would give the district approximately $10.5 million in GO bonds. ( If we want to go with the current 2012 number of $2.35 per assessed thousand, the taxes would drop in 2013, then increase back up in 2014. That would get the District $14.9 million in GO bonds. )
As your assessed value rises, so will your property taxes. On page five of the above handout, you will see the average increase in assessed value (in 2009 we jumped almost 13%, but lost 5% the next year. 2010 is the only year we had negative growth since the graph starts.) The bond rate is a projected rate and the rate can not be guaranteed at this time.
2. Long Range Facility Planning
DLR Design Group
DLR is an asset management team that works with many other school districts. They presented at this meeting. You can download the presentation information by selecting here. ( pdf ) This information is what DLR does in general [ download the pdf ] and is not specific to Corbett. They are an asset management team that would come in and do a physical, program, enrollment and space assessment. They want the entire process to be highly visible and will engage the school community and the neighboring community in meetings, discussions and plans.
If the assessment determines that we may want to float a bond in the November 2013 election, they want us to realize the 20-60-20 rule of thumb. Twenty percent of voters will vote for the school no matter what. As Mr. Rose put it, if the school wants to put in three new swimming pools, 20% will vote for it because they always vote for the schools. Twenty percent will always vote no on school issues. One example was a district where a school burned down and insurance wouldn’t cover all the costs… 20% voted no even though there was no other school available.
That leaves the 60% who stand there and say “Convince me.” This is the sector that wants to know: why do we need a bond, how are the students doing, are my tax dollars being spent wisely, am I being listened to as a taxpayer/community member, are we doing due diligence, do I trust the District? They want accountability from the District and depending on how each community member answers these questions, the District needs to determine if there are areas they need to correct before asking for a bond.
What was said as very Important to do: We need to have all sectors of our population show up at meetings, give input and disperse information to the community. If you don’t have all sectors, you do not have a safety valve or a realistic representation of the community. Pages 39-44 cover COMMUNITY OUTREACH. Including: Site-based meetings, Public meetings, District publications, Special brochures, Notes home with students, District website/email, Local publications & broadcast stations, Social media.
* Although several community members that were then attending these meetings stood and spoke for the record that they felt we should go with DLR, we did not hire them. We instead went with Rommel – who we used for the Springdale School. Of note, Rommel did not turn in their proposal on time or even to the specs requested.
3. PAC ( Political Action Committee )
When going for a bond, the District and the PAC (Political Action Committee) have two similar, but different roles.
The District can tell people to Vote. The District can pay staff to give information out to the community, printed informational materials, facilities assessment and all planning. If the bond passes the District may reimburse themselves for money spent to that point. Their information should be informational in content only. Not persuasive.
The PAC can tell people to Vote yes. The PAC would have to pay for any consulting done and for their own materials and costs. For a bond the size that is being mentioned, the PAC should be looking to raise $12,000 to $15,000. All donations are public record and need to be available at anytime for anyone who wants to see them.
* 11/28/12 there was a special school board meeting to consider placing a bond on an upcoming election ballot. Select here for the meeting notes and also the presentation documents that were provided by the presenters.
In 2009 Corbett was faced with a tough choice. Neighboring school districts were going to stop allowing transfers out of their districts and Corbett had about 100 students currently enrolled. The choice was either to open the Corbett Charter School, or suffer an “absolutely crippling” loss. And so the Corbett Charter School, something that Bob Dunton and Randy Trani had been working on for five years, quoted as saying here, was quickly voted and passed by the Corbett School Board.
“Under state law, * districts can’t prevent their students from transferring to a charter school, which must select students based on a lottery… Dunton didn’t advertise the charter school, hoping that the 100 out-of-district students would all make it in. All of them did, as well as 245 other students. Many of those new students were home-schooled or enrolled in private schools before, but 17 are from the Reynolds School District. ” [ Oregonian Article 4/12/2009 ] * This law has changed as of 1/1/2012 – Read here.
