Caveats In ‘School Options’ Story Should Have Been Reported

To the Editor:

The second paragraph of last week’s story by John Voket titled “School Officials See Options If NHS Expansion Is Rejected” reads as follows: “The school district business manager suggested it might be possible to mount up to three referenda on the project before a June 30 expiration date on currently available state grants would kill the plan for now if it is not approved by then.” I did not say this nor did I suggest this.

Mr Voket created this story on his own volition or was prompted to write it by someone else. The reader of The Bee needs to know that the options as suggested in the article were never discussed. This is not factual reporting.

Let me tell you how the story evolved and you decide if this is news.

Mr Voket called me and presented a theoretical scenario, prefacing it with the following: “If the planets were in alignment and all the parties came together and the BOE noticed a special meeting for 4/23 if the HS project went down, and the BOF, LC and BOS all cooperatively scheduled meetings to consider a lesser project, i.e., without the bid alternates or fields, that another referendum can occur as early as May 20th”. He went on to suggest that this same scenario could occur again in June.

I responded by saying I agree that if all bodies worked cooperatively we could accomplish great things. I went on to say that as a practical matter this scenario was fraught with issues, such as: it is unlikely that we could get any consensus in such a short time frame; it could not be redesigned at this late date; the willingness of bidders to bid a project that was rejected; the time it takes to receive and evaluate bids; the time it takes to award construction contracts; the time it takes companies to mobilize their work forces; the critical need to have work begin in July and not when the kids are back in September; and the overall uncertainty of exactly what would happen if the first vote failed and what a subsequent vote would be for.

Without any of these real concerns included, a one-sided story is written which leads the reader to believe there are viable options. The practical issues that were discussed with Mr Voket should have been included.

The reader needs to decide whether this is fair reporting of the news or not.

Ronald J. Bienkowski

31 Peck’s Lane, Newtown                                                  April 8, 2008