Response email from David Sholem, Sept 30 2014, Chamber 2

John:

Neil Strack previously confirmed no one is paying him to analyze the Unit 4 high school options. Like others participating in these discussions, Neil is an interested taxpayer who has donated many hours attempting to decipher the limited information released by the Unit 4 Board of Education and its architects with respect to construction cost assumptions. I wish your colleagues and you would (a) develop and release a master construction plan and financing plan  for all Unit 4 schools requiring replacement or upgrades, (b) release more detailed construction cost information so Neil Strack is not forced to guess at your architect’s assumptions and (c) disclose the content of the Central High School Expansion Study dated August 6, 2014 which you have had for weeks in draft form. There is no logical reason for you to have engaged Unit 4 legal counsel to prepare and release a summary of Option C of the August 6, 2014 report, while withholding all information about less expensive, more practical options which I presume are included in Options A and B. The lack of transparency is creating the presumption that you have something to hide.

One Response to “Response email from David Sholem, Sept 30 2014, Chamber 2”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: