That's a little hard to believe since school boards across the country, and recently in Cobb County, have been plauged with this exact same problem. Whenever a cell tower is involved, the administration that normally has no problems with holding meetings and having people attend them, suddenly is struck by poorly written notices, forgetful assistants and a lack of basic grammer and writing skills to let people know that this subject is a pretty important one.
So, maybe we should send our school board members back to school to learn the basic principles of Logical Reasoning. You know, such as Dogs are Nice; Some people are Nice; therefore, some people are dogs. Right?
So, No One Showed Up for the Meeting; Sometimes if People Do Not Care About Something, They do Not Show Up for Meetings; Therefore if No One Showe Up for This Meeting then No One Cared and Therefore Everyone Everywhere is Perfectly Fine with What We are Planning to Do.
That's just faulty logic all around.
And, here's the article recently in Crossroads by Jennifer Parker. The red text is by GTCO-ATL so you can know what we think about the stories that are out there. (The truth lies somewhere beneath all the rubble the School Board dishes out.)
Read more: CrossRoadsNews - Turnout low at meetings before cell towers vote
When the DeKalb School Board decided on July 11, 2011, to allow T-Mobile to erect 150-foot cell towers on nine DeKalb School System properties, public input into the decision was sparse at best.
Acutally, this statement is not exactly true. The public input on July 11 was reportedly "very clear" according to several board members who suggested they had received many calls and emails regarding the three schools who ended up being removed from the list They also claimed to have received many calls in favor of the cell towers at other schools, but the proof of these phone calls has not surfaced, nor have the names of these people who have yet to come forward publically and apparantly did not even wish to question things like, "will our school receive any money if we agree?"
At the 12 schools that were on the original list, only 10 had people show up for the (T-mobile) meetings. The sign-in sheets from the meetings held between May 3 and May 11, 2011, obtained in an open record’s request this week show that only 110 people attended.
Question: Even if we had an entire school turn out for one of these meetings, would it still qualify as a "public input meeting" as defined by the state law that requires the school board gain the input of the parents and community on issues of controversy? Since the only people who did any talking were the T-mobile guys, wasn't this really just a sales pitch after the fact intended to reassure anyone who may have actually shown up? People don't usually provide input into a decision immediately after watching a sales pitch while the sales person is still right there in the room. So, these were really just meetings "to be informed" as the flyer suggested and not an opportunity to really influence the outcome. AND, a quarom of board members must be present for a public meeting to take place.
The total number is incorrect if school officials actually signed themselves in on the total headcount provided below. Crossroads reported that 3 members from the administrative staff plus the principal would have likely signed in at each meeting. So, each total below should be adjusted to remove either 3 or 4 (if the principal attendeded or not) accordingly.
Princeton Elementary School meeting was scheduled for May 10, according to the original flyer that went home with children: http://www.scribd.com/doc/86772448/58801355-Official-Notice-by-T-Mobile-and-DeKalb-County-School-Board. And, if Womack and entourage signed in at all but 10 meetings, how did they manage to do that when many meetings took place on the same day and time?
Among those schools, Medlock Elementary in Decatur had the largest turnout with 55 people. It was followed by Jolly Elementary in Clarkston with 12 attendees. Six other schools had single-digit attendance of between three and nine people.
Medlock area parents had been approached early on in the process (and other PTAs have now admittd the same). After saying no to the cell tower proposal, they soon learned their school had been closed. Was this used as an example to keep the other school PTA's quiet?
Medlock Elementary School had just been notified that their school was going to be closed so the turnout for the meeting was based on an activity neighborhood association wanting answers and finally having a public forum in which to address their board member on this issue.
Also, worthy of noting that parents at schools with meetings that had already taken place were referred to attend one of the meetings on the last day, such as Medlock's meeting May 11. These parents were unable to voice cell tower concerns because the meeting was mainly about Medlock's closing.
School district spokesman Walter Woods said there are no sign-in sheets for Martin Luther King Jr. High School in Lithonia and the Margaret Harris Center in Atlanta because no parents or residents showed up at either school.