The 2010 shortfall was more of an unexpected emergency. It was explained by Randy Trani at an informational meeting on 9/14/2010. The result this time was a 3 million dollar levy on the fall ballot that did not pass. Here is one article online prior to the election. The result was that the Corbett Charter School was expanded and its contract extended until 2014. In addition parents were asked to send in donations to help meet our funding gap. You can read more about this here.
Still in a budget crisis and projected to be almost $600,000-$754,000 short for the 2011-2012 school year. In response our school board applied for a one million dollar loan for the first phase of creating more classrooms in Corbett School District at the Historic Springdale School, to bring in additional students for revenue from out of district.
Select here for the latest vision that will mean another expansion to our district population of up to 225 additional out of the area students.
In March of 2011 the Corbett School District School Board voted 5-2 to extend the current Corbett Charter School until 2014 and allow it to bring in up to 510 out of district students to help with revenue for our district. For online discussion on this topic select here. The Corbett School District School Board also voted to cut 10 school days and charge in-district parents for full day kindergarten, $2500.00 per year, among other plans that didn’t all end up being necessary by the end of the year. [ Link]
According to the Oregon Deparment of Education ( ODE ) our resident population has fluctuated between 600 and 700 students for the past 20 years. We show 673 enrolled in 1993. We show 705 in 1998.
“When I came to Corbett seven years ago there were 50 percent fewer students in the district and at least 25 percent more employees.” - Randy Trani from his 7 page paper from January 2011 about the Charter School. According to ODE’s enrollment data this is not a true statement. In 2004 we reported 639. In 2011 we reported 634 in district. Even adding in the Charter numbers in 2011 (336) this is not “50% fewer that we had 7 years prior.
“The Resident population over the last 8 years has gone from 525 to around 700 resident students…” Randy Trani speaking at the August 2012 pre-application meeting with Multnomah County. ( At 24:15 of the audio ) This resident number likely includes students that do not live in Corbett, but are allowed to be called “resident” due to a change in the laws under HB3681.
” Five years ago, when I was the principal, Corbett was host to around 170 inter-district transfer students. Some of those students had been “Corbett Kids” for many years. “ – Randy Trani in his explanation of the letter sent to the Charter in April 2013 about possible non-renewal of their rental agreement.
Subtracting the “170 inter-district transfer students” from the number of students reported to ODE in 2008, means we did have a resident population of only 525. In 1998 though, our resident population was 705, as reported to ODE.
According to those statements then: Between 1998 ( Bob Dunton arrived in 1999 ) and 2008 ( When Randy Trani became the Superintendent and Bob became the Director of the Corbett Charter School ) we lost 180 resident students? In the meantime we gained 170 from out of the district?
If accurate, then this would seem to validate the long standing complaints from Corbett residents that our district was replacing our own kids with those from out of the area. Obviously, this has created a large trust issue with some of those living here, especially as we have watched the number of out of the area students increase substantially.
” Over the last four years our resident population has increased by nearly 25% percent to 663! “ - Randy Trani and his view that Corbett is growing substantially and that transfer outs are down from October 2012. [ Link to CSD blog. ]
If this is truly “local-resident” gains, and not “residents” that are allowed that designation through HB3681, then at the least this statement might have been more accurate if written: “We added back the 25% we lost between 1998 and 2008!”
So just how did we bring back the numbers we lost?
The National Ranking ‘PR Campaign’ didn’t hurt. Then labeling Corbett Schools as “An Education Destination”, by Randy’s own words, also probably helped frame the way Corbett Schools were perceived to many that have since moved in from out of the area. ( Keeping in mind some have moved in and some moved right back out. )
Our student/staff numbers have significantly increased over the last 4 years
- We created a Charter School , and then expanded that Charter School when we had an accounting error in the amount of $725,000.
- We benefited from new laws ( HB3681 ) as of January of 2012 (which allow CSD to call a student a “RESIDENT” even if they do not reside in Corbett.)
