Sunday, January 8, 2012

Secret MCPS/M-NCPPC Committee to Meet Jan 9th at 3 PM

Well, it was a secret until now.  


Remember how MCPS and M-NCPPC decided to form a Joint Working Group to tackle the sticky issue of MCPS designating park sites as school sites?  What ever happened to that Joint Working Group? Did it meet? Who is in the "group"?  Well, MCPS and M-NCPPC took the Joint Working Group behind closed doors so there haven't been any meeting announcements or press coverage on the work of this group. 


What better way to discuss this important issue than behind closed doors?  As Board member Patricia O'Neill says, the public can be such PIAs.  Better to have meetings that aren't announced to the public and don't allow the press access to cover the work of the group. 


But the Parents' Coalition thought you should know what this very important Joint Working Group has been up to behind closed doors.  


So, here are the minutes of the heretofore secret M-NCPPC/MCPS Joint Working Group on school site selection.  See below for the agendas, members, minutes and meeting dates.  


By the way, the next meeting of this group is January 9, 2012 from 3 PM - 5PM at the MCPS Department of Facilities Management.  

M-NCPPCMCPS Joint Working Group Oct-Dec2011

14 comments:

  1. Notes say "Farquhar MS Mornization" I initially thought that meant they were changing Farquhar to a morning school - LOL. Love that typo.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don’t believe anyone has truly malicious intent, but it is much easier to make sure everyone is singing the same song if you can rehearse behind closed doors.

    It would be much more interesting if these conversations took place early on, and in public through, the Mandatory Referral Process for Site Selection, but that doesn’t seem to be occurring.

    What I find the most troublesome is that many of these projects are occurring in areas with recently, at least in real estate terms, approved Master Plans and active development. How is it that MCPS’s needs haven’t been identified, sites designated as part of the Master Plan and required contributions assigned to “to be developed” sites?

    I think that MCPS is well versed in how to build a building, I don’t think they understand the intricacies of Land Use in Montgomery County. Or worse, they simply don't care.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Haven't met the MCPS facilities staff?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous 6:20pm, why on earth would they care?

    ReplyDelete
  5. We have seen James Song deliberately lie to the BOE, regarding who owns the Farquhar land swap other property. As for why, I think it is because the county taxpayers and voters don't care. If they did, they would work to have more than one party in this county and they would elect representatives who carried out their legal responsibilities -- including managing, in an open responsible way, the $4billion that taxpayers give them evey year, over $2B of which go to the BOE to spend. The taxpayers would want to live in a democracy, but they don't care to. I have no explanation for this preference, maybe someone else does. Whatever happened to Montgomery County?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mr. Song didn't deliberately lie to the BoE - it was an error based on mistaken information from the Planning Dept.
    Inevitable human error does not equal democracy's demise.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sorry. Nice try but the Planning Department knew the facts. And more importantly, the public records were available to ALL including the PUBLIC to check on the property ownership. The records were clear.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Failure of staff to relay complete and accurate information to the decision makers DOES equal democracy's demise.

    ReplyDelete
  9. For confirmation - anyone can check the public land records and see that as of today, the public records still show the land in question is titled to Pulte Home Corporation. It's just not that hard to verify this information.

    http://sdatcert3.resiusa.org/rp_rewrite/details.aspx?AccountNumber=08%2001959272%20%20%20%20%20%20&County=16&SearchType=STREET

    Any Board of Education member could have done it while sitting at the Board table. A land transfer isn't a guess. It is a specific act with a date certain.

    ReplyDelete
  10. That would be the case - if one were looking for a property that had been sold or transferred MONTHS ago. The website you link to takes months to show sales or transfers of property. I know someone who sold their house before Thanksgiving, and the website you reference still shows them as the owner. In Mr. Song's case - he was talking to the BoE about a property that would have VERY recently had title transferred to M-NCPPC.

    So - Mr. Song went to M-NCPPC, and got erroneous information. Not maliciously so, but erroneous nonetheless.

    You're tilting at windmills here to make MCPS look bad. They made an error, and corrected that error in a public statement. Perfection is too high a standard to expect from any organization or person.

    Democracy is alive and well. It's run by human beings - who can and will make mistakes. I'd like to see you try your hand at becoming the first infallible public official.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @ Anonymous Jan 12, 2012

    Mrs. Sartucci is correct. 30 seconds on SDAT during the session and ownership could have been confirmed that day.

    They are only spending an additional $1,700,000.00, or a "small amount of money" as Mr. Song referred to it during the MCPS/Park's joint meeting, on design. This is despite Dr. Starr, in his "memo of apology", stating that "The design process will begin once M-NCPPC makes its decision on this mater.". Mr. Riley, of the Parks Dept at the Joint Meeting on 1/3/12, stated they, the Parks Department, still do not know when the land will be transferred nor has M-NCPPC made their decision as to the feasibility of the transfer.

    As a side note...

    Anyone that uses the qualifier "a small amount of money" to describe $1,700,000.00, isn't spending their money. Spending tax dollars must be like betting with house money at a casino! What do you care, it wasn't yours to start with!

    ReplyDelete
  12. @ anon 7:39

    Now you are doing too much talking for a member of the public. So you work for MCPS? PR or in the Dept. of Facilities Management. Who says Song "went" to M-NCPPC? Who says M-NCPPC gave bad information? (They didn't give out bad information, by the way because they knew better and were telling the public the truth at the very same time Song was giving bad information to the Board of Education. So why are you trying to blame them?)

    What "public statement" are you referring to? Please post a link to the MCPS Press Office statement on this incident.

    You certainly wouldn't be calling the memo that the Parent's Coalition had to obtain through a Public Information Act request putting out a public statement, right?

    An internal memo that is discovered is hardly a Press Release that goes out to the public voluntarily.

    http://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2011/11/starr-apologizes.html

    But maybe your office would like to put our an official "Fact Check" on this incident. You know those "Fact Checks" are always so fun to read as a bedtime story to kids.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous Jan 12, 2:01 PM, I stand by my statement. At the time this was happening I spoke with Planning Staff. They made it very clear they had many, many meetings with MCPS staff over the course of weeks, including with James Song, and in fact just days prior to the BOE meeting, had discussed that very thing. There is no way James Song didn't know who owned the property.

    ReplyDelete

If your comment does not appear in 24 hours, please send your comment directly to our e-mail address:
parentscoalitionmc AT outlook.com