Then why did Jay Cunningham discuss the meeting at length with a group of residents on Oct. 25, 2011, which was recorded and placed on YouTube here: http://youtu.be/_BrYQJ2S3jg
Many people found out about the cell towers when the School Board voted 7-2 (vote was actually 6 - 2 - 1 as Chairman Tom Bowen was absent and did not vote). last July to approve a proposal from T-Mobile USA Inc. (it is actually with T-Mobile South, a Delaware Limited Liability Company) to erect and operate the towers at six elementary schools, two high schools and a comprehensive school.
After parents complained about possible health risks from cell tower emissions, Brockett, Meadowview and Medlock elementary schools were removed from the list by their board members, Don McChesney and Sarah Copelin-Wood.
Actually, Brockett's board member was Paul Womack, although he has not acknowledged publically that his district includes Brockett. And, none of these schools were removed from the list by their board members. Super District Representative Pam Speaks was the only representative who brought up concerns spoken to her by Brockett Elementary. All three of the schools removed were done so via a vote that took place at the July 11 board meeting on an ammendment proposed by board member Don McChestney.
There is no public indication about exactly why these schools were removed or whether parents complained about possible health risks. The lack of notification was one of the major complaints that the parents at Brockett tried to call to the attention of the board, as well as the fact that there would be a decline in property values, there was no need for improved service and that the towers would bring numerous safety concerns, not just health-related issues, with them. You can read the full text of their objections, which was accompanied by a petition, here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/64682982/Stop-Brockett-Cell-Towers-061311?in_collection=3301270
In wake of the vote, a vocal group of parents and residents from across the county tried unsuccessfully to get the School Board to reconsider. Opponents say turnout was low because parents and residents were unaware of the meetings.
Yes, they were unaware because they were not announced. A flyer went home that stated there would be a meeting held at the school by T-mobile to discuss the placement of towers in various locations in DeKalb County. It did not state that the locations would actually be the schools themselves. And, no one suggested anything else until after the meetings were held.
Documents obtained from the school district show that the notice was posted on the district’s public access television station and it’s website and that the flyer was sent to principals and to the DeKalb Delegation. There were no media notification in the package, but Woods said that media advisories were sent and several television stations covered the meetings.
While all this may be true, the notices all contained the misleading, very vauge wording that did not actually state the true intentions of placing cell towers on school grounds. These notifications should not qualify as being proper notice because they are only stating to be regarding a meeting notice for residents "to be informed" about T-mobile's plans to place cell towers "in various locations in DeKalb County." Unless you had T-mobile service at the time and wanted better coverage, this notice did not appear to be relevent to you.
CrossRoadsNews was not among the media notified even though seven of the schools are located in it core coverage and distribution area.
Media showed up for some of the events, but left when they saw there was little or no attendence. We have confirmation from WSB-TV that they did not run a story about the meetings and, even if they did, it would have been too late for the story to serve as an alert to residents interested in attending. We did find one news story about Medlock's school closing and the proposed cell tower that aired about a week prior to the school board vote, but it did not provide the names of any of the other schools that were on the list. WSB-TV ran the Brockett story the Sunday night prior to the Monday, July 11 vote, too late for any other school to have used that as a means for alerting their communty and showing up in opposition. FOX also ran a story on the day of the vote that highlighted Briarlake and Medlock, but was far too late for anyone against the idea to be able to alert others.
A DeKalb Delegation bill to ban cell towers on school properties in DeKalb died March 6 in a Georgia House committee. (still not sure how a bill can "die" when it has 17 of 19 local delegates who signed on in support and who collectively represent far more citizens in the county than the 2 who did not sign or the committe chairman who does not even live in DeKalb County.) Its author, state Rep. Karla Drenner, advertised in the DeKalb legal organ this week a bill that would require the School Board to hold a nonbinding referendum before it approves any more cell towers on school property.
Sen. Jason Carter also is sponsoring a bill to require state and local governments to hold public hearings before leasing public property for nongovernmental and commercial purposes.
