|
Post by gatormom on Jun 16, 2008 8:41:00 GMT -5
Whose document/research and comments were they - arch's and mine or a member of the SB's ? Sorry , the proof lies with the generator. Bruce saw fit to put all that time and effort in the last time - to ensure the vote they wanted - where is that piece of work this time if it was so important then ? If it's called fiction, then it was fiction put forth by a School Board official to garner a vote in a particular direction. You had me a bit confused here. Fortunatley, I went back and found Player's original discussion of the 9% savings. The fiction is using that 9% savings and applying it to the difference between Eola and BB. Can you prove that?
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 16, 2008 8:41:11 GMT -5
Ah but WP, that doesn't count. After all, this discussion isn't about site safety. It is in fact about the fictional 9% savings in bus costs at BB over Eola. All the rest is just a distraction. If Dr. Who and Arch had facts instead of well-crafted fiction, they wouldn't have to resort to pipelines and DFO or throwing a blanket of doubt on people including Player. As I've mentioned a few times over the last, oh, 6-7 months now, the scrutiny on the SB/Admin, with regards to MV has been ever-present. I understand that some have talked about lack of trust, etc. but if there's going to be scrutiny, fiduciary or otherwise, I hope it's applied across the board, and not just to MV-related aspects. And, I hope people give credit, when credit is due, too. For example the improved custodial contract, the new technology improvements, and during the course of some of the first bids for MV, some of the contracts came in under budget. I promose you the scrutiny I have for the going's on now is wider than MV. No secret of my disdain for the location or the bounaries to go with it, but because of the path we have had to travel to get there, that is why I want to see more facts on everything. For almost 20 years I have been a blind yes to any $ voter - that stops now. This is our money - and mistakes or conspiracy theories, the bottom line fact is we have thrown away millions of tax dollars in this district over the past 2 - 3 years. I will also give credit where credit is due - when that happens. And from now on I expect the public to be aware of things before they come to a vote for apassage in meetings. A perfect example was the 1 hour quick start per week for the dashboard training. A lot of people in this district would have been affected, yet no public input - it was almost ram rodded thru until a few people complained. ( And those of us who did heard about it directly) - ADK - likely a good thing, but many wanted better alternatives if choosing not to participate. Sometimes a compromise canot be found, but actually listening to the issues first without running everything thru in executive session would sure be an improvement - even their own members ( in that case ) were unprepared to move forward immediately. I think foreign language in MS is long overdue - kudo's to looking to move in that direction. But because I would like to see an accounting for where the money is spent - doesn't make me a liar and nothing but an innuendo spewer as some would like to believe. Nor does it make me a member of the nsfoc - or CFO or whatever other nonsense they would like to pull out. All bunk. I am not against spending money - never have been. Hell I am on record here as saying - spend whatever money necessary if possible to get MV as comlete as possible upon opening. I find it less than acceptable to open a less than complete HS experience for that first class. If they can spend an extra $5M ( and I don't know if it can be done anyway) - to complete the gym / auditorium / pool etc - then do it. And my kid will not benefit a lick from this- but I am thinking of the others in the district. Heck, we have already thrown that much away and a lot more to attorneys. So I am not saying stop spending - but yes, be prepared to show how much and where, and why. A statement in FAQ that says ' this is a good deal' is not an accounting to me. I hope that clarifies my position....
