In an high-minded lecture in today's Press-Citizen, Bob Elliott calls some supporters of Hoover School "disgusting" for expressing their anger at how the district treated them in the facilities planning process. Elliott is dismayed that anyone would accuse the board members of deception, though he does not examine any of the actual accusations people made. Elliott wants everyone to be more "respectful" and less "disagreeable."
Elliott's definition of "respectful" discourse, however, apparently doesn't include fact-checking. His piece contains a blatant, egregious falsehood:
By a strong majority, those at the huge June [community workshop] session selected planning scenarios that included closing Hoover Elementary School.In fact, the exact opposite is true, as people have repeatedly pointed out. By an almost two-to-one majority, people chose plans that did not close Hoover School. (Judge for yourself: Only Scenario 4c closed Hoover. Here's how the four scenarios fared.)
Elliott may or may not be "respectful." (His use of the term "disgusting" certainly makes you wonder about his definition.) But it's hard to see how he qualifies as "responsible." Will the P-C correct its irresponsible correspondent?
UPDATE: The online article now has an appended correction that, in my view, still leaves readers with a misimpression of the results of that final community workshop.
UPDATE #2: The correction has been improved by including actual vote counts for 1c and 4c -- but by omitting the vote counts for 2c and 3c, neither of which would have closed Hoover, it still overstates the public support for closing Hoover.
UPDATE #3: The final P-C correction is pretty good, and they are planning to run it in the print edition tomorrow as well. So credit to the paper for correcting Elliott's mistake. I still find it hard to believe that we are still fighting this battle over the simple factual question of what people at that final workshop preferred.
.
11 comments:
Someone needs to take Bob Elliot back to Rhetoric school.
Someone needs to take Bob Elliot back to Rhetoric 101.
Ah, free speech is so messy but I must have missed something. I attended two of the facilities planning sessions and have listened to comments during at least one of the board meetings and I haven't heard anyone be "just plain rude and crude." In fact, I'd say that the liar/deceiver comments were the worst I've heard and I don't find those to be over the line objectionable. So, I guess I disagree with his characterization that far too many critics have been disagreeable.
I do think that it is a legitimate question--and topic for public discourse--just how much the consultants managed the public meetings to arrive at either acceptance of school closures or an appearance of acceptance of school closures. At the meetings I attended, many groups chose an option that included school closures but said that they would improve them by not closing any schools.
Also, hiring consultants doesn't immunize elected officials (or school district administrators, for that matter) from public criticism. The buck still stops with them.
Whether the decision to close Hoover has "significant support"? I suppose that remains to be seen.
I have found it interesting that the argument to support closing Hoover has been to criticize those who want to keep Hoover open. I've seen the rude, I've seen the "you don't understand, just wait until your kids are in high school *then* you'll understand. My personal favorite, the have you joined the PTA and how much do you volunteer at school. Oh I almost forgot the "your just so negative."
If I recall correctly it seems like Bob Elliot has written similar columns over the years with the same formula. I just rolled my eyes when I read it this morning.
He admits in the column he doesn't know about the "complexities". That seems to hold true for the similar columns that he writes but it doesn't stop him from lecturing.
I think it is a lot more embarrassing and disgusting that the school district is going forward with the plan of closing Hoover. Elliot talks about the controversy being something that wouldn't occur in 99 percent of cities and towns. I disagree, I can't see most towns being supportive of closing an elementary school. In the area I am from, there would be the expectation to "make do" with what we presently had.
Thanks for making sure the Press-Citizen gets their facts right. Actually the editor's notes added to the bottom of the Bob Elliot article were the most informative coverage I have seen yet about specifically how they got to having two options which both closed Hoover when the vast majority of people voted for the option with no school closures. It seems people were made to pick two, necessitating the hoover closure option as the 2nd choice...then they later changed the top choice to add the closing of hoover to that option as well - how can anyone defend that process?? I wish the P-C would delve into some of these ugly facts. A good one to look into would be - "where are the kids going to come from to fill the 12 new classrooms when the new City high addition is built? Obvious question - why not ask it? Building an addition on City High may be what is needed but the dishonest process that was taken here is shameful and should be an embarrassment to those who orchestrated it.
Thanks, everyone, for the comments.
Karen -- Yeah, apparently Barry Goldwater and Walter Mondale both had "significant support" as well.
Mandy -- I know, same old same old. There seems to be an entire catalog of reasons why people shouldn't say what they think.
KD -- Yes, he might as well have written, "I have no idea whether anyone lied, but no one should ever call anyone a liar." It's especially annoying in an article that contains a blatant untruth.
JC -- Good question. I sometimes think that even its supporters know that the addition is unnecessary, because City already comfortably holds 1500 students, but that they want it so that on paper, using the consultants' absurd capacity figures, City will have a capacity number that is comparable to West's and the third high school's -- thus somehow thwarting any attempt to make City smaller (and thus inferior) to the others. Not a good enough reason to build a huge addition and close an elementary school, in my opinion.
