Hard Work By Team "Packaged" For Effect While the entire document is 49 pages, the report itself is only 5. There is a two page letter from the project czar, Raymond Martin, the $2000 a week consultant, a title page, the 5 pages of the report, and 48 pages of memorandum (mostly emails) from the members of the team to bulk it up so it looks like a big report. (
to see a list of the team click here). No doubt the members of the team did a conscientious job of inspecting the campus and writing emails to Martin. These memorandums and emails reflect people who are conscientious and professional. It is Martin's failures that make the report of little use except as the political document it was intended to be. No where is there a single cost estimate. Back to the lack of scope. One failure was to compare the findings with those of the Hite Plan for Renovation to see what could be learned from the comparison. Those already identified could and should have been marked. But, without a well thought out scope document, these kind of ideas that could have greatly increased the value of the report aren't considered. You will recall that what was a" safety and health study" is now called a "safety and security study." As noted in the first of this series, there was no written scope and without one, the findings can get out of whack. The Hite study dealt with "security" from the standpoint of physical control of the campus--how to avoid a "Combine" here. It is not clear why the name of the study was changed, but its scope has nothing to do with that kind of security. The inspection team included no one with that expertise. So if you are looking for identification of those needs, you will not find them. As for Martin's report, he reviewed the material and classified the findings into five categories:
- Emergencies
- Updates to Current Codes
- Maintenance
- Housekeeping
- Miscellaneous
The biggest items in this entire report are buried at the back in the miscellaneous section. It is suggested that no less than a site engineer, an environmental consultant, an architectural consultant, mechanical engineer, and lighting consultant be retained to look at various issues. Duh, that is what taxpayers money has already paid for in the Hite Report. Why won't the commissioners use it? I thought Mr. Martin had the expertise to examine these matters. When you start reading a report on conditions at a school, and you find references to a supreme court definition of emergencies, it is kind of a clue of the b-s that is to follow throughout the report. I think we all intuitively know with what an emergency is but the author wanted as dramatic a report as possible. The report calls for an integrated fire alarm system and fire suppression systems. It notes that contracts have been let for the fire suppression system. Updates to Current Codes refers to items that met the building codes when built, but the old buildings do not meet the all the requirements they would have to meet if the were rebuilt today. Most of these would were identified and correction provided for in the Hite report for the renovations. Few if any will come as surprise to the Board of Education. However, since the commissioners never would agree to a thorough briefing on The Hite Report, they may come as a surprise to them. This is why the unwillingness and stone-walling by the commissioners on the Hite Report was a major mistake. This is the part of the report that undoubted most parents and other speakers had reference to when speaking of health and safety problems. Maintenance is a suggest that certain items
inter alia be considered for regular check lists.
inter alia?
inter alia? What on earth is
inter alia? It is one of those show-off words. It simply means "other things". Why use
inter alia instead of "and other things." It is one of those b-s words designed to let us know how smart the writer it. In the case of suggesting that the schools have certain things like checking light bulbs behind exit signs on a regular check list, it also helps to make it sound like a big deal. There is no evidence that the schools don't have a check list. A simple email would have found out. But no, we have got
inter alia? The Housekeeping section is much like the maintenance section--clear the gutters, change air filters, etc. Why this isn't"
inter alia?", too, I am not sure. Read this recommendation regarding the water problem with my comments:
reportedly-with all the rainstorms he never saw the problem.) floods ankle deep during and immediately after heavy rains. It should (
should--does that mean yes it will or maybe it will. It sounds like a highly qualified statement) be possible to raise the surface of this walkway 6” or 7”+. Existing surface should be demolished and substrate built up with crushed stone and 4” reinforced concrete topping. Leaks in existing cover should be repaired. When asked where the water would go, Martin replied "into the grass?" Certainly not a very precise answer. Of course, he does recommend bringing in a civil engineer to look at the real problem.
Hard Work By Team "Packaged" For Effect While the entire document is 49 pages, the report itself is only 5. There is a two page letter from the project czar, Raymond Martin, the $2000 a week consultant, a title page, the 5 pages of the report, and 48 pages of memorandum (mostly emails) from the members of the team to bulk it up so it looks like a big report. (to see a list of the team click here). No doubt the members of the team did a conscientious job of inspecting the campus and writing emails to Martin. These memorandums and emails reflect people who are conscientious and professional. It is Martin's failures that make the report of little use except as the political document it was intended to be. No where is there a single cost estimate. Back to the lack of scope. One failure was to compare the findings with those of the Hite Plan for Renovation to see what could be learned from the comparison. Those already identified could and should have been marked. But, without a well thought out scope document, these kind of ideas that could have greatly increased the value of the report aren't considered. You will recall that what was a" safety and health study" is now called a "safety and security study." As noted in the first of this series, there was no written scope and without one, the findings can get out of whack. The Hite study dealt with "security" from the standpoint of physical control of the campus--how to avoid a "Combine" here. It is not clear why the name of the study was changed, but its scope has nothing to do with that kind of security. The inspection team included no one with that expertise. So if you are looking for identification of those needs, you will not find them. As for Martin's report, he reviewed the material and classified the findings into five categories: 
No comments:
Post a Comment