The school district continues to fight the disinformation spread to paint the high school project as excessive and/or unnecessary.
The district will continue to evaluate the project, it's scope and the impact it has on taxpayers over the next months. Please attend or view School Board meetings to hear further discussion. Board meetings can now be viewed on the Internet 48 hours after the meeting at www.ucfsd.org/board.
This page will attempt to highlight and explain common misperceptions of the project and related issues.
Corrections to the May 14 Kennett Paper Building Project Story (added 5/14/09)
The Kennett Paper incorrectly reported the following items which were presented by district administration to the UCFSD School Board at the May 7, 2009 Special Work Session.
"Building Project Awarded" - Correction: The project has NOT been awarded. Administration has made a recommendation to the Board. Anticipated award will be be on May 18th.
"Estimated total cost of the project is $69,678,412.00" - Correction: This was the estimated cost at the Act 34 Hearing. The current estimated cost for the entire project is $65,128,995.00.
"$69.6 million project will begin next month" - Correction: The 65.1 million project is projected to begin next month.
"The total project cost is reduced to $5,029,328.00 or 7.2%" - Correction: The total project is reduced by $5,029,328.00 or 7.2%.
Response to Irvin Lieberman's Commentary in the April 15 Chester County Press (added 4/28/09)
Mr. Lieberman seemingly continues to repeat what he has heard from detractors of the district when he lambasts the Unionville-Chadds School Board and Superintendent Parker. Mr. Lieberman has not been seen at a School Board meeting and the school district did not receive an inquiry from him or his newspaper on the issues he presents. Had he asked for comment, he would have learned that the district is attempting to protect student privacy and ultimately, the privacy of every community member. The district wholly supports the new Right-to-Know law enacted this year, but has a responsibility to protect student and taxpayer data. The district regularly provides information to the community when asked and more recently has launched a campaign to communicate more effectively. It is important to note that the district’s recent decision to deny information which would jeopardize school security was upheld by Pennsylvania’s Office of Open Records and the Department of Homeland Security.
Those in public goverance and the entities they represent, are held accountable to the standards of the community, and are subject to critical review. The district is accesssible to the community and welcomes comments and questions. We only regret that Mr. Lieberman did not take advantage of the opportunity to communicate with the district.
The District is not "Hiding" Information (added 3/1/09)
On January 1, 2009, the new "Right-to-Know" (RTK) law required all public entities to form Open Records Offices to reply, in a timely manner, to requests for information from any citizen of our country. The following is an except from a recent communication regarding RTK requests.
"These requests have come from across the Commonwealth, with several recently received from out of state. One of the notable ones, a request for Joe Paterno's professional contract, was sent from a newspaper in Altoona as a test of our RTK response time. An increasing number of requests are emanating from contractors and vendors wishing to review the pricing scales or original designs of their competitors. Still others are filed for information and materials that are available on our website, or easily accessible in our offices. We have openly responded to requests for employment contracts, salary information, and even our legal bills. The vast majority of these requests are immediately addressed. While many are labor intensive, and costly to the District, we are compliant.
Some requests, however, cannot be easily addressed. We have received repeated requests for materials that do not exist, for documents that are the possessions of others and to which we have no legal entitlement, and for information, if released, might compromise the safety and welfare of our students and staff. Requests of this nature are referred to counsel for legal review and response. In the event that the request is denied, the denial must be accompanied by legal citation. Without exception, these denials have provoked disappointment, dissention, and critical comments in the local press. As regrettable as those responses are, we recognize them as inevitable".
Right-to-Know requests should be directed to the Open Records Office.
Pennsylvania Department of Education "Investigation" (added 3/1/09)
Contrary to the claim that the district was being investigated for wrongdoing regarding data presented at the October 13, 2008 Act 34 Hearing for the UHS project, the inquiry was in response to repeated requests from one citizen.
Any public institution is required to make an inquiry into claims from citizens for validity. The Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) launched its inquiry to determine if the claims of the citizen were true. In a letter to the district, PDE found the data presented at the Act 34 hearing was wholly valid and consistent with data presented statewide for the same type of project. Specifically, the enrollment and tax millage projections were called into question.
In January, PDE validated the district's rising enrollment projections (see PDE projections) and the citizen's tax millage calculations failed to take retired debt into account when looking at the debt associated with the project. The district will continue to act responsibly and with transparency regarding estimates and projections.
Kennett Paper, Thursday, February 19, 2009 (added 2/22/09)
The Kennett Paper, this Thursday, inaccurately reported that the project includes an Olympic pool. The high school project design does not include a pool and never did. A pool was not even part of the initial design some three years ago. That plan has been trimmed several times to the design we have today.
The paper also reported that the district office comprised 28,000 square feet. This is also untrue. A closer estimate would be 18,000 square feet and that includes space that will be reclaimed from other schools which are currently housing district office personnel.