- We opened CAPS in Springdale, allowing in up to 268 more students and staff.
- We are now going through a conditional use application that will more than double the allowed students on our main campus and if you add in CAPS we will have a total allowed students and staff of over 1,700.
SELECT HERE FOR THE OCTOBER 11th PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION!
* Keep in mind also, if a student leaves ( that lives here in Corbett ) and goes to a private school or is home schooled, these numbers are not reported to ODE. So our “transfer out” rates are not accurate, as we all know someone being home schooled or going to Open Door or Phonics Factory.
* This pdf shows the enrollment data from ODE ( Note the info from 1993-2000 and the district’s own submissions to the state as part of their TRANSPORTATION REPORTS. )
Facilities Steering Committee Recommendation to School Board ( June 14, 2013 )
Select here to download the pdf | Select here for more bond information
Cost Estimate Packet ( April 2013 )
On the first page it has interior construction not as seismic but as ADA, on second page they move that over to seismic. But the roof cost changes from 201,864 (which is replace the roof), to 50,000 with just doing connection to the walls. Page one seems to say $680,000 for seismic .. Page two says 1.7 for seismic. If you take the interior work out, then page two is around $790,000….. Basement says on one page as an IBC requirement, but on the other page as F/L/S upgrade. (I rounded numbers) Select here to download this document.
The Rommel Architectual Partnership ( March 2013 )
Select here to download the pdf
Rommel/Fortis Cost Summaries ( February 2013 )
Select here to download this report
Voters’ concerns over growing enrollment in the Corbett School District as well as the price tag of a $15 million bond measure may have led to its defeat Nov. 5, said Charlie O’Neil, school board chairman. Link here to article.
26-154 Corbett School District ( Official )
VOTE FOR 1
Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . 633 37.66
No. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,048 62.34
Select here to read an after election statement by one of the Save Our Schools PAC.
School Board Meeting Notes Nov 20, 2013
These notes were taken from attending the November 20th Corbett School District board meeting and then using the recorded audio of this meeting. This meeting was 3 hours long. This is only part 1. Part 2 will follow shortly as well as a link to the audio for those that prefer to hear it for themselves. ( Thanks to Karina Lande for providing these notes.)
Meeting started off with an accountability report regarding MESD this was lengthy and you can view the entire report & related financial details by accessing meeting agenda & packets through the school website from the board page. Or select here for a direct link.
Charlie O’Neil proposes a special facilities meeting due to recent failure of bond. “I think we need to get back to the drawing board and discuss the current facilities”. This will include discussions on the middle school building and start the discussion on getting a bond on the election ballot in May.
Meeting will be Monday Dec 2nd at 7:00 pm MPB Building
From the agenda for this special meeting, which you can download here, the agenda ends with the following “ACTION ITEM”.
Mention of emails to the board.
Annette Calcagno asks why there are only 2 correspondences in the board packet when she received 5 or 6 others that also went to all board members. She states they were regarding the graduation requirements.
Randy & Robin say they hadn’t seen them. Charlie states if they don’t go to the school and only to board members they’re not included they’re not forwarded & included.
Annette than asks Charlie, “when you get messages, as the chair, do you make sure they are forwarded?” Charlie, “no, I read them.” Annette, “I will forward them to Robin as I think it’s important they’re all included in the packets.” Victoria states she believes it was more like 8 or 9 that she received.
Randy states if they’re to an individual board member they wouldn’t be. Annette states no they were addressed to the board and went to everyone.
Charlie adds “I read them all, what’s the difference?” Annette says “because all correspondence should be included for the record not just some but not others, all of them.” She will get them to Robin to become part of public record. (Thank you Annette)
Next were principal reports. Touched on fire safety and firefighter visits. As well as various other day to day happenings.
DeeDee Hanes discussed the primary guided reading levels have been amped up and are more difficult than they used to be due to the implementation of common core. So higher levels should be reached at earlier grades than previously required by Corbett. This will be explained more in progress reports.