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 16, 2008 8:42:53 GMT -5
Arch, I'd like to qualify your "raw data" statement just a bit. Sometimes the raw data you, or anyone else for that matter, is not the complete picture one may think it is. It only gives you the data it was designed for, and if for some reason something falls outside of that reporting model, it gets missed in the data points. Case in point (t1p, back me up here if you can) On the DFO usages you were able to pull off from whereever ( I cannot recall, nor is it really necessary to revisit there) I had learned that a transfer of fuel from one company owned site to another was not required to be annotated in the fuel usage. So if MWGEN took many barrels of DFO from the Eola site and transferred them to another Peaker site. It would show up as a huge usage for Eola when that's was not the actual case. Now maybe they do note the transfer somewhere, but it was not required on the reports you based your claim on. I have also mentioned to you that I live in the general area of those Peakers, and used to patrol that area too. (rural also has lived in the area for a long time) I can personally attest that I have rarely seen those peakers in operation. This is why I qualified what I did back then with a "what happened to this discrepency". The reports DO have broken out BY FUEL TYPE how much electricity was GENERATED BY FUEL TYPE for each Month/Year. I used that and only that to show the discrepency that DrD was incorrect in the statement that DFO was only used twice. Since, there was reported electrical generation from DFO in more than 2 month/year summary points in the reports, there had to have been more than 2 times it being used. Further, one can look up the generating capacity of the turbines there and multiple by the number of turbines and then divide the electricity generated in a given month/year to find out the MINIMUM amount of time they DFO had to have been burnt if all turbines were used to capacity to make the 'burn time' the absolute shortest. Even with that calculation, it was easy to see from those reports that it was burnt more than 'a couple of hours while the gas was out'. The Fuel Stocks on hand worked out in MOST cases to be (STOCK - CONSUMED = NEW STOCK AMOUNT). Where that did not work out (in one case to the tune of 609 BARRELS of DFO) I pointed it out and asked if this was one of the reported spills or if it was used in some other fashion OTHER than to create electricity. It turns out that the timing of that discrepency happened to be about the same time as one of the larger reported 'spills.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 16, 2008 8:45:09 GMT -5
Whose document/research and comments were they - arch's and mine or a member of the SB's ? Sorry , the proof lies with the generator. Bruce saw fit to put all that time and effort in the last time - to ensure the vote they wanted - where is that piece of work this time if it was so important then ? Repeating myself for the upmteenth time: That number was with reference to NO 3'rd HS vs BB, as evidenced in the postings on the IPSD site. What I am challenging is the use of that number as lost savings by choosing AME, and to date, no one has said squat in response. The District did NOT say that they would lose 9% by moving to AME, you did! Prove it. the district did not provide anything - the proof lies with the originator of that document and his original comments as to the savings. I do not have that document - do you ? If the savings was there for BB - is it there now ? If so - show us, that is what I am asking. If not I will assume it is gone - yes. If it is there it would have been trotted out already, IMHO. Show the paperwork to prove it is not gone and the subject goes away. I am not the one who brought up these savings to the public in the first place- that was BG.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 16, 2008 8:46:04 GMT -5
If it's called fiction, then it was fiction put forth by a School Board official to garner a vote in a particular direction. You had me a bit confused here. Fortunatley, I went back and found Player's original discussion of the 9% savings. The fiction is using that 9% savings and applying it to the difference between Eola and BB. Can you prove that? See my square peg round hole post. The 9% reported was for no 3rd HS vs 3rd HS@BB. It was not a 3rdHS@BB versus a 3rdHS@AME comparison. I still don't see where you're trying to pin 'fiction' on me as you said I have well crafted fiction and you specifically mentioned my name w/ well crafted fiction. (fixed quote)
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 16, 2008 8:53:17 GMT -5
You had me a bit confused here. Fortunatley, I went back and found Player's original discussion of the 9% savings. The fiction is using that 9% savings and applying it to the difference between Eola and BB. Can you prove that? See my square peg round hole post. The 9% reported was for no 3rd HS vs 3rd HS@BB. It was not a 3rdHS@BB versus a 3rdHS@AME comparison. I still don't see where you're trying to pin 'fiction' on me as you said I have well crafted fiction and you specifically mentioned my name w/ well crafted fiction. (fixed quote) Bingo- the question is - does AME site hold the same savings ? If not one can likely extrapolate some difference between the two sites. It does not invalidate the work BG did, just wondering why it was not extended to this site- or a comparison done between sites since it was So important before.
