Vecchiato's Voice - High Rises In Langley But No Trade Offs! - How Come?

With the distribution of the Gateway to Global Warming paper, another avenue has opened up that may prove to be a crucial audience--students. A secondary school instructor asked for copies for his class. It is up to them to agree and find refutation, or disagree and find their argument.

The information present in the Gateway paper presents a good case for not expanding Deltaport nor continuing with Gateway, with specific focus on the environmental damage the SFPR would cause and the twinning without putting rapid transit first will only result in further congestion (build it and they will come). Because Gate 11-12 students will be voting in the next few years, arming them to make informed choices may knock them out of potential apathy.
*****
A proposed bylaw was submitted to Langley Township Council to consider mid to high-rises along the 200th Street corridor. I wrote to mayor and council, stating that I support high density as outlined in the bylaw on the condition that bonus density applies as well. Bonus density is a development tool allowed within the parameters of the BC Municipalities Act. Developers are allowed to build higher density subdivisions starting at over 6 houses per acre, and green space is traded for higher density; the more units constructed, the more green space received by the municipality and its taxpayers.

I was informed that bonus density will not apply to the particular by-law. My question is: Why not? A mid to high-rise corridor (with underground parking) fronting onto 200th and backing on to a green belt which would separate traditional development would not only improve the quality of life and absorb auto emissions, but it would also allow a reasonable corridor for the remaining wildlife to travel or burrow in. The iss ue of retention of natural features and incorporating development within such setting seems to be ignored.
*****
Delegations and letters to my municipal representatives have too often resulted in no response. When I emailed my opinion to mayor and council, I did receive 3 replies from council members: Councilor Charlie Fox, Councilor Jordan Bateman, and Councilor Kim Richter.

Cathleen Vecchiato
Fraser Valley Conservation Coalition...

Susan Semonick On Schools - Nov 1st Making History - Now The Gutting Of The Elementary Schools Will Start!

Coming: Next week Susan will give us her opinions on what she now sees are the parent and student options within this district based on the School Trustees decisions.
Well, I guess the quick adjournment Thursday night and non-completion of the October 30th agenda answers Mr. McFarlane’s question of “Are you comfortable with your decision?” It would be NO, if we go by appearances.

I cannot say, in good conscience, that I see this decision being a success. Considering the current financial situation our school district is faced with and the timeline they have chosen to accomplish the transition and reconfiguration of 5,788 students - I am too logical of a person to believe that this is realistic. I do not have a lot of letters behind my name, in the education field. I have learned about the operations of this district by being an involved constituent since 1993. I must say it is not perfect it has a letter grade of a D right now and will probably have an “I” by September. For those parents not knowing what an “I” means it means Incomplete or In progress. My concerns are about how many students will be lost through the cracks and will be failures because of this. You can be educated on paper, but it is your understanding of the people that counts.
Lionel, (lfp Ed.: See his sidebar comment.) it is sad that you feel that you have been left with no options but to leave. I can only hope that what ever you and your daughter decide on, she is able to achieve the dreams that she sees for herself. We will be posting an options supplement soon.

My motto I used as a DPAC President was “Our students, our stars - one and the same” and I still feel that way.

Hopefully, the district will be able to find the finances and staff to do this properly without making the rest of the schools in the district have to cut programs and special needs staff to finance it. That is what the review of the DDM mentioned in both reports is all about folks. They are looking at what they can cut from direct student services to make the bottom line. Looking at the list of people they are looking towards hiring in the near future it is obvious they will not be cutting anything at the district level; they are increasing there. Do not forget that the trustees are getting another raise as of December 1st. I wonder if they remember that their benefits should be cut - funny that they are taking a few years to make that change.

They have chosen to take 10 months to implement this district change when other districts that have taken this road have taken at least 24. Some are doing it well, while others are doing it poorly.

The trustees are looking at closing one more elementary; that will be decided in the New Year. Make your holiday season plays memorable for it may be the last ones you see in your neighborhood schools.

I cannot see this being the only elementary closed. Now that the middle school decision is made, the gutting of the elementary schools will start. They say it takes five years to change societal attitudes. I guess when the current grade four’s are graduating we will see if this was the right road to take; even though that will be way too late to do anything about it. “Too little, too late” - the motto of this current board.

People who do studies on people say that our society is pushing our youth to mature at too fast a rate that developmentally and socially they are becoming dormant volcanoes. The Ministry of Education has changed the graduation program so that instead of making your career choices in Grade 11 and 12, they make the students begin thinking about it in grade 9. With a grade K-5 configuration, we are now making 10 year olds become leaders instead of having the time to be the children that they are naturally. We are now going down a road that will likely create greater social problems than we have ever been faced with before.

To the Grade 11-12 students of H.D. Stafford Secondary…
I heard a song last night from a movie called Sing. It was about a secondary school closing because it was no longer affordable. In it, there was a song “One More Time” written by Tom Snow and Dean Pritchard and recorded by Michael Bolton. Some of the words were…

Don’t be scared.
We’ve got dreams and we’re still young
Just think of how far we’ve come
Think of all
We have shared
It’s a wonder we survive
But here we are and we’re alive! …..

Take a moment to celebrate
Now before we are gone. …..

There’s a power in our voices
Hopeful and strong

Years from now
Somewhere down the line
We’ll remember and we’ll all sing
One more time.

As a parent in the Langley community, I can only wish for the best of things for you in the future. Reach deep within and sing the song ONE MORE TIME.

Thinking of our stars;

Susan Semonick

P.S. If you are interested in viewing this movie it is on again Tuesday November 6 2pm –3:45 pm Channel 325 EA2 On Bell Express Vu. Viewer discretion is advised. There is coarse language.
...

Susan Semonick On Schools - Nov 1st School Board Meeting - No Surprise, 4 - 3 VOTE

The vote was 4-3 for REC 3 ( H.D. Stafford to become a middle school) and 4-3 to go ahead with the consideration of closing Murrayville. Which means the process is already half done. If they pass the boundary changes that were on this agenda at the next meeting it is definitely a done deal. To close at least one Elementary. Brace yourselves for what is evidently coming everyone. It is my Anniversary today so I will be giving a report sometime tomorrow. - Susan


Editor's Note: The doors were locked with these signs on both entry doors with taxpayer paid security guards manning the doors and despite people leaving on an ongoing basis no one else was allowed in.

This Editor was not permitted in and I could see that the foyer was basically empty which could have housed more people!
Meanwhile in 5 degree weather locked outside of the meeting the candle light vigil of predominantly the youth affected went on in vain.

Click on Pictures for larger view.

Susan Semonick On Schools - Supplemental Report On Special Needs Priority - NOT Middle Schools

On October 29th, I attended a meeting that was part of the Special Needs Inquiry in Langley. It was evident from listening to parents that many students are not receiving even the basic services to deal with their special needs. The Board, in its wisdom, may soon be approving a motion to spend money on a totally new program in Langley - middle school - instead of concentrating on addressing the current needs of students.

Many parents are finding that having an IEP is not a guarantee of services for their child. Some of the issues that contribute to this situation include a lack of time for teachers to read IEPs, communication, and opportunity for specialized training. Sometimes, something simple as a student’s need to have tests read to them is not being communicated to classroom teachers. In some cases, teachers are not aware of what is required to meet the needs of each student and the students are left in limbo. The need for continuity of service, as well as service provider, is being completely ignored for many of our special needs students – just how many students is difficult to count.

If the Board of Education wishes to increase student achievement and graduation numbers, then it should start taking care of the essentials instead of creating more choice that it can not possibly finance. Stop trying to be Donald Trumps, for trustees have sadly failed. When they have a continually expanding mandate, stop making the deficit worse - stop and take a breath. You do not need to be inventive; the crisis is not quite here yet. Let all the communities be consulted before anything is done. That was what was promised and that promise has been broken. When you look at the entire picture there are many options that will work. Select one that will complement current programs, not destroy them. According to some research I have been sent, middle schools create too many emotional stresses for our children. We do not have the trained staff to ensure that we will not be faced with higher pregnancies at the younger ages, or increased suicides, aggressive behavior, and the list goes on. The Board of Education will not lose face it says ‘let’s slow down.’

Teachers and parents are concerned that badly needed supports for students with special needs are still not forthcoming. Instead, students are faced with long waits before they see a specialist. They do not receive enough time from teaching assistants who must work with too many students. Teachers face overwhelming bureaucratic paperwork and schools are unable to find specialist teachers. The trustees are voting today on an option that has already been acknowledged as being expensive. The research states that in order for middle schools to be successful, before you start implementation you have to ensure the supports are in place. It is not possible to do this in the timeline put forth. It is overzealous and the timeline is unrealistic. It is doomed for failure and the casualties will be our students.

With this current situation how can they say they will take care of the additional needs the students will have with the middle school concept?

Stop and take a breath - do not go forward with Recommendation #3.

Concerned that the trustees really do not realize what they are doing to our students,

Susan Semonick...

School Board Meeting ON Tonight at 6 PM!

"The Board has fixed the time to which to adjourn the October 30, 2007 meeting to Thursday, November 1, 2007, 6 p.m. at the School Board Office, 4875 222nd Street in Langley. The meeting will resume at that time and location. Due to safety concerns and fire regulations, once the available seating is taken no more people will be admitted into the School Board Office. It is the Board's intention, as always, to strike a balance between the need for public access to meetings and for an orderly, safe and businesslike atmosphere."

Verbatim above as posted on School Board's website!
So get there early TOMORROW to try and get a seat! And Remember election count down is only 13 months away!

...

Susan Semonick On Schools - October 30th School Board Meeting at CLA

The unbelievable has happened. This dysfunctional board has decided to adjourn until Thursday –venue to be announced. There were five delegations permitted to present - two from the Murrayville Elementary community, two from LSS and one from HD Stafford. A motion to allow an additional five presenters before the recommendations were to be considered was defeated by the expected four to three vote.

ITEMS FOR BOARDS CONSIDERATION
(a) BUDGET UPDATEThe Board received the budget update which included the wish list of what enhancements in services that they might consider but are likely not feasible any longer due to the estimated 1.6 million that the Board has to come up with to deal with the sudden change in the Ministry funding formula for part-time secondary students in grades 10 to 12. Previously, the Ministry used to give full funding for a part time student taking at least four courses, which enabled the school to allow students that wanted more courses to be able to do so. Now, the base funding for these students will be gone. This amounts to a loss of just under $3,000 per regular part-time student. The students who used to be able to take extras may no longer be able to do so. In 2005, as DPAC President, I brought this to the attention of the Ministry because of the new graduation structure. At that time, they said there was discussion on it but we were assured that it was not likely to happen. Now, here we are, after boards have set their budgets, the government has decided to cut funding.

The next budget concern that the Board will have to deal with will be funding (or lack of funding) for adult education, which they will be expected to take on in September 2008. Or, the Ministry may give back the 1.6 million that they clawed back for the part-time students to provide for the adult students. We will have to wait and see whether the Ministry will provide any transitional funding this year.

(b) TRANSITIONAL DISTRICT LITERACY PLAN
The Transitional District Literacy Plan was approved. Mr. Etchell called this a plan for a plan to implement literacy strategies to address literacy from pre-K to adults. The plan is based upon Four Pillars of ReadNow BC and involves a host of community groups as well as the school district. A copy of the plan was not available in the package but should be available shortly on the district website.

(c) 2007/2008 DISTRICT ACHIEVEMENT CONTRACT: TRANSITION PLANThe 2007/2008 District Achievement Contract - Transition Plan was approved. A copy should be available on the district website shortly.

(d) RECOMMENDATIONS – SOUTH CENTRAL LANGLEY
Recommendation #1: That the verbal report on Elementary Schools in the South Central Area of the School District, was received for information.

It was stated that should they vote to change the James Hill boundaries so that some students would be going to Peterson Road, if the Murrayville School closed, all of Murrayville students would fit into James Hill. It looks like they are wishing to align all the new boundaries so they can proceed with their plan.

Recommendation #2a: That the addendum to the Proposed Reconfiguration of H.D. Stafford Secondary School and Langley Secondary School, regarding the option of establishing a Grade 6 to 12 configuration as a pilot program at Langley Secondary School, was received for information.

Depending on the vote on Recommendation # 3 it will determine if they should even be looking at this.

Recommendation #2b: Fine arts choice program at HD Stafford and Blacklock Elementary was received for information.

Again depending on the vote on Rec#3, I do not see why they even are receiving this information except to appear to be considering all information and options.

Recommendation #3: That the Board approve the reconfiguration of Langley Secondary School and H.D. Stafford Secondary School to establish a Grade 6 – 8, middle school at H.D. Stafford Secondary School and a Grade 9 – 12 secondary school at Langley Secondary School, effective September, 2008.

All trustees except Burton were able to complete their address on why they were voting the way they are going to. My guess would be 4 –3 to approve the recommendation. The addresses to the public were compelling from the Famous Four but one vital fact that is left out of all their reports is that it is known that if the community is not in support of a middle school it will not work. Because of actions by a few frustrated people, the four trustees have dug their heels in and are probably not going to vote no. For now, they in my opinion only probably feel they will lose face if they do so - that is what I got out of their speeches. They still do not have a dollar figure for this option.

A few trustees have taken offense at the public stating that trustees were not listening. When you do not reply or acknowledge receipt of e-mails etc. people do tend to think you are not listening or did not hear them.

To his credit, the Chair did not cut any of the trustees short during their comments on recommendation #3 even though all of them went over the 10-minute limit. Some have suggested that there might have been some filibustering going on but I did not sense that from any of them. The meeting was abruptly adjourned or recessed by Chair Burton - not sure which was the official stance. This occurred when the clock struck 11 pm and someone from the balcony interrupted the Chair and brought to his attention that they would have to make a motion to continue.

It appeared in my opinion that due to Chair Burton taking offense that someone was bringing the time to his attention, he may have lost it, along with others in the crowd at this point. I believe they were only trying to follow the process that Mr. Burton himself had used at the prior meeting. It was a highly charged meeting and Burton only wanted to be heard and in my opinion seemed to get frustrated with it all. It appears he does know how it feels not to be respected and not listened to. He reacted by adjourning and moving the meeting to another room. Only partner group representatives, senior management and the press were invited to the subsequent meeting. In the end, the meeting was adjourned to Thursday at 6 pm to a place to be announced on Wednesday.

Effectively the meeting would continue where it left off. The rest of the agenda will be dealt with on Thursday.

While the meeting is intended to end at 11:00 pm, this is not in policy. The public is not entitled to interfere with the proceedings of the Board meeting - only to attend and participate during delegations and question period. The Chair was attempting to continue with a motion that was already on the table and conclude business in a reasonable way, which is his decision. I expect that a motion to adjourn would have followed the vote. The undisciplined actions of a few people delayed the inevitable and inconvenienced the rest of the public who attended. The three trustees who remained should have adjourned to the other room, regardless of how they feel about recommendation #3. They are members of the Board and such should conduct themselves accordingly. Poor behaviour on both sides of the table.

Personal notes: As two trustees have stated, this Board is dysfunctional. The Minister of Education, on behalf of all the students in School District 35, must intervene. This has gone beyond the ridiculous. How can trustees make fiscally responsible decisions without knowing the financial cost of what they are voting on?...

Oct 30st School Board Meeting At CLA - Pictures

Click on Pictures for larger view.

Pictures of the Langley School Board Meeting held at Christian Life Assembly on Oct 30.

^--Meeting from back of Auditorium

Meeting from balcony -->

The School Board meeting had a record large audience of parents, students and varied other politicians.

Xmas Lites In Aldergrove! - It's Not What You Know, But Who You Know

The Background

Rookie councillor Jordan Bateman says that he was told by an unnamed person in his church that Xmas lights/wiring supposedly worth about $2500.00 were stolen from the Aldergrove Fire Hall. These lights were used 2 years in a row to help collect charitable donations with a volunteer driven 'Fire & Ice' Christmas light and ornament show run by the Aldergrove Firefighters.

The Jordan Bateman Motion

Based on this background, rookie councillor Jordan Bateman presented a motion to Township Council last night to give $2500.00 of Langley Tax Payer monies to the Aldergrove Fire and Ice Committee to replace their lights/wiring.

Valid and Reasonable Questions

Councillor Richter asked Cllr. Bateman if any official or formal request was submitted by the Fire Hall or from any of its organizing group members. The answer was 'no' and that the information had only come from someone (again unnamed) who told him about it at his own church and who was aware of this supposed theft.

The Result

Council after much discussion and no confirming evidence or facts voted to provide up to $2500.00 to replace the Xmas lights. Cllr. Richter was the only Cllr. to vote against Bateman's motion.

Richter's Rationale and Concern

"IT'S NOT WHAT YOU KNOW..."

No actual or externally qualified confirmation of the theft of the lights, details, replacement costs, etc. whatsoever were given to Council. All they had was a Notice of Motion by Cllr. Bateman. Many other organizations also frequently ask for funding for equally valid and justified volunteer requests and confirm their requests with proper procedure, information and documentation. Heck just last month, the Langley Community Services Board Chair & President with a personal appearance & appeal to Council got turned down, yet an unknown source's off-the-cuff comment garners $2500! This Xmas light replacement was based solely on an unnamed someone in Bateman's church, who said it happened and that it would supposedly cost about $2500.00 to replace. No paper, No confirmation, No proof, No proper procedures, No details, No names!

"...BUT WHO YOU KNOW"

Richter's major concern was that approving such an unsubstantiated request for taxpayer monies sends out a very bad message and precedent because it essentially says that if you know someone on council, you can get something simply and easily just by having an insider conversation with a friendly Township council member!

LFP's Summary

Rash financial exuberance and enthusiasm can be costly and dangerous especially for us poor Township taxpayers in the end. This current example just highlights the poor financial acumen and lack of due financial diligence that has caused the $3-4-5-6- million dollar grandstand fiasco overruns and the most recent highest ever historical tax increases imposed on us by this current slate of Township Council "good ole boy's club".

