Now I’ll provide them.
The offending paragraph outlining the fantasy states with authority:
“The Board knew as early as 2003 that enrollment was projected to flatten out by the time the new plant survey was due. In 2002 the Board had commissioned a private consultant to create a Long Range Facility Master Plan covering the years 2003-2013. It was provided in April of 2003 at a cost of $1.1 million was then promptly shelved and ignored according to high level district employees. The problem was the consultant predicted enrollment numbers well below what the District was projecting and well below what the Board wanted to hear. In hindsight the consultant’s numbers were much closer to the mark then the District’s. The Grand Jury’s final report is out and there’s the quandary.”
And as I wrote in that article, the consultant projected a rise in population, just not a steep as the rise had been according to what was current data.
Here’s where the Grand Jury misleads the reader: “In hindsight the consultant’s numbers were much closer to the mark then the District’s.”
Take a look at the graphs that follow and see for yourself.
The Jury said this: “The Board knew as early as 2003 that enrollment was projected to flatten out by the time the new plant survey was due.”
Here’s what the Master Plan predicted…
If this is what the Grand Jury deems as “flattening out” I have a bridge to sell you.
Here’s the fantasy that Staff and the Grand Jury would have you believe the Master Plan predicted…
Here’s what really happened…
So how does a projected rise of 18 – 20 thousand additional students earn a Grand Jury comment of “much closer to the mark” than the sharp decline that really occured?
There’s only one answer:
The Grand Jury report was every bit as flawed as their much revered Master Plan.
And the projected rise in student population is detailed in the Master Plan.
When you look at what the Master Plan actually said vs. what the Grand Jury claims it said, you have a clearer understanding of why I hold the Grand Jury report in sheer contempt.
To make it easier to compare one against the other, I’ve combined the graphs and added the district’s original projection.
The Consultant’s projection is in red, the real history in green, and the Grand Jury’s claim is in purple.
Comparing the blue and green, you’ll see that the district’s (Board’s) analysis was more accurate than the Consultant’s up to 2006 when the bottom started to fall out of the housing market.
From the report: “The problem was the consultant predicted enrollment numbers well below what the District was projecting and well below what the Board wanted to hear.”
Looking at the blue (Board’s analysis) and the red (consultant’s analysis) you can see why it flew in the face of the district’s (then) current history.
Comparing against the next two years the Consultant was wrong. Add that to the contract deliverables that were never done and the poor reporting of needed repairs and upgrades and you can see why the Board shelved the project.
And, oh yes, I was the only Board member complaining about the cost while on the Dais.
But you won’t hear that from Norman, Nevins or the staff that misled the Grand Jury.