Lori Luna also discusses changes in the works related to the pending common core requirements and how they are starting to look at improving writing across the board for K – 8 grades. She also discussed grant opportunities to send teachers to intensive writing workshops to improve writing district wide.
I find it interesting while many are complaining about common core it appears that they will actually increase the learning expectations put on our kids and require higher levels of achievements in the basics here in Corbett.
I have 2 things I want to address. First of all I feel I need to ask the board step in regarding absent calls. Last year this was a continuing issue, calls happened at 4pm, after many back & forth they began happening at 9am.
Last I had talked with DeeDee she was going to work on getting cell #’s added so we’re notified whether home or not.
Much to my dismay this year there are no absent calls being made at all. My child missed a day on Oct 29th, the next day I emailed Randy & DeeDee both, asking why and what would be done to address it. It took 8 days to get a response from DeeDee. She said the outside company handling these matters had looked into and fixed the situation. I never got any response from Randy.
Today my child was absent and again I did not receive a call from the school regarding her absence. I have heard from other parents as well whom have not received the calls this year. I feel this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed and it appears the principal & superintendent are not concerned so I am asking the board to follow up on this.
* NOTE: It is a state law that the school calls your home if your child is absent by the end of the school day. HB 3197 went into effect in 2011. (Other neighboring school districts make these calls by 9 AM.) For more about this law, which was called the Kyron Horman absentee bill, read here.
I also want to address the bond failure. To anyone bitter with the election results I refer you to the Nelson Community Survey. The writing was on the wall yet your administration did the opposite of what the community expressed in the survey.
I hope that through the election results you will all take to heart the numbers that voted down your proposal. I also hope that you will sincerely listen to this community and begin to work on the issues surrounding our schools that have been continually disregarded. You don’t have to look far to see the root causes of the bond failure.
As you know I am on the SOS PAC and through this I talked with many people and following are the main concerns I heard from your community as to why they would not support a bond.
-No limits set on the numbers of outside kids
-The charter school
-The lack of trust due to previous financial issues regarding missing funds & Springdale prioritized above a school in need that had kids in it.
-The missing research and pieces in the planning.
-The purchase of additional buildings and excess classrooms.
-Unnecessary wants in hard economic times.
-The tactics used and general lack of trust in the administration.
-The over all lack of cooperation between the administration and the people.
We face many large dividing issues in this community and I hope that you will take this opportunity to truly listen. I think any attempts to go right back to pushing a bond without first doing so is a waste of effort and money.
We have an opportunity here to bridge the gaps and make our schools great. Imagine the possibilities of a district truly supported by it’s entire community. We all want what’s best for the kids, it’s time to focus on the hard questions so we can make that a reality. Then funding our building repairs would no longer be such an obstacle. Thank you for your time.
First I want to say that my references when I’m speaking and I say “we”, it’s not a we it’s just me so these are my opinions & I’m not dragging anybody else in this with me, just me. When I have spoken toward you in the past I’ve tried not to offend anyone & not say the wrong thing. In doing so I never really say what I want and I don’t say what I mean. But not tonight.
I just have to say flat out, what were you thinking? I don’t understand authorizing money to be spent for a public survey, a professionally moderated steering committee and than disregarding the results. I hope you weren’t surprised the bond failed. You asked too much. So the last few months have been a waste of time, a waste of money, now you have nothing.
So this “back to the drawing board”….when you shouldn’t have left it in the first place? This was extremely disappointing. When and if you plan on placing blame against anyone who voted no, the reason you didn’t get your 15 million was we disagree, plain and simple. That’s what defeated the bond. The voters said no long before it was on the ballot. I don’t think you listened and I don’t know why.
It is now time to be individual thinkers and not be swept up in some grandiose ideas that Corbett voters have said that they are not paying for. The bond results, 62% voted no, 38% voted yes. You better listen to your voters because we are not going away even though some of you think we are not intelligent enough to know what’s happening. Lets get back to our needs not our wants.
She than asks about the lack of school zone & speed signs around Springdale.
Randy responds saying that the state decision is whats holding it up. He says please contact the state and ask them because I agree with you.
So a month ago I sent correspondence to each board member trying to figure out what you guys were thinking about a simple subject and I wanted to take this time tonight to thank Victoria Purvine for actually responding to me. That’s it, Thanks
I worked for 6 months on the steering committee. I felt it was a good process, anybody that wanted to speak had the chance to speak. It was mostly cordial & courteous. A couple times some people felt the need to yell over each other but it was a good process.
Obviously there’s some differences of opinions on the needs. I have my opinions on it which are different from some of the people. What I want to see is where we’re going forward. What’s the plan? A couple board members pushed to have a May bond for a lower amount. I want to know where we’re going with that? What’s the plan? How are we gonna get that time wise? That’s six months to be to where we were.
You guys need to work on this. We need to get it going. The facilities needs don’t change. Two of the things that I pushed in that committee were fire sprinklers in all our buildings. I find it ironic that the school board meetings are held in one of the 3 buildings with sprinklers, I don’t know if you’ve considered that.
Having fought fire in these buildings, being injured in this building fighting fire and that whole building not just that building that would require it’s replaced and every other building in here that doesn’t have them. That not only protects our kids our visitors but it protects this building in the middle of the night when nobody’s here. I’ve responded 40-50 times to these buildings over the years for alarms.
These are our biggest investments we need to look at what we’re protecting & what we’re doing and not just what we feel we need. That to me is one of the most critical things of any bond is protecting these buildings.
The other is efficiency. The electrical, the HVAC systems. The older buildings are wasting money, these systems need to be upgraded. Again lets pull together, let’s see where we’re going. I again enjoyed working on that committee, I’d be happy to do it again. I felt it was a good process, I liked the people. Thank you.
Before I start I want to say that I absolutely say everything with all due respect and I appreciate all the members on the board and I also appreciate all the administrators, I know how hard you all work.
Ya know I was very surprised with the outcome of the bond and when I saw the discrepancy in the numbers I felt like there’s something here that I don’t understand. If it had been closer it would just be a difference of opinions.
In the last 2 weeks I have called many many members of this community. People that I didn’t know. And the first thing I say is we have amazing people here in Corbett, we really do, we have incredible people here.
I heard a number of things over and over and over. The first thing was the charter. People are not happy with the charter school , they’re not happy with the way it was set up, they’re not happy with the compensation, or with the people that run the charter school.
The second thing that I heard was the number of kids in the schools and people are concerned, and it seems like you hear that over and over and over.
The third thing is the bond was just too much money. I think that one of the most profound things that was said to me was by Roger Mackaness, and he said: “If you want to understand this community & why this bond failed you need to answer one question, and that is why would you vote no?”
And I couldn’t think of a reason to vote no, and then he said to me:
“If you had your kid in the school and your kid had a problem, maybe they needed an IEP, maybe they were bullied or whatever the problem was and you felt like you did not get the response you needed & possibly you were not treated respectfully and your kids needs were not met, ” …. he said: “would you give me if I were the administrator 15 million dollars to build a new school?”
Ya know when it comes to your kid If there’s anything that’s going to make your claws come out, that would be it.
Unfortunately I think we are all in the wake of some decisions made by Bob Dunton and that administration and things that have happened. There are a lot of people that are hurt in this community and I was so surprised to listen to people and when I called them I didn’t have an agenda. I really wanted to hear people’s stories and I wanted to hear opinions. I really felt that my eyes were opened.
So I feel like that we are in a place to pull this community back together. The only way that we are going to achieve anything is if we pull this community together and the split is over the school. The split is over the school and the only way for that to happen is for all of you to hear the people. And if you don’t hear the people we are never going to pass any kind of a bond. Regardless of what we want regardless of what we need.