Pooter -- I second that motion!
On July 23rd5 Iowa City School Board members voted to adopt the Facilities Master Planning Committee recommendation a with changes related to three facilities.
· Keep the Roosevelt Education Center serving kids like they do now.
· Retire Hoover no earlier than 2017-2018.
· Keep Hills Elementary operational as an elementary school for the foreseeable future at its current capacity.
The resolution states that Hoover will retire “no earlier than 2017-2018.” I can’t figure out how the headline that said “Board Votes to Close Hoover,” was the reporter's take on this action by the school board. The resolution, as amended, does not say Hoover will retire, only that it can’t close “any earlier than 2017-2018.”
Hoover families may be correct if they believe this language casts a pall on Hoover, but it simply does not in any way preordain the “retirement” or “closure” of Hills. I, for one board member would not have voted for the amendment if it did not contain this language because I want a long preparation and study period if Hoover does in fact retire. I made the motion, I voted for the amendment and my intent is that a board just before or after the 2017-18 date will decide about Hoover’s destiny after considerable deliberation with the community.
But it was really important to vote now on a plan now based on the recommendations of the Facilities Master Planning Committee because we need to proceed with meeting the space needs of our kids. That is what we did. If we wanted to close Hoover we would not have voted for this amended motion.
Wow. Either this is desperate spin or a voice from a parallel universe. How does “retire” not equate with “close”? I was at the meeting where the vote took place, and it was crystal-clear to everyone in the room that the intent was that Hoover be closed. There was absolutely no sentiment that Hoover’s closing be closely studied first; if it had, there would have been language describing that, or better yet, the vote would NEVER HAVE TAKEN PLACE.
Sarah’s take on the vote is simply out of touch with reality. If you need further evidence, just ask the district administration. Just six days after the vote, Hoover families received a letter from Superintendent Murley announcing the transition process to the school’s closing. NOWHERE in the letter does it say anything about studying the Hoover closing further. Neither does it state that there is any possibility that Hoover could remain open. Here is just one quote from it:
“The Board indicated that the school be closed no earlier than the 2017/18 school year… While this event is several years in the future, the administration believes it is prudent to begin planning for this transition now.”
In reality, the administration has no interest whatsoever in keeping Hoover open. In fact, it is moving fast to sell Hoover families on the finality of the vote. This is not the language of dialogue or openness. Rather, it just a nice way of saying, “The Board has spoken; it’s time for you all to get used to it and prepare for your school’s closing.”
Sorry, Sarah. While I wish your sentiment were true, it just doesn’t add up. Besides, even if it was your “intent” that the Board makes a final decision on Hoover’s fate after many years and lots of dialogue, you won’t even be on the Board to help that happen.
The language of the decision was this: "Hoover Elementary retires no earlier than the 2017-18 school year serving its enrollment area until the year of retirement. Hoover needs some work, including but not limited to air conditioning, in order to provide a safe and comfortable learning environment for the students attending school prior to the retirement of the building." And if I remember correctly, your original language dated the retirement of Hoover at no sooner than the 2020-21 school year, which would have allowed this year's kindergarteners to complete their elementary education at Hoover. This motion closes earlier.
With all due respect, Sarah, if Hoover families have to live with the decision of the board, which was to retire Hoover, then you should have to live with it, too. This was your vote; you contributed to the decision that many in the Hoover neighborhood and beyond will now work to reverse. To suggest that the vote was not to close Hoover is disrespectful to the families and neighbors affected by the decision, not to mention the children who now live with the decision.
Readers -- I can confirm that Sarah, who commented above, is school board member Sarah Swisher. She asked me to correct a few typos; here is her corrected comment:
On July 23rd5 Iowa City School Board members voted to adopt the Facilities Master Planning Committee recommendation with changes related to three facilities.
• Keep the Roosevelt Education Center serving kids like they do now.
• Retire Hoover no earlier than 2017-2018.
• Keep Hills Elementary operational as an elementary school for the foreseeable future at its current capacity.
The resolution states that Hoover will retire “no earlier than 2017-2018.” I can’t figure out how the headline that said “Board Votes to Close Hoover,” was the reporter's take on this action by the school board. The resolution, as amended, does not say Hoover will retire, only that it can’t close “any earlier than 2017-2018.”
Hoover families may be correct if they believe this language casts a pall on Hoover, but it simply does not in any way preordain the “retirement” or “closure” of Hoover. I, for one board member would not have voted for the amendment if it did not contain this language because I want a long preparation and study period if Hoover does in fact retire. I made the motion, I voted for the amendment and my intent is that a board just before or after the 2017-18 date will decide determine Hoover’s destiny.
It was really important to vote now on a plan based on the recommendations of the Facilities Master Planning Committee because we need to proceed with meeting the space needs of our kids. That is what we did. If we wanted to close Hoover we would not have voted for this amended motion.
Post a Comment