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Jun 16, 2008 8:58:40 GMT -5
Repeating myself for the upmteenth time: That number was with reference to NO 3'rd HS vs BB, as evidenced in the postings on the IPSD site. What I am challenging is the use of that number as lost savings by choosing AME, and to date, no one has said squat in response. The District did NOT say that they would lose 9% by moving to AME, you did! Prove it. the district did not provide anything - the proof lies with the originator of that document and his original comments as to the savings. I do not have that document - do you ? If the savings was there for BB - is it there now ? If so - show us, that is what I am asking. If not I will assume it is gone - yes. If it is there it would have been trotted out already, IMHO. Show the paperwork to prove it is not gone and the subject goes away. I am not the one who brought up these savings to the public in the first place- that was BG. BG brought up the 9% savings loss by moving to AME from BB? OK - another ridiculous statement. Where? When? Show me a shred of evidence that he or anyone else in the District said this. At least have the decency to retract something you can't back up! I have posted the links to the documents I refer to. Post yours. As I have posted extensively on this, please reread my posts, where I discuss why the savings are still there for AME - exactly the same as for BB, as Laidlaw did not increase their contract cost to us. The originator of the document showing that 9% savings would be lost by moving to AME is the NSFOC, not the District. That is on their web site. Do your own research with them and please let us know how you justify it. It is not my problem that you are not affiliated with them by your own admission - they have the claim in view of the entire Internet. But in this thread, you accused the District of this, time to either back it or retract. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by title1parent on Jun 16, 2008 9:01:02 GMT -5
Arch, I'd like to qualify your "raw data" statement just a bit. Sometimes the raw data you, or anyone else for that matter, is not the complete picture one may think it is. It only gives you the data it was designed for, and if for some reason something falls outside of that reporting model, it gets missed in the data points. Case in point (t1p, back me up here if you can) On the DFO usages you were able to pull off from whereever ( I cannot recall, nor is it really necessary to revisit there) I had learned that a transfer of fuel from one company owned site to another was not required to be annotated in the fuel usage. So if MWGEN took many barrels of DFO from the Eola site and transferred them to another Peaker site. It would show up as a huge usage for Eola when that's was not the actual case. Now maybe they do note the transfer somewhere, but it was not required on the reports you based your claim on. I have also mentioned to you that I live in the general area of those Peakers, and used to patrol that area too. (rural also has lived in the area for a long time) I can personally attest that I have rarely seen those peakers in operation. I believe Illinois deregulated electrical plants in the late 90s or so. One of the effects of that deregulation is that plants no longer had to report on their usage of DFO and most ceased because they felt it was providing information to competitors. So consumption reporting ended with deregulation. I believe that would also include transporting away.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 16, 2008 9:17:25 GMT -5
the district did not provide anything - the proof lies with the originator of that document and his original comments as to the savings. I do not have that document - do you ? If the savings was there for BB - is it there now ? If so - show us, that is what I am asking. If not I will assume it is gone - yes. If it is there it would have been trotted out already, IMHO. Show the paperwork to prove it is not gone and the subject goes away. I am not the one who brought up these savings to the public in the first place- that was BG. BG brought up the 9% savings loss by moving to AME from BB? OK - another ridiculous statement. Where? When? Show me a shred of evidence that he or anyone else in the District said this. At least have the decency to retract something you can't back up! I have posted the links to the documents I refer to. Post yours. As I have posted extensively on this, please reread my posts, where I discuss why the savings are still there for AME - exactly the same as for BB, as Laidlaw did not increase their contract cost to us. The originator of the document showing that 9% savings would be lost by moving to AME is the NSFOC, not the District. That is on their web site. Do your own research with them and please let us know how you justify it. It is not my problem that you are not affiliated with them by your own admission - they have the claim in view of the entire Internet. But in this thread, you accused the District of this, time to either back it or retract. Cheers. who said there is a 9% loss moving to AME from BB except you ? Please read arch's post. The savings BG brought up, and some who no longer post on this site ( Maybe because they don't like to be called liars and nothing but innuendo spewers in this friendlier environment - did a lot of research. I will try and ge that information -- please read arch's post about what was said - maybe he does a better job explainig it than I do -- although both being 'pipe huggers' it will likely still be an issue. If there is a savings that was associated with BB - where is the similar work for AME. Pretty simple question. If it as that important then, why not now ? As for the NSFOC site - I haven't seen that site in a long long time- it seems you have mouch more reference material from it than I do - and are trying to fit something they said to me. Sorry, had nothing to do with their comments, nor their data. but please feel free to continue to associate me with anyone. outside of a group of watts parents - i am affiiated with no one
|
|
|
Post by WeNeed3 on Jun 16, 2008 9:18:52 GMT -5
This is what bothers me about this district. We are very large. Whatever the SB does, be it ADK, Sodeho etc. will be met with unhappiness from someone. No one gives things a chance to be implemented and then evaluated. Hey, we are evaluating Sodexho after we have used them for awhile. Great. If we can find something better, great also.
People in this district voice their complaints from day 1 about AME. Perhaps that is why the SB has acted the way it has. Do CEO's go around asking all the peons in the company for their input? No, they would never get anything done. The last time I checked we had 7 board members, not 10,000.
So again, I see this whole transportation thing as a "let's implement it and see how it goes" approach. If they had to listen to every PITA parent that complained about everything, this district would never move forward. But at the same time, how can you say something isn't working when it hasn't even been implemented yet?
Everyone wants to be the head cook in the kitchen but businesses aren't run that way. I understand your frustration with lack of information guys. I hope that the next set of SB members can move toward starting that up again. It might take awhile given the last citizen lawsuit against them but hopefully we can move on and they can share their information again. It is frustrating. But we also have to give what they have done a chance to be implemented and then evaluated. Just like arch did with the custodial contracts and the SB did with the technology contracts. If the transportation costs just don't seem to be in line and are worse than they are now, then maybe we need to re-evaluate boundaries. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 16, 2008 9:24:24 GMT -5
See my square peg round hole post. The 9% reported was for no 3rd HS vs 3rd HS@BB. It was not a 3rdHS@BB versus a 3rdHS@AME comparison. I still don't see where you're trying to pin 'fiction' on me as you said I have well crafted fiction and you specifically mentioned my name w/ well crafted fiction. (fixed quote) Bingo- the question is - does AME site hold the same savings ? If not one can likely extrapolate some difference between the two sites. It does not invalidate the work BG did, just wondering why it was not extended to this site- or a comparison done between sites since it was So important before. BB is gone - what value would there be in doing any kind of comparison between BB and Eola at this point? Reagarding what was "so important" back in 2005/2006, there were plenty of factors that were considered, leading to the site selection, not just transportation costs. In 2008, the factors were similar, but the available properties & the known costs played into the final site selection.
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Jun 16, 2008 9:33:21 GMT -5
who said there is a 9% loss moving to AME from BB except you ? Please read arch's post. The savings BG brought up, and some who no longer post on this site ( Maybe because they don't like to be called liars and nothing but innuendo spewers in this friendlier environment - did a lot of research. I will try and ge that information -- please read arch's post about what was said - maybe he does a better job explainig it than I do -- although both being 'pipe huggers' it will likely still be an issue. If there is a savings that was associated with BB - where is the similar work for AME. Pretty simple question. If it as that important then, why not now ? As for the NSFOC site - I haven't seen that site in a long long time- it seems you have mouch more reference material from it than I do - and are trying to fit something they said to me. Sorry, had nothing to do with their comments, nor their data. but please feel free to continue to associate me with anyone. outside of a group of watts parents - i am affiiated with no one From this thread: " .... We hear over and over about how much money the site saved us over the $31M BB cost - so it appears even if they could save $500K - $1M per year for the next 25 years, it is not worth looking into. (remember BG's 5A plan saved 9% est. - but that wasn't worth re doing again ) They did the best they could you know...get with the program. Move on, sit down and shut up. " Your post, Doc, not mine. I didn't say a word till that point. You were the first in this thread to bring up the 9%, not me. Or are you denying that you posted this? You very vocally defended this statement in many subsequent posts. In fact you quantified the savings as "$500K to $1M per year for the next 25 years" - another work of fiction. Arch and I finally agree on this, that the 9% savings of BB over AME is invalid. You on the other hand, don't. It is amazing that after over 50+ posts on the subject in this thread, you claim now that you never brought it up, and that I did? Give me a break! If you bothered to read what I have posted, you would see why the AME savings are the same as the BB savings compared to no third HS. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 16, 2008 9:52:01 GMT -5
