FB Independent Covers Controversial GSTC "Rubber Stamp" Vote!

FBN 6-11-09 Update: http://www.fortbendnow.com/2009/06/11/38474

"But IF Wallace is successful in raising 20% of the science center’s building costs, how will the district come up with the remaining 80% without raising property taxes?

Dr. Jenney has issued no definitive statement on the matter, however, both he and the feasibility committee have noted the availability of the district’s capital investment account." FBN

AND...

See: http://fbindependent.com/default.asp?sourceid=&smenu=1&twindow=Default&mad=&sdetail=1589&wpage=1&skeyword=&sidate=&ccat=&ccatm=&restate=&restatus=&reoption=&retype=&repmin=&repmax=&rebed=&rebath=&subname=&pform=&sc=2531&hn=fbindependent&he=.com

...Trustees Susan Hohnbaum and Bob Broxson repeated their concerns expressed earlier, while others had no reservations about the proposed center.

Hohnbaum said logistics still appeared to be an issue. She hoped the administration’s projection of enabling at least four to six trips to students from grade 2 to grade 8 to the GCST would become realistic.

“We won’t get the money’s worth if the trips are less than four a year,” Hohnbaum said.

The design team’s first priority should be to address the logistics of bringing all the students to the center, she said.

Broxson said he was concerned that the district was moving too quickly on the project. The phased approach makes sense and can work, he said.

Earlier, during public comments, Nancy Hentschel, a critic of the proposed center, said transportation and logistics alone would render the project not viable.

Hentschel characterized the GCST as “clever plan by construction vendors with no risk of private investment.”

FBW comment: Too bad the two BOT members with reservations on this duplication project did not vote their concerns and instead got in line behind the other vendor feeders. Sad too that the trustees seem to have violated their fidiciary role by not investigating a partnership with HMNS-Sugar Land and possibly using these funds for campus level labs which would have the intended impact on science outcomes that 4 visits a year to the administrative offices annex will not. Anyone doing a cost-benefit analysis would see the return as almost nil under the current arrangement except to the district vendors feeding off the taxpayers on this project.

Who said, let's do it for the children or are we doing it for the vendor corporations?