So my hope is that all of you will look at this the same way as I have. Look at these numbers, this town has spoken and they don’t have the same opinion, I voted for the bond because I wanted a new school even though I thought it was too much money. But we have got to listen to the people. Thanks.
What do you think of all the comments? Does this perhaps inspire you to let your voice be heard as well? Now is the time!!! Come to the special board meeting Monday night 7pm, specifically bond related meeting! We don’t all have to agree but we should all speak up and let the board hear our concerns!”
The Corbett School District was approved by Multnomah County for a community service permit that will increase the student population for the Corbett School district to an allowed total of 1,730 students and staff. The conditional use narrative originally submitted by Randy Trani (RT) and Peter Fry as part of the pre-application in early July 2012 asked for 1890 students and staff, in a worst case scenario. The first meeting, which was informational, was held on August 23rd, 2012. You can select here for more information, audio and documents.
This application was asking for 1382 students and 80 staff (main campus only). With the addition of CAPS in Springdale ( allowed 268 students and staff ) this now brings the District’s allowed total population to 1,730 students and staff. According to the Oregon Department of Education ( ODE ) Corbett’s resident student population has fluctuated between 600 and 700 students for the past 20 years.
* Select the below image to download the PDF Case File of the Hearing Officer’s Decision
December 9, 2013
To: Randy Trani
CC: All school board members and the Corbett Post
As an audience member at the special board meeting on December 2, 2013, I feel there are important issues that must be addressed. The board confirmed, at this meeting, that they had no previous knowledge of the statements and information they received in the form of 15 pages you had prepared for them. The board was asked to agree to prepared statements and to actively promote these statements in the community. (One board member did ask to see the information the day before the meeting, when the board was made aware of what was planned by you, and you confirmed during this meeting that you denied that request.) Chairman O’Neil is remiss as the chair in allowing all this to happen.
Below are some of the specific concerns I have with the information you shared at this meeting:
The research you did regarding ORS 358.653 Heritage Buildings on the very day of the meeting.
A letter was sent to you, and cc’d to Chairman Charlie O’Neil, that was dated October 1, 2013 by the Oregon State Historic Preservation Specialist Mr. Jason Allen, discussing the value of our type of building as a historic structure. The letter asked you to share it with your board members, “so that all may be aware of the applicability of this statute”. Included in that correspondence was a copy of the ORS 358.653. You stated during this meeting that you had “just looked up the information that day”. The truth is you were given that information from the State almost 2 months prior. You did not choose to share it with the board. By not passing that letter on to your board, as requested from the State, you did a disservice to Mr. Allen and the remaining school board members.
Misrepresenting the truth about Oregon State school funding.
All schools receive the same base amount within a few dollars per student by the State based on an identical funding rubric (around $6,585.) Other monies may find their way to different districts because of Special Programs based upon the district’s individual needs. You and some of your board members have continued to perpetuate that Corbett School District “does more with less” and Mr. Hyzer stated other districts get 25% more than us. Other board members pointed out this is untrue when stated. As a Superintendent you are not doing your job by allowing this misinformation to continue. Other Districts may pursue every dollar they can get (For example, Title 1 funding), but you have stated in public meetings that it is not worth the time to go after these dollars.
Infusing “dangerous” and “liability” into statements you were asking the board members to not only agree to but also promote in the community.
“Dangerous” was added by Bob Lawrence during the Steering Committee meetings and is only related to current Building Code definitions. It is not an actual condition of the building. “Liability” is a word added by you at the Special Board meeting. When you were questioned about this word, you stated that actually it was just your opinion. As the Superintendent you should not be putting out your opinions regarding important issues like this at board meetings or encouraging board members to agree with these false statements and encouraging them to repeat them in the community as you did during this special board meeting. It appears you are using these words as leverage to garner support for passing the next bond. This conversation comes on the heels of a bond failure, which for many was based on a lack of trust for just these types of reasons.
“Bad water” at the middle school for over 10 years?
If this were actually true, then why was the problem not corrected when it was discovered? Why were the people in the chain of responsibility not terminated for not addressing it? Why are signs not posted or why have parents not been officially notified? The fact is, the water at the Middle School is provided by the Corbett Water District and is treated just the same as any other water delivered to Corbett residents. The State has always approved Corbett Water samples. If you have tests showing the water has been “non-potable for the last ten years, as you stated during this meeting, please send me the copies of these tests. Otherwise, it appears you could be using your position as the superintendent to manufacture fear and influence over your board and community in a clearly unethical manner.
Using Title 9 as a “liability” issue:
This is in fact a function of participation based on the percentage of male and female enrollment and is not a physical space issue. The question centers around equal opportunity and nothing else. So, if 60% if your students are male, and 40% are female, you should see equal participation in overall athletic numbers.
The Superintendent should clarify this for the board and the audience because it appears many are unfamiliar with the exact meaning of Title 9 and they assume it means a major expense for capital improvements such as equal sized shower rooms. A class action law suit (2011) which was brought against many Oregon school districts included Corbett School District. The lawsuit was regarding participations rates and lack of opportunities for the female students, not the size of the locker rooms. This lawsuit was based on Title 9 requirements and alleged:
The CORBETT SCHOOL DISTRICT 39 data, as outlined in the Factual Allegations above, demonstrate that the District is not providing equal opportunities for female CORBETT HIGH SCHOOL students to play sports under Title IX’s three-part participation test.
In closing, I would like to say the meetings in Corbett do not appear to be Board meetings, but rather Superintendent meetings. This contributes to the low turn out by the public as they are there to hear discussion by their elected officials, and that is not what takes place. Especially when the meetings run on well past the optimum of two hours, in this case the meeting went for 5 hours.
January 6, 2014 | To the Corbett School Board and Others,
An invitation was presented to our school board members at the December 2nd, 2013 ( Corrected ) school board meeting, to attend an open forum at the Grange, sponsored by NEMCCA (NE Multnomah County Community Association). This was to be a chance for community members to ask our individual board members questions about our schools. It was to be moderated and facilitated for the board. When the question was asked about the best date for the school board, Board Chairman Charlie O’Neil requested that the forum take place prior to the January board meeting. This has been the goal that has since been worked toward diligently.
The date was set for the Corbett Grange Hall on January 11, 2014 from 4 pm until 6 pm. Almost a month after this meeting, (Corrected) Chairman O’Neil contacted NEMCCA stating that this meeting would be a public meetings violation and so the school board could not attend. The Oregon School Board Association (OSBA) had been contacted by NEMCCA prior to this call and this meeting met all the presented OSBA guidelines. See the attached letter. ( Below )
I called Chairman O’Neil to work to make this meeting happen for our community, and explain that we met the OSBA criteria. Chairman O’Neil said he had received an e-mail from the OSBA a couple of weeks ago regarding public meeting requirements and assumed this meeting did not meet that criteria. I asked him why he had not passed this information on to those putting on the meeting so this could have been resolved, or even passed on to the other board members. He had no response. After going over the concerns, Chairman O’Neil said he would call the OSBA and get additional clarification.
On Friday January 3rd, 2014, ( Corrected ) I again spoke with Chairman O’Neil. He shared that he had spoken to Superintendent Trani regarding the legalities. I asked him what ORS would be violated by having the board attend this meeting and he did not have an answer. The chairman shared that the district prefers to hold their own meeting, at their own venue, and only after the board has voted on the Charter and upcoming bond issues. What Chairman O’Neil finally said was, the board did not want to attend a meeting at this time. I spoke with a couple of the board members, they had not been contacted by the Chair regarding attending this meeting. This was a decision the Chair made for the board.
