by Chris Haddox
LEED AP
Woodburn resident and Woodburn parent
Dear Superintendent Devono and members of the Mon County Board of Education,
The past eighteen months, especially the months since November, have seen so much activity around the futures of both Woodburn and Easton Elementary Schools that in preparing my comments for this evening, it was difficult to even know where to begin. I’ve decided to begin with the simplest observations of what is right and wrong about the entire situation.
It is right that the collective conscience of the Mon County Board of Education has finally had enough of the deplorable teaching and learning conditions it has allowed to exist at both Woodburn and Easton schools.
It is right that the Mon County Board of Education is interested in exploring green avenues for dealing with the question of “what to do about Woodburn and Easton?”
For me, that is where the “rights” end and the “wrongs” begin.
It is wrong to assume that a half-baked consolidation plan, conceived largely in secrecy during the past few months, that will potentially place a large elementary school at the intersection of 705 and Mileground is a suitable answer to the question. Much less a green solution. It is wrong for several reasons:
- It is wrong because it was formulated by an agency of the public without significant public awareness or input.
- It is wrong because it ignores the impacts of the entire school enterprise upon the community at large. The school enterprise necessarily considers community wide ramifications such as development patterns, which areas grow and which decline, due to the placement and removal of schools. Both the Council of Educational Facilities Planners International and the US Environmental Protection Agency cite the importance of smaller, neighborhood schools on neighborhood stabilization–stabilization that is internationally recognized as key in curbing the unplanned, automobile dependent sprawl that is largely driven by the removal of schools from municipal centers to their fringes.
- It is wrong because it ignores research findings about the importance of small schools on educational outcomes and social development of elementary age school children.
- It is wrong because it presumes that a green project can be measured by the performance of the building only, and that the other aforementioned ramifications on the community at large can be ignored. WVU has been approached to provide building design expertise, yet where is the land use planning expertise.
- It is fiscally wrong and unsafe because the Pittsburgh coal seam underlying the Mileground site is extensively undermined as per the Boards own engineering report. It favors a purchase price of $2.275 million dollars and the spending of additional monies, perhaps millions as with the UHS location, to stabilize a site that according to the engineering report has a “very high potential for subsidence.” A report that as of the Tuesday, May 12 BOE meeting, has apparently not been digested by all BOE members.
- It is wrong because the Board publicly and wrongly discounts the potential for reutilizing the existing Woodburn site: a site that is not underlain with the Pittsburgh coal seam, is already owned by the Board of Education and for the past 100 years has held a school quite nicely. Yet, in its application for funding to the SBA, the Board notes that utilization of the existing site is indeed a possibility. Is that existing site the Woodburn site or the Easton site?
- It is wrong because it is happening in isolation from several key comprehensive planning exercises that are currently underway or slated to begin soon, including the Morgantown Comprehensive Plan, the Downtown Strategic Plan, the Morgantown Housing Study, the WVU 2020 Strategic Plan and the WV DOH/MPO plans for designing a solution to the Mileground traffic problems.
- It is wrong because it pressures the public to say “yes” to a half baked plan as the Board has $8.6 million of SBA money essentially in hand. For the community to say to the Board, “let’s go together back to the drawing board” creates the possibility of the Board having to go back to the SBA and say, “no thanks…not at this time.”
What, then, to do? The options are clear to me:
- Go back to the School Building Authority and tell them we can do better. Request additional latitude in spending the funds we have. Bring your oft touted and obviously strong relationship with the School Building Authority to bear on this issue.
- Go back to the School Building Authority with a solution that is equitable to Easton families and their neighborhood and a solution that is equitable to Woodburn families and their neighborhood. Look to the literature for examples of thinking outside the box. They are out there. Take a tip from sustainable design luminary, Amory Lovins, and ask, “what box?”
- Make your jobs easier by fully engaging the communities your decisions will impact. If it were not obvious before, perhaps it is now. There are talented and dedicated people wiling to get involved. You can choose to be on the receiving end of their opposition, and there is plenty to oppose, or on the receiving end of their time and talents.
