player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Jun 16, 2008 10:04:26 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. I agree. My apologies to this board - seems I got very carried away. No more BB from me. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 16, 2008 10:34:14 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. I agree. My apologies to this board - seems I got very carried away. No more BB from me. Cheers. No apologies necessary Player. Quite a few of us got carried away. Back to the topic at hand, school board elections in 2009. ;D
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Jun 16, 2008 11:10:36 GMT -5
Because it goes to the credibility of the school board members we are looking to elect or re-elect.
The only reason BB was abandoned was because of land cost. The only reason. Can we agree on that? Now when choosing an alternate site, there are going to be differences in the annual operating costs between sites. Some things, such as building materials and food service contracts are likely a wash no matter what the location. However, busing costs would be something that, at least intuitively, might be significantly different. (And as I mentioned earlier, just because Laidlaw is charging us the same doesn't mean the true costs are the same. I am still interested in seeing a true route/mileage comparison.)
When adding up all the financial differences (and I concede they wouldn't necessarily all be in BB's favor), we should have known if the initial savings of building at AME would be eaten up by extra operating costs at AME. Has the SB released any kind of analysis to this effect?
This is not meant to stir up the whole BB debate, as that horse is dead. But, in trying to stay on topic, this is the type of due diligence I would expect from a current or potential school board member. And if the analysis has been done privately, I would expect it to be made more public than it has been.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 16, 2008 11:12:51 GMT -5
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. . Glad to hear we both don't like misrepresentations of data. This is why I have a HUGE issue with someone we are paying 6 figures to who gets up and presents bad data to our voting board. Whether the misrepresentations were his deliberate act or someone working for him doing a poor job of collecting, summarizing and validating the data and instructing him to 'say this' via bullet points on a powerpoint presentation... Thankfully we can agree on bad data being just that, bad all around regardless of who presents it.
|
|
sushi
Master Member
Posts: 767
|
Post by sushi on Jun 16, 2008 11:18:53 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. I agree. My apologies to this board - seems I got very carried away. No more BB from me. Cheers. Absolutely no apologies necessary - I'm guilty of beating that horse myself. It seems the issues (all of them) are never resolved to anyone's complete satisfaction anyway .
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 16, 2008 11:27:40 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. They reported DFO consumption and electrical production for some months in 2001 and again in 2003. Many other peaker plants around the country I also spot checks still did also.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 16, 2008 11:36:40 GMT -5
Circling back around to SB Elections and Fiduciary responsibility angles that people running could take... One could even adopt the angle that AME saves money in ongoing transportation costs (assuming it does). Our starting point was the original transportation costs of X with 2 high schools. BG did an analysis of BB where he and whomever (bus company maybe) calculated a savings of 9% from the cost of X. That same analysis can and should be done for AME. The only thing seen for this is here: www.ipsd.org/Uploads/news_17229_2.pdf page 2 where they only compare to X that there will be no increase in cost. There is no mention of 'savings' other than 'reduce overall average travel time for students' If there is an actual dollar savings too compared to X (2 HSs) then that would be a good campaign point for someone with convictions about the site and the ongoing costs to operate there and would take the wind right out of the sails of anyone who claims there is no money savings or that we 'gave up' some savings from BB that we will now have to pay for year after year.
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Jun 16, 2008 11:58:49 GMT -5
..... That same analysis can and should be done for AME. The only thing seen for this is here: www.ipsd.org/Uploads/news_17229_2.pdf page 2 where they only compare to X that there will be no increase in cost. There is no mention of 'savings' other than 'reduce overall average travel time for students' If there is an actual dollar savings too compared to X (2 HSs) then that would be a good campaign point for someone with convictions about the site and the ongoing costs to operate there and would take the wind right out of the sails of anyone who claims there is no money savings or that we 'gave up' some savings from BB that we will now have to pay for year after year. Huh? From: www.ipsd.org/Uploads/news_17229_2.pdf"How do busing expenses and travel times for Eola Road compare to Brach-Brodie?The overall average district transportation times projected for Eola Road are the same as Brach-Brodie. In addition, Laidlaw has reviewed bus service to the Eola Road location and has concluded that no additional transportation costs will be incurred. Compared with transportation for our current two high schools, having an even geographical distribution of high schools allows for efficient boundaries that will reduce the overall average travel time for students." (emphasis mine) What are you talking about? The comparison in the passage above is done between Eola and BB (XX), not No 3'rd HS and Eola (X). I have no idea how you interpret this statement in the manner you have. So the savings are THE SAME as that for BB vs No 3'rd HS = 9%. Have the rules of logic been re-written since I started to post? Cheers. P.S. I know I am being trolled to keep repeating what has been posted. This has been discussed for the half of this rather long thread. Enough already!
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 16, 2008 12:04:04 GMT -5
Yup, I misread that because I also found this page 25 www.ipsd.org/Uploads/news_17332_1.pdf when trying to find other things put forth on that. Now we're back where we were earlier... current contract costs. When that contract is up, will they really be the same? This is where the raw route data will come into play and will be the focal point on whether or not the boundaries can be re-optimized in the future to keep things at the 'same cost'. Added: This is the circular argument that keeps cropping up. Cost = Same (Current contract price based on routes and miles) so we don't need the routes. When the contract is up, we don't know if the cost will be the same because it will be based on the routes and miles... but we don't know what they are or if they are optimal; which is why people have asked the administration for them since Feb. So, if the cost goes up with no changes we don't know if we can make that cost go back down (or go down further from the 'same cost' of today).
