Peter,
Thanks for asking--and sorry for the delay in replying. I may not check my e-mail as often as some people.

I suggest the following approach, with step 1 included only for completeness and not for genuine information.

1. The Supt recommends one bond because ....

2. In response to a question (rather than bringing up as a "Supt Plan B"), the bond could be split. The following is how we in the Admin feel this could best be done .... In this alternative, include the new high school, associated renovations at the other high schools, and the items that give rise to the "shift" in the same bond--as well as any other items you feel are appropriately placed there.

3. Again in response to a question or comment (rather than initiating the thought), agree that the items giving rise to the shift could be placed in the "non-high school" bond. The Admin does not recommend this because .... If this was done, the following would be the composition of each bond. ...

I view this as a "be honest at each stage of the process" so George and others in the Admin are correctly viewed as serving all interests on the Board with integrity. Simultaneously, I view it as a "do not volunteer information to those favoring an alternative other than the recommendation of the Supt". I view these as compatible.

Feel free to follow up if more interaction would be useful.

Glenn

Glenn - Hope you're having a good week! You mentioned something about how the shift of operating expenses to bond or sinking fund might be handled should we be asked to pursue a scenario of breaking out the high school question into a separate bond. Can you remind me of your thinking on this? We have a strategy for developing this scenario into a Treasury packet based on the tenor of the conversation March 3, and I want to be sure we handle this piece correctly should it come up. Thanks peter

Back to list of emails