All of these were financial horror stories with motions first moved by rookie Councillor Jordan Bateman who with now just a year to go in his first term is now clearly trying to position himself as a born-again financially and fiscally prudent councillor. LFP finds it interesting that he consistently votes contrary to all the fiscally responsible recommendations of Councillor Richter and also made sure that the Township was saddled with the historically highest ever tax hikes and major spending projects since he has been elected! It's simply too little, too late, Cllr. Bateman.

The Xmas lights is just another symptom and blatant example of rash procedure and decision making by the "good ole boys" on Township council. As Richter pointed out, she would be the first to agree to the $2500.00 if it was confirmed and properly handled. This Township once got rid of a council that used questionable processes. That LLT Council at least were the last Council to not increase taxes and they eliminated our Township debt. This "good ole boy's club" has implemented historic tax increases, outrageous and constant spending, and over budget project spending as well as they have brought back multi million dollar Township debt as well!

The Sad Moral of this story IS...

It's not what you know, but who you know! So why bother to get in line for a Township grant - that takes time and effort. Call a Councillor instead!

...

Susan Semonick On Schools - Report on the Langley DPAC Survey

The results for the two Langley DPAC surveys regarding the South/Central consultations have been posted on their site. Unfortunately, without making the comments portion of the survey public, the results are difficult to understand and do not provide any clear insight. The rationale for not providing the comments apparently is ......

"The personal comments from parents will not be publicly available due to the small number of responses from some schools – these were not PAC opinion comments from our members – they were parents’ personal thoughts on this issue and were sent as such only where we said they would go."

I say - most people expect survey results to be publicized and certainly names and schools could be masked. The small number of responses from some schools are still responses from concerned parties of the Langley School District and as such why should it matter where their children attend school - after all, we have been consistently told that this is a district issue and affects all students. Langley DPAC should be releasing those comments along with the figures so that the survey results can make sense. The results belong to the PACs and parents - not to the trustees. Otherwise, why do the survey and pay for it, unless DPAC has suddenly become a tool of the school district rather than its membership? It looks like DPAC is taking a page out of the school district's playbook regarding the sharing of certain information. I wonder how parents and PACs feel. I would trust that people would be able to discriminate between good and bad data. Haven't they done this so far with all the information provided to them by the district? Why is DPAC giving Trustees "special information" and not to the public or their membership? Shouldn't we all have the same info to base our responses on?

As for the results, there were 359 who responded to the middle school survey and only 62 to the Options survey. Understandably a significant proportion of the respondents (over 80%) were from the South/Central area. There is little else I can add without the additional information that DPAC is apparently unwilling to communicate to the public.

There were only 8 participants from LSS, on the first survey and only 3 participants from LSS on the second survey.
Sadly on the second survey there was 6 people who felt that to do nothing is an option.
On the second survey there were only 4 people that wanted the middle school to go ahead as proposed.

There were 46.8 percent of the people wanted different options. Unfortunately another irrelevant fact without the related comments.

If I had to sum up this report on the results as posted I would have to say "IRRELAVANT".

There were only four people out of 62 respondents to the DPAC's Options survey chose the current middle school proposal. Either the survey was poorly advertised to the parents or the so-called silent majority have left it up to the parents whose children will be directly involved in the collateral damage to decide for them.

With the recent announcement of changes to the funding formula for part-time students in the province, I would hazard a guess that this will be about anywhere from an $800,000 to over $1,000,000 impact to our district's budget.

So, in order to make that up, the SDBC could be dissolved and all contributions to the School District Foundation from the ISP program could be ended and the district could stop supplying an employee at $47,000 a year plus expenses. The next thing that will be coming up is that the school district will be expected to supply adult education at no cost starting in September 2008. Hopefully, the government supplements for these students will come in before any more schools have to close. I would think the trustees have been left with no other option but to VOTE NO to the expense that the Middle school concept will cost the district. The savings from school closures will have to be used along with many other things to make up this shortfall rather than go into an expensive experiment like the proposed middle school program, which has no definite costs reported.

Report on the Langley DPAC Survey, Respectfully submitted by Susan Semonick...

What's The Rush? - Oct 28th Newspaper Appeal Ad From Langley Concerned Community Group

E-MAIL & CALL your Langley Neighbours & Friends and get then to read Susan's facts in LFP and then get them out to Tuesday's historic School Board Meeting!

Breaking News Update: Oct 30 tuesday Board Meeting (Stafford closure decision day) - Venue Change moved to Christian Life Assembly, 21277 - 56th Avenue, Langley - 07:30 PM-11:00PM !!! Apparently the School Bored will be meeting at 7 in camera and public meeting only open at 7:30 PM!