SUBMITTED BY SANDY BATCHELOR ON MARCH 21 (AFTER PREVIOUS BOARD MTG)

Dear Board Members and Superintendent Hammond:

Thanks for the effective meeting last night. I appreciate that you did not close Emerson and seem to have genuinely listened to community concerns and ideas. Specifically:

Mr. Harris: Thank you for "looking outside the box" and pointing out that this IS a "rainy day." Perhaps we can put some money back into the "rainy day" fund with the parcel tax. The tax looks very minimal and do-able.

Mr. Taylor: I appreciate the frank manner and "right-brained" way in which you approach things, it's always good to have at least one person like that in the mix. I did not however, appreciate the fact that you re-iterated the backwards sentiment of the Enterprise editorial. The Emerson issue is not a "me first" issue. It affects all secondary education in Davis (half the kids!). One could argue that magnet programs, which serve a significantly smaller population are "me first."

Ms. Lovenburg: Thank you for asking for actual costs and savings of the options. Additionally, thank you for pointing out that without these numbers, not only can we not determine the best choice, we cannot weigh that cost with the potential negative ramifications of closing a school. I thank you for meeting with the parents of Emerson/Patwin and for obviously considering our thoughts. I also feel it is wise to look at where the next potential cuts could be so we can weigh those decisions with the current ones.

Ms. Allen: Thank you for suggesting that we need a facilities master plan--I cannot fathom why we do not have one already. This decision would have been a lot easier with that information. I believe there are other areas in which the Board does not have sufficient basic information with which they could make more informed decisions and promote good-will with the community at large.

Ms. Daleiden: Thank you for coming up with an option to save Emerson. You were the most responsive to my communications last week. I know you are all running around 24/7, but communication with the public is critical. Tempers only flare when we feel "railroaded." Thank you for bringing up the parcel tax, I feel this is very important and am greatly disappointed that the district missed the June deadline... was this a horrible oversight or are there other reasons? I like your approach of looking at the "whole system" as I feel we got into this mess by putting out individual fires as they came along in a very short-sighted manner. ( I think cutting off Emerson may become one of these "short-sighted" fixes).

The district needs to do it's "homework"...

1. A facilities master plan

2. A line-item budget, easily available, for the public, and a cost-benefit analysis of those numbers. I want to know how many children are in each class, in each school, to see if we are using every facility and staff resource. I want to know how much every program costs the district. I want an honest answer, backed up with data when I ask about a program instead of a cold shoulder that only raises suspicion. Then, I want the board, along with community input, to determine the priorities of the District and Board. The result; when inevitable budget cuts come, you know where it will hurt the least. More importantly, it will alleviate the "me first" tension that comes with lack of education and open, honest communication.

For example:
I did not understand why the district had to fund the DaVinci program once it lost it's funding and we found ourselves in a budget crisis, potentially cutting a neighborhood school. I approve of the program, and other magnet programs. I always support taxes/bonds which support our wide-range of programs in the district, no argument there, but it seemed fiscally irresponsible, in a crisis, to sacrifice basic education for "special programs". After attending the meeting (yes--I should have done more work before now), I realize that with a 9-12 consolidation, which I feel is reasonable and potentially preferable, we would be over capacity at the HS, so moving the DV kids out becomes a way to actually solve a numbers problem. Nobody ever explained this to me. In fact, I was treated as "divisive and unenlightened" whenever I asked questions. I have no hidden agenda to gut these programs, I just want all the facts and an equitable examination in times of budget cuts. Perhaps people are "unenlightened" because there is no way to really get this information, because of the defensive posturing around it, and because of the lack of basic studies as stated above, all leading to mistrust and suspicion.

3. Perhaps communication with the public needs to be improved. I did not realize we were in a budget shortfall previous to this January. Again, I take some responsibility, but I read the local paper, I publish the Patwin newsletter, you know where I live and my addresses, and this was not on my radar. On a side note, why was this deficit not addressed?

Lastly, please consider all the wonderful sentiments, ideas, and thoughts of my fellow "Patwinites/Emersonites"...(we float them around, you know)...people are hard working and have good thoughts and ideas, most of which I strongly agree with but should not address in one already-lengthy letter.

You will all be pleased to hear I will be away for spring break...see you at Emerson.

Thank you so much for all the hard work. Whatever the outcome, we need to know that this was treated with the discussion, research and integrity it warrants.