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jun 16, 2008 12:51:25 GMT -5
Yup, I misread that because I also found this page 25 www.ipsd.org/Uploads/news_17332_1.pdf when trying to find other things put forth on that. Now we're back where we were earlier... current contract costs. When that contract is up, will they really be the same? This is where the raw route data will come into play and will be the focal point on whether or not the boundaries can be re-optimized in the future to keep things at the 'same cost'. Added: This is the circular argument that keeps cropping up. Cost = Same (Current contract price based on routes and miles) so we don't need the routes. When the contract is up, we don't know if the cost will be the same because it will be based on the routes and miles... but we don't know what they are or if they are optimal; which is why people have asked the administration for them since Feb. So, if the cost goes up with no changes we don't know if we can make that cost go back down (or go down further from the 'same cost' of today). We have Laidlaw on record as saying same costs for BB or Eola. When the contract is up, prices will most likely change. Again, this is a site independent event. I will put a little faith in Laidlaw(First Student) that they will come up with the most efficient routes, as it affects their profit margin. IIRC I did a "Back of the napkin" review on the changes in distance to the affected areas and it pretty much came out even. ETA : Gatordog did the math in this thread; ip204.proboards92.com/index.cgi?board=soundoff&action=display&thread=774Let's continue discussion there.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 16, 2008 12:56:27 GMT -5
Because it goes to the credibility of the school board members we are looking to elect or re-elect. The only reason BB was abandoned was because of land cost. The only reason. Can we agree on that? Now when choosing an alternate site, there are going to be differences in the annual operating costs between sites. Some things, such as building materials and food service contracts are likely a wash no matter what the location. However, busing costs would be something that, at least intuitively, might be significantly different. (And as I mentioned earlier, just because Laidlaw is charging us the same doesn't mean the true costs are the same. I am still interested in seeing a true route/mileage comparison.) When adding up all the financial differences (and I concede they wouldn't necessarily all be in BB's favor), we should have known if the initial savings of building at AME would be eaten up by extra operating costs at AME. Has the SB released any kind of analysis to this effect? This is not meant to stir up the whole BB debate, as that horse is dead. But, in trying to stay on topic, this is the type of due diligence I would expect from a current or potential school board member. And if the analysis has been done privately, I would expect it to be made more public than it has been. I honestly don't see what this would have to do with the 09 SB elections. I prefer to let each incumbant demonstrate what their individual accomplishments have been; let each non-incumbant demonstrate comparable accomplishments, and let all candidates state their credentials, and what improvements that they think should be focused on. Hindsight is 20/20, so talk about what was or wasn't done with BB and MV locations again seems pointless. The non-incumbants will have nothing to add to any such discussion, other than their 20/20 hind-sight analysis.
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Jun 16, 2008 12:58:15 GMT -5
Given that no one has a crystal ball, why dont you run for SB, Arch, and then you will have all the detail you need! I hear there are at least 4 spots open. Seems to me that unless you are running the show yourself, you are not going to believe anyone.
The contract costs could up or down for any site, depending on a lot of things that no one knows about. As you claim that somehow if you look at the routes, the cost will be optimal, and if the current SB looks at it is obviously wasted money, why don't you take on the official mantle and show us all that you're the most efficient?
Cheers.
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jun 16, 2008 13:00:09 GMT -5
I know what you are referring to WP, but I think it's also good to be prepared for those who will attempt to bring this very subject up and use it as part of their platform...especially when it is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 16, 2008 13:08:04 GMT -5
Yup, I misread that because I also found this page 25 www.ipsd.org/Uploads/news_17332_1.pdf when trying to find other things put forth on that. Now we're back where we were earlier... current contract costs. When that contract is up, will they really be the same? This is where the raw route data will come into play and will be the focal point on whether or not the boundaries can be re-optimized in the future to keep things at the 'same cost'. Added: This is the circular argument that keeps cropping up. Cost = Same (Current contract price based on routes and miles) so we don't need the routes. When the contract is up, we don't know if the cost will be the same because it will be based on the routes and miles... but we don't know what they are or if they are optimal; which is why people have asked the administration for them since Feb. So, if the cost goes up with no changes we don't know if we can make that cost go back down (or go down further from the 'same cost' of today). I'm not sure if you're asking for anything feasible here. For any contracts (food service, custodial service, bussing, teachers), a contract is signed for a certain period of years, and then a new contract is negociated. How could you expect anyone to predict what the yet-to-exist contract after the next will look like, and how certain scenarios would play out under that new, yet-to-exist contract? And just to be clear, we're just talking about MV @ Eola boundaries, right? Any comparison with, or discussion about, BB seems pretty pointless to me - at least I'm not going to participate. Assuming we're talking boundaries only, I'll repeat that there were multiple factors that were considered, some are more tangible than others, but I don't imagine that there's an XLS that can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the selected boundaries are the "best" boundaries. In fact, "best" probably means something different for different people, so I don't think you ever select boundaries that everyone in 204 agrees to be "best". So just because a new SB candidate can come up with some new boundaries may have a few shorter overall routes doesn't mean that those boundaries are "best" or better than any other boundaries.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Jun 16, 2008 13:22:10 GMT -5
I think Arch was trying to say that if an analysis was done on AME vs. no-3rd HS (similar to what was done with BB vs. no-3rd HS), we could mathematically compare the two without involving BB. If the savings were "only" 6%, we would know that AME's savings were 50% lower than BB's. In other words, instead of directly comparing AME vs. BB, which many are loathe to do, analyzing AME vs. no-3rd HS and then comparing that to BB's already calculated 9% would accomplish the exact same thing.
|
|