In todays ONW we see that Susan Kepplinger has inserted her extensive architectural background in a project to renovate a residence in the Near East Neighborhood. On a house with a porch that has serious structural problems she objected to the owner using modern treated lumber because it is square rather than round from the "period" that it was originally constructed.
One question I have is... who's money is it? OK, more than one question. Why does she have the say? I posted on the "teaser" story on the ONW site but when they reposted for today, the comment didn't transfer so I will post a copy here...
[Susan Kepplinger knows what is best for her "crown jewel". She is the champion of this neighborhood and heaven forbid someone spend thousands of dollars to improve a house if it doesn't "fit" in her opinion of what should be there. Make no mistake, I am not a favorite of Kepplinger. I was a vocal critic of the Near East Neighborhood when this all started because she blew her budget on condemned houses to tear down rather than let the owners deal with it. One of those houses was owned by a corporate entity from out of town.The bottom line is that if the Redevelopment Authority has an idea or opinion of how it should be, they will do just about anything to make sure it is that way.You know what they say... "it is our way or the highway". That should be their motto.It would serve Kepplinger right if they left it alone and let it be an eyesore. That would be so much better.]
Leave it to the Redevelopment Authority to screw up a good thing. Rather than letting this house get a face lift into the 21st Century, it will remain an eyesore. I think it would be good for Kepplinger if they left it... maybe then she will use grant money to buy it and tear it down.
This would be a good chance for our new City Manager to take a look at this and actually take control for the taxpayers sake.
What are your thoughts??
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Who's fault is it?
I have spent a little time reading what has been posted online about the OASD selection for Superintendent walking away from his offer made last week. I have to say, it is an absolute JOKE that people in this community could actually think that ONE PERSON could have the influence to prevent him from taking the job. I would like to point some things out that I feel NEED to be pointed out... I will use the same format as another blogger;
1.) Who has said that Gundlach turned down the job because of Mr. Becker's inquiries? UPDATE: It was reported in todays ONW that Mr. Gundlach had withdrawn his name before Mr. Becker made the inquiries... Guess we should wait before pointing fingers and assigning blame.
2.) How could this NOT be a conflict of interest? There is no public position that would EVER allow such a relationship to exist. UPDATE: The state ethics have ruled that the conflict would have been "manageable". He would not have been able to participate in contract negotiations. Even though that aspect is a significant duty, it could have been handled by the Deputy Superintendent just as well.
3.) Related to point #1, How could one person out of 7 make that big of a difference? After all, it only takes 4 to hire a Superintendent.
4.) Who said that the language in the conditional offer addressed Mr. Becker's concerns? Hentz must have the power of mind reading to know that one.
5.) Does anyone know why Mr. Becker had to leave on Thursday? Better yet, how long was the meeting scheduled to last?
6.) Why did the board majority feel that they could offer the job to Gundlach saying that the decision was "unanimous" without even a call to Mr. Becker?
7.) Here is the question of the hour... and closely related to #6. How do you "adequately address" a conflict of interest? Perhaps in Mr. Becker's opinion the proper addressing would be for Mrs. Gundlach to resign her position in the district. I know I would expect nothing less.
8.) Where does it say that Mr. Becker "ran" to the media? Couldn't it be equally assumed that the ONW called him to ask his opinion simply because it is known that he is the only dissenting opinion on that "brain trust"?
9.) Mr. Becker should NOT be hailed as a "hero". Nobody can verify that he had anything to do with Gundach's decision to withdraw.
10.) Now looking towards the future... There are 2 other candidates that were good enough to be considered for the position last week but now are not good enough to have the job? What sense does that make? I guess that makes sense if you want to blame Mr. Becker for something else.
11.) About the referendum, and this may be even more important that finding a new Super... How can we put it off for ANY amount of time? Does anyone even remember why this came up in the first place?
The referendum was born because THERE ARE SEVERAL SCHOOLS IN THE DISTRICT THAT HAVE LEAKING ROOFS!! THEY HAVE BEEN LEAKING FOR MORE THAN THREE YEARS AND REPAIRS ARE NOWHERE IN SIGHT!! Yep, it's true. The first phase of the plan doesn't even address the deferred maintenance. That means that the roofs will not get repaired until a later phase which cannot start until phase one is complete. The OASD BOE feels that building a new school on the north side is more important than fixing the leaks... Brilliant.
When is this community going to finally see that we are being led by the blind and dumb? It a wonder that the buildings are even still standing.
I know the schools aren't my thing, but I just can't sit and watch the destruction without saying something.
KM
1.) Who has said that Gundlach turned down the job because of Mr. Becker's inquiries? UPDATE: It was reported in todays ONW that Mr. Gundlach had withdrawn his name before Mr. Becker made the inquiries... Guess we should wait before pointing fingers and assigning blame.
2.) How could this NOT be a conflict of interest? There is no public position that would EVER allow such a relationship to exist. UPDATE: The state ethics have ruled that the conflict would have been "manageable". He would not have been able to participate in contract negotiations. Even though that aspect is a significant duty, it could have been handled by the Deputy Superintendent just as well.
3.) Related to point #1, How could one person out of 7 make that big of a difference? After all, it only takes 4 to hire a Superintendent.
4.) Who said that the language in the conditional offer addressed Mr. Becker's concerns? Hentz must have the power of mind reading to know that one.
5.) Does anyone know why Mr. Becker had to leave on Thursday? Better yet, how long was the meeting scheduled to last?
6.) Why did the board majority feel that they could offer the job to Gundlach saying that the decision was "unanimous" without even a call to Mr. Becker?
7.) Here is the question of the hour... and closely related to #6. How do you "adequately address" a conflict of interest? Perhaps in Mr. Becker's opinion the proper addressing would be for Mrs. Gundlach to resign her position in the district. I know I would expect nothing less.
8.) Where does it say that Mr. Becker "ran" to the media? Couldn't it be equally assumed that the ONW called him to ask his opinion simply because it is known that he is the only dissenting opinion on that "brain trust"?
9.) Mr. Becker should NOT be hailed as a "hero". Nobody can verify that he had anything to do with Gundach's decision to withdraw.
10.) Now looking towards the future... There are 2 other candidates that were good enough to be considered for the position last week but now are not good enough to have the job? What sense does that make? I guess that makes sense if you want to blame Mr. Becker for something else.
11.) About the referendum, and this may be even more important that finding a new Super... How can we put it off for ANY amount of time? Does anyone even remember why this came up in the first place?
The referendum was born because THERE ARE SEVERAL SCHOOLS IN THE DISTRICT THAT HAVE LEAKING ROOFS!! THEY HAVE BEEN LEAKING FOR MORE THAN THREE YEARS AND REPAIRS ARE NOWHERE IN SIGHT!! Yep, it's true. The first phase of the plan doesn't even address the deferred maintenance. That means that the roofs will not get repaired until a later phase which cannot start until phase one is complete. The OASD BOE feels that building a new school on the north side is more important than fixing the leaks... Brilliant.
When is this community going to finally see that we are being led by the blind and dumb? It a wonder that the buildings are even still standing.
I know the schools aren't my thing, but I just can't sit and watch the destruction without saying something.
KM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)