Let this letter serve as both a public record of our failed attempt to allow the community a venue to receive answers to their questions and as something for our board members and community to discuss and consider as well. Corbett citizens deserve better than this.
January 8, 2014 Special Board Meeting Link ( Chairman addressed this letter/situation)
Attachment to the above letter to the Corbett School District Board of Directors
January 2014 from Gary Purvine.
Following are the specific areas of concern that the Chairman assumed that our forum would not “meet”.
As you can see, we were prepared to meet all of these requirements.
* The School Board Chairman must call for a special board meeting at least 24 hours in
advance of the event and identify the purpose of the meeting. As the board is already
holding a Special Board meeting on January 8, 2014 meeting this obligation could have easily been
* No discussion or deliberation between the board members could occur if four or more
board members attended. The individual board members should all be well aware of the laws in
this regard. Whenever 4 or more board members are together it constitutes a quorum. Also, a
moderator was scheduled to help insure there was no discussion between board members and the
same question could not be asked of two board members. All questions would be in writing and
passed to the moderator and then the board member would have two minutes for their
response. These two minutes would be timed to keep things moving along. This would allow for as
many questions as possible being asked and no one board member dominating the meeting.
* The physical meeting place must be ADA accessible. The grange is ADA accessible. There is
also a sound system for those who are harder of hearing, or who prefer to sit towards the back.
* Minutes or notes need to be taken. The NEMCCA board members who were organizing this
event had a recorder available, and were willing to pass a copy to the school for their records, or
have them transcribed if preferred. In a phone conversation with Chairman O’Neil he stated that
he was concerned that a recorder might break, we assured him we would have two there.
THE BELOW WAS SENT TO THE OSBA ATTORNEYS 1/4/2014
Please help us in making a successful Public Meeting between our community and the
Corbett school board members.
NEMCCA (Northeast Multnomah County Community Association) has invited
the Corbett School Board to an open forum with the public to answer written questions
from the audience regarding public school matters. The meeting will be held on
Saturday, January 11, 2014 at the Corbett Grange Hall, which is an ADA approved
building and frequently holds public meeting events. The meeting will be recorded so
that minutes will be available for the Board and NEMCCA.
A moderator will conduct the Q&A session allowing a two-minute response from
individual board members. Each member will answer questions without input from other
members of the board, and no one will be allowed to correct or add to statements that
have been made. Each board member will be answering questions based on their
understanding of issues, or beliefs. There will be no discussion or deliberation by the
board during this meeting on any subject.
We proposed this plan to the school board approximately 30 days ago and at that time
four of them voiced that they would be able to participate, we have not heard from the
others. Now the board Chair has contacted us saying he believes the meeting to be a
violation, or potential violation, of public meeting laws.
I have spoken with Peggy Holstedt of the OSBA, requesting that she speak with an
attorney to make sure we are not in any violation, as that would never be our intent.
She said she spoke with one of you, and that we needed to make sure the bUilding was
ADA accessible (it is), that we have minutes taken (we are suggesting a recording that
can be shared and transcribed if necessary), that there is no discussion or deliberation
(none was ever intended, strictly Q&A) and that the Board has to announce this as a
special board meeting 24 hours in advance outlining it as a forum with the public,
presented by NEMCCA. (This can be done at their Special Board meeting being held
on January 8,2014).
Since I received the requirements from Ms. Holdstedt, the Chair, who said he had also
spoken with Ms. Holdstedt, contacted one of our board members saying the meeting is
definitely a violation of the public meeting laws. However, Mr. O’Neil has been unable
to explain what portion of the law we could be violating.
Please send too us your view of our request and tell us if our protocol is accurate and if
not, then what can we do to correct this matter.
NEMCCA (Northeast Multnomah Community Association) is a public entity established
in the late 1950′s to pass along matters that concern our community and we are not
allowed by bylaws to express a political opinion. Therefore, we are trying to do what is
best for our community and that is to provide the community with information.
Original PDF can be downloaded here.