Citizen is having difficulty with some of the numbers the Board of Education is putting out on the cost of closing schools.

By Pepper Parr

February 21, 2017

BURLINGTON, ON

 

The bureaucrats use the words “transparency” and “accountable” when they talk about the work they do. It is the citizens that employ these bureaucrats that insist on both the transparency and for the bureaucrats to be accountable.

Dave Myers, a retired senior who gets away to ski a little from time to time has sat in on all of the Program and Accommodation Review (PARC) meeting and found himself wondering about some of the data the public was being given.

Myers was in sales and marketing and the costs of a product or service are things he can get his head around.
Burlington is currently undergoing a Program and Accommodation Review that may lead to the closure of one or more high schools in the city. A PARC with two parents from each of the seven high schools has been meeting to discuss closure options. The meetings are open to the public.

Myers, a parent, not on the PARC, who has attended these meetings and reviewed the information provided to the PARC believes there are several concerns about the renewal costs for Burlington High Schools.

On Thursday February 17th at the Burlington Secondary High School PARC meeting, Halton District School Board Superintendent, Gerry Cullen explained how high schools are maintained and upgraded.

Myers believes Cullen clearly recognized that there was an error in the data presented in the November 6thSchool Information Package (SIP). SIP’s are documents that have more information than anyone could want on the condition of a high school. The data is available on the school board web site.

Adding to the confusion Myers says PARC members were told previously that the January 24th SIP renewal costs, that were hugely different than they were on November 6th, were incorrect and new data would be forthcoming.

At Thursday’s PARC working meeting #4, Cullen said, that actually the January 24th SIP renewal costs were correct and expressed 100% confidence in this information.

So, wonders Myers: “the data’s correct, sorry that data is incorrect and here’s the new data, no it’s incorrect, more new data coming, no, no, sorry the data is correct, and we’re 100% confident this time. Confused? Trusting?”

In the HDSB’s January 24th SIP both historical and projected renewal costs are presented, let’s look at those historical costs.

Are these in fact “actual real costs” or historical budgeted costs?

Myers took the HDSB’s historical costs and compared them annually by school.

When the information is presented this way, a few other observations and questions arise. Myers points out that:

This is a 10 year view (2004 – 2013), why is data included for 2015 for two of the schools only?

No renewal work was done for Pearson and Nelson in 2008, and for 2 consecutive years at Bateman and Pearson?

The total cost for Aldershot does not balance with the January 24th SIP data.

Almost $8M was spent on renewals in 2005, then only $821,000 in 2013, a ten-fold decrease?

Cullen explained that renewals were managed and planned to take out the yearly ups and downs.

There are more questions that can be raised, but scratching at the surface suggests a data quality/data integrity concern said Myers.

Some have already questioned the projected renewal costs for our high schools by. Myers looked at this information closely and has questions regarding its quality and accuracy.

First of all, according to the foot notes in the January 24th SIP the data for renewals is based on inspections completed in 2011, so the information is 6 years old as of today! I don’t recall Mr. Cullen communicating that to the PARC representatives.

The inspectors at the time were making predictions of renewal costs for 10 years into the future or to 2021 – how good was their crystal ball?

Why would the HDSB not complete a more recent series of inspections in, say 2016, knowing it was going to undertake a PAR?

But most interestingly, only Central shows work for 2020 and 2021. How is it possible that there is no identified renewal work for Aldershot after 2014; Pearson after 2018; MM Robinson 2015-2020; Nelson after 2015; Bateman after 2018?

Is data missing, or not being reported? Or has the HDSB completed work for other schools that were lower priority than renewal required work for Central?

Myers also looked closely at the actual renewal costs that  Cullen has put forward for Central:

$1.9M for a new roof at Central, Historical SIP and Google Earth shows that some roof sections are new – has this been accounted for in the estimate?.

The SIP data also shows that roof replacements (if accurate) had been completed at Nelson, Bateman, Pearson and Aldershot with Central being one of the last in the cycle. So are we making decisions for students based on scheduled roof repairs?

Why did the HDSB put a brand-new roof on portables at Pearson with enrollment at 392 students in a school with a student capacity of 642 students in the permanent building and 936 students when the portables are included. Would it have been more cost efficient to remove these portables as they were not needed, not to mention an eyesore and detract visually from the school?

Fittings Auditorium Seating – $159,000; the auditorium at Central was completely renovated five years ago for $120,000 and largely paid for by fundraising at the school. All the seats are new. Fittings for the seats are budgeted to cost more than the entire renovation?

$280,000 for roadway and parking lots and Pedestrian walkways at Central. Myers inspected the asphalt surfaces at Central and all other high schools and found Central to be typical in condition to the other schools, and in fact more than acceptable. Nelson and MM Robinson appear to require more pavement work yet Nelson shows $0 and MM Robinson only Shows $96,000?

It appears most if not all windows at Central have been replaced, yet $38,000 is called out for new windows.

$1.6M is required for various heating and ventilation system renewals at Central, a boiler was replaced and much work was done to the heating system historically.

Studies – $71,000 for Central, albeit a small item, approximately $30,000 is carried for studies for the other schools, so studies at Central are twice that at other schools?

So what, asks Myers, is the PARC supposed to do with this data? It is clear that the data is incomplete and inconsistent among schools at best, and potentially prejudicial to a few schools at worst, especially one of the schools named in the original closure recommendation (Central).

As such, the PARC should be very careful about making any decisions based on these numbers. In fact, they have been advised by the PARC chair “not to focus on the numbers.”

That is all well and good, however, says Myers,  the “bell has been rung” already by providing these numbers, and it is very difficult to walk it back and for PARC members to un-hear or forget the costs they have been given for the five year renewal costs.

Further, the HDSB has not taken significant efforts to correct this data and provide a more complete, consistent set of numbers for the PARC to review. That remains a significant problem with this process, one of many already raised about the quality of the information being provided to the PARC on which they are to base their deliberations.

If the data cannot be trusted and if the Board of Education chooses not to respond or provide valid data is the PARC process Burlington is currently going through valid?

Is it transparent?

Are the bureaucrats accountable?

Doesn’t look that way does it.

All the data, the debate and the serious citizen concern are headed towards the trustees – one can only hope that they will be both transparent and accountable and put a stop to this farce.