A few questions.
1) I’m on this email list, is there a particular reason you refer to me
in the third person?
2) Neil Strack is able to speak for himself. For that matter, as am I,
why you choose to apologize on my behalf to David is, in short, odd.
3) On one hand, you ask us to refer to the City of Champaign Planning or
Code Department for an authoritative answer. On the other, in emails
this summer you said we should NOT rely on the City Planning Department
that the zoning and growth patterns for the Interstate Drive location
are residential. Should we or should we not take their work product
authoritatively or does that solely depend on how their answer comports
to your political agenda?
4) While we are on the subject of the City Planning Department, in 2013,
Strack asked for a reinspection of properties certifying safety findings
were resolved. The reality is 34 of those buildings still had safety
violations. We take safety of Unit 4 schools seriously.
5) I didn’t precisely question his competence, I said he merely had no
experience building a school. Apparently you don’t think I have the
intelligence to verify that his claims of constructing the 10 schools he
suggested he did was, at best, an exaggeration. I would think you, of
all people, know my ability to research information. I’m not sure
putting in fire alarms into a school makes you an expert in how to build
a high school. Neither does working at a firm where someone else builds
schools make you an expert. I colleague of mine knows how to juggle.
That doesn’t, however, make me grand master of the circus.
6) I have, however, questioned his integrity. He sat inside Mellon,
said he was being paid by for his work. Now he says he is not. I have
no idea what the truth is, but when people change their story on simple
facts I assume they are lying and move on with my day.
7) I’ve read his analysis that SOMEHOW building at Judah/Spalding is
cheaper when common sense dictates it is clearly not. His analysis is
clearly wrong. When he sat in Mellon and discussed his assumptions, it
was clear how off base he really was. So these perceptions are based on
direct interactions with him. I don’t need references, he’s fostered
these conclusions well enough on his own.
8) And I’ve noticed that either he are those working in concert with him
give his analysis to the press and not to us thus confirming a political
agenda unconnected to what’s best of the children and the taxpayers. He
and those affiliated with him have simply been taking up staff time and
taxpayer dollars to turn Mellon into the research arm of the No
committee. That ends today. Taxpayers will not be funding or
supporting the political efforts of either side of this referendum
campaign. Ethics law is clear on that point.