Thomas Bowen, who was School Board chairman when the vote was taken, (albeit absent conveniently from the meeting when the vote took place) said that if the board was to reconsider every decision it makes, it would never get the people’s business done.
“This is not a novel idea. Fulton and Cobb counties have cell towers. The board felt comfortable enough to vote for it.” Yes, and the fact that their residents reacted the exact same way we did should show everyone that the board knew very well what it was doing, knew it would upset a lot of people and cause controversy, an did it anyway. The major difference was that DeKalb was the first school district in the U.S. to consider cell towers AFTER the W.H.O. upgraded their emissions to the level of possible human carcinigen.
Bowen, who represents District 6, said the issue continues because of a small group of unhappy people. He said that there are lots of people who want towers for the revenues and the access to 911 service. We have well over 1,000 people all across the county who have signed petitions countywide stating that they are against this decision. The only "small" part about it is that it is reflective of 9 school communities. The more communities they try to do this to, the larger the outrage will be.
Where are these "pro tower" people? They didn't show up for the T-mobile meetings. They didn't show up for the Drenner hearings (all three of them). They didn't blog an alternate viewpoint on any websites. They either don't exist or there are so few of them that no one has ever seen any of them in real life. This is a figment of Tom Bowen's imagination or perhaps a story he and Womack like to chuckle over while they count their mmoney, but it is not and never was true.
The comment about 911 is a line fed by T-mobile to throw the public off the subject. Every single cell tower, by law, must carry the 911 service and dedicate a separate channel to it that cannot accept intereference from the commercial use of the towers. All school towers proposed are in areas that have 30 or more (as many as 155) cell towers with 911 service that works on any phone, even if you do not have a current service provider!
Bowen said the low and no turnout was not that significant. “The attendance does vary on every issue. And from schools to school,” he said.
Why would it be insignificant? What is this man talking about? This was the very first and only meeting we can recall being held at the cafeteria that was not a PTA meeting. Is he trying to say they do this for "every issue?" And is her pretending like he really thought, at the time, that no one actually cared about something this huge that has been a huge controversy everywhere else it has been proposed and handled this way?
District 7 board member Donna Edler said they were unaware of the low turnout when they voted, but doesn’t know if it would have made a difference in the decision. Edler and District 1 board member Nancy Jester were the only board members who voted against the proposal.
Wait a minute... how could they be unaware of the attendance of meetings held in their own districts?? These are being touted as "public input meetings" where decisions were made about how the community felt about the tower proposal. But, the board members are now stating that none of them actually attended any of the meetings? Then how can it be considered public input? Who were the attendees supposed to be giving their input to? How can any of the board members claim to have known how their communities would have wanted them to vote if they didn't even show up to listen to their questions and gain their feedback?
This is a violation of the Georgia Open Meetings Act which states that any public meetinig, esp. where decisions are made, must have a quarum of the board members present, meeting minutes must be taken and attendance records must be complete and accurate. We don't have any of these things - so therefore we do not have a public input meeting.
This is a clear violation of law and should invalidate any contracts or agreements signed as a result. T-mobile, therefore, does not have a legal lease of school properties. Here is another great reason our county needs to reject any applications for permits.
Under the agreement, T-Mobile will pay the district more than $2.3 million in rent over 30 years and each of the schools’ PTSAs will get a $25,000 one-time payment and an additional $25,000 each time T-Mobile co-locates other providers on the towers.
Not true. Per the February meeting of the Buget, Finance and Audit committee, the money all goes to the school district. These other sums will not be paid directly by T-mobile to any group other than the school board.
For each lease, the school district, which signed contracts with T-Mobile on Dec. 8, 2011, will be paid $16,800 per year plus $4,800 for each provider that co-locates on the towers.
With co-location also comes more radiation and no accountability. That's more contractors on school grounds, more liability isues, more traffic.
District 5 board member Jay Cunningham, whose district includes three of the schools – Narvie J. Harