Report Inappropriate Comments

Patrick, there hasn't been any "..extra $12 million here or $7.7 million here.". You make it sounds like schools budgets contain surprises. I know what opportunity costs are and I think you are equating hindsight with opportunity costs. "Adding administrators" is a complete mischaracterization - you know that just about every 'new' position was to deal with the secondary consolidation and the increased student populations that resulted in the four secondary schools and, again, those building admin : student ratio are very much inline with the norms across the state. So I don;t understand what your point is - is it that consolidation shouldn't have happened because it resulted in "new" admin positions?

Your argument about entryways & auditorium and roofs and fire systems is not an example of opportunity costs - it's hindsight. It was stated at that time that fire alarm systems and roofs, among other capital needs would be part of an $85 million bond request based on the SMMA & Jacobs reports.

Your charges about using Chromcarts instead of 1:1 is, in my view, a very weak one. Further when you say that Admin should not have been consolidated into one building because "..you had an administration building on Warwick Ave.." is nonsensical. You do know that admins were spread around in three buildings - Greene, Vets, and Warwick Ave. You also know that the front portion of Warwick Ave was unusable because it was a sick building. You do know that all of the Admins could not fit into Warwick Ave. You also know that combining all in Gorton allowed a) the space at Greene to be used to bring students back into district that we had previously sent out of district, thus saving significant out of district costs (at least $65-$75K per student); b) vacating Warwick ave thus saving roughly $75-$80K per year to operate that building and eliminate a building that you no longer needed, and c) the space at Vets was needed for middle school students. And every place that Admins were at was AC'd (they do work year round). Gorton was not "renovated" unless you call replacing bathrooms renovations. The total spent on Gorton was, I believe, $330K and would pay for itself in 2-3 years, tops. But you can't look at what was spent there (with all the offsetting stuff included) and say that if they didn't spend that two or three years ago then there'd be money for sports today. That's not opportunity cost - that's hindsight.

Like you I too have family members in other districts whose kids were schools when Thornton was their Supt and they were very satisfied with the education their kids were getting while he was there. So I guess you are saying that none of the successes that NK or Cumberland have had has had anything at all with anything that Thornton had done while he was the Supt in those districts?