To engage the stakeholders takes effort far above that expended while stumping for the Board. It cannot be done with a few generic, cryptic flyers sent out a couple of days in advance of equally mysterious meetings. It takes multiple opportunities to sit down as equal partners around a table where the seriousness of the agenda is clear to all. Consider that at the October, 2009 CEFP meeting at Morgantown High School, 8 Woodburn representatives, two of which were children, comprised a significant portion of the participants, most of which were school administrators and teachers.
Engagement and creativity takes time, effort and input from multiple stakeholders. If the true desire for creative solutions is present, however, teams will come together and creative solutions will emerge and be advocated for.
Prosecute Massey for Manslaughter
In news & commentary on May 24, 2010 at 2:51 pmby Russell Mokhiber
A group of citizen activists are calling on the state of West Virginia to prosecute Massey Energy for manslaughter.
The group has set up a web site — prosecutemassey.org – that allows citizens to petition the state prosecutor to bring manslaughter charges against the coal company in connection with the April 5 explosion that claimed the lives of 29 coal miners.
“If there is evidence to support a homicide prosecution, I would not hesitate to prosecute,” Kristen Keller, the prosecuting attorney for Raleigh County, said last month.
Keller says she has been in touch with the West Virginia State Police on the matter.
And she says that any federal regulatory investigation would not preclude a state homicide investigation.
“A federal regulatory investigation does not satisfy the need for a state criminal investigation,” Keller said. “If there were a car accident where one or ten or 29 people were killed – a federal investigation would not preclude a state criminal investigation. In fact, there would be a state criminal investigation.”
The group is seeking to place billboards throughout the state.
The billboard reads:
And the group is seeking to take out radio ads throughout the state.
West Virginia has an involuntary manslaughter law.
According to state law:
Under West Virginia law, reckless disregard is something more than ordinary or simple negligence.
It is negligence that consciously ignores the safety of others.
And so the question is – do Massey’s actions at the Upper Big Branch mine meet the standard for reckless disregard?
The Washington Post reported last month that federal safety inspectors who visited Massey Energy’s Upper Big Branch coal mine early this year said senior managers showed “reckless disregard” for worker safety by telling a foreman to ignore a citation the mine had received for faulty ventilation, according to the inspectors’ handwritten notes.
The notes, from inspections in early January, say the president and a vice president of Massey Energy’s Performance Coal subsidiary told a foreman at the Upper Big Branch mine “not to worry about it” when he spoke to them about a ventilation problem cited by federal mine safety inspectors three weeks earlier.
They told the foreman “it was fine,” according to the notes, citing the account of a mine employee.
The Post reported that the sharpest words in the notes came January 7, when an unidentified mine employee told an inspector that a serious ventilation problem – air flowing the wrong direction in an intake duct — had not been fixed because Performance Coal President Christopher Blanchard and Vice President Jamie Ferguson had instructed a foreman, Terry Moore, to disregard the issue.
The foreman said he had known about the problem for three weeks.
The federal mine safety inspector went on to say that “the operator has shown a reckless disregard of care to the miners on this section and [eligible] men that use this escapeway.”
He added later that “I believe the operator has shown high negligence due to fact of management knowing where problem is.”
He said the ventilation flaw could “result in fatal injuries” by sending methane to the coal face where drilling was taking place.
Corporations have been prosecuted for homicide for reckless disregard in the past – most notably Ford Motor Company in the late 1970s.
On August 10, 1978, three teenage girls driving in a Ford Pinto were hit from behind on Highway 33 in northern Indiana.
Within moments their car burst into flames and Lyn Ulrich, 16 and her cousin Donna Ulrich, 18, were burned to death.
Eight hours later, Lyn’s 18-year-old sister, Judy, who had third degree burns over 95 percent of her body, also died.
When an Indiana grand jury looked into the accident a month later, they voted unanimously to indict not the driver of the van that had rear-ended the three girls, but Ford Motor Company – then the country’s third largest industrial corporation – on three counts of reckless homicide.
The automaker was accused of recklessly designing, manufacturing and marketing the Pinto’s unsafe fuel tank system.
Although Ford was ultimately acquitted, the criminal prosecution of Ford Motor Company reestablished an important precedent:
In certain cases involving human health and safety, corporations and their executives could be required to submit not only to the scrutiny and sanctions of traditional federal agencies, but to state criminal courts as well.
Russell Mokhiber is the editor of the Corporate Crime Reporter.