who said there is a 9% loss moving to AME from BB except you ? Please read arch's post. The savings BG brought up, and some who no longer post on this site ( Maybe because they don't like to be called liars and nothing but innuendo spewers in this friendlier environment - did a lot of research. I will try and ge that information -- please read arch's post about what was said - maybe he does a better job explainig it than I do -- although both being 'pipe huggers' it will likely still be an issue. If there is a savings that was associated with BB - where is the similar work for AME. Pretty simple question. If it as that important then, why not now ? As for the NSFOC site - I haven't seen that site in a long long time- it seems you have mouch more reference material from it than I do - and are trying to fit something they said to me. Sorry, had nothing to do with their comments, nor their data. but please feel free to continue to associate me with anyone. outside of a group of watts parents - i am affiiated with no one From this thread: " .... We hear over and over about how much money the site saved us over the $31M BB cost - so it appears even if they could save $500K - $1M per year for the next 25 years, it is not worth looking into. (remember BG's 5A plan saved 9% est. - but that wasn't worth re doing again ) They did the best they could you know...get with the program. Move on, sit down and shut up. " Your post, Doc, not mine. I didn't say a word till that point. You were the first in this thread to bring up the 9%, not me. Or are you denying that you posted this? You very vocally defended this statement in many subsequent posts. In fact you quantified the savings as "$500K to $1M per year for the next 25 years" - another work of fiction. Arch and I finally agree on this, that the 9% savings of BB over AME is invalid. You on the other hand, don't. It is amazing that after over 50+ posts on the subject in this thread, you claim now that you never brought it up, and that I did? Give me a break! If you bothered to read what I have posted, you would see why the AME savings are the same as the BB savings compared to no third HS. Cheers. Is this also my post ? "Bingo- the question is - does AME site hold the same savings ? If not one can likely extrapolate some difference between the two sites. It does not invalidate the work BG did, just wondering why it was not extended to this site- or a comparison done between sites since it was So important before. " If I misstated originally I have posted now at least 3 times the 'correlation' between Bruce's original work and th lack of same for AME. However you seem to be more focused on trying to tie me to nsfoc than reading also.... There was an oriignal savings that was the result of much work -you say the savings are exactly the same - can you show me that or is it a leap of faith? maybe if you spent less time being personal in the nature of your comments- it would be easier to read the rest. 'If you can't say something nice, at least be vague'
|
|
sushi
Master Member
Posts: 767
|
Post by sushi on Jun 16, 2008 10:00:51 GMT -5
Weneed - so diplomatic! Come on guys, what difference does it make now? Who gives a s**t? It is what it is - no going back - FORGET BB. Sorry, but it needs to be said.
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Jun 16, 2008 10:03:20 GMT -5
From this thread: " .... We hear over and over about how much money the site saved us over the $31M BB cost - so it appears even if they could save $500K - $1M per year for the next 25 years, it is not worth looking into. (remember BG's 5A plan saved 9% est. - but that wasn't worth re doing again ) They did the best they could you know...get with the program. Move on, sit down and shut up. " Your post, Doc, not mine. I didn't say a word till that point. You were the first in this thread to bring up the 9%, not me. Or are you denying that you posted this? You very vocally defended this statement in many subsequent posts. In fact you quantified the savings as "$500K to $1M per year for the next 25 years" - another work of fiction. Arch and I finally agree on this, that the 9% savings of BB over AME is invalid. You on the other hand, don't. It is amazing that after over 50+ posts on the subject in this thread, you claim now that you never brought it up, and that I did? Give me a break! If you bothered to read what I have posted, you would see why the AME savings are the same as the BB savings compared to no third HS. Cheers. Is this also my post ? "Bingo- the question is - does AME site hold the same savings ? If not one can likely extrapolate some difference between the two sites. It does not invalidate the work BG did, just wondering why it was not extended to this site- or a comparison done between sites since it was So important before. " If I misstated originally I have posted now at least 3 times the 'correlation' between Bruce's original work and th lack of same for AME. However you seem to be more focused on trying to tie me to nsfoc than reading also.... There was an oriignal savings that was the result of much work -you say the savings are exactly the same - can you show me that or is it a leap of faith? maybe if you spent less time being personal in the nature of your comments- it would be easier to read the rest. 'If you can't say something nice, at least be vague' Very nice try! That "Bingo" post was from what, 30 mins ago? Good to see you are finally recapitulating and retracting! Wish that had been your stance in the beginning. And, you are fighting phantoms - I said this once and I'll say it again, I really don't care what your affiliations are. My issue with misrepresentation of data, not with who you do or do not fraternize with. If Mother Teresa had made that statement, I would still have issue with it. The only points I have made are a) there is no 9% savings that we forgo by moving from BB to AME and b) Laidlaw is charging us the same for both sites. If after this mindboggling rigamarole, you are now saying that you agree with these two points, great! We can set this matter to rest and move on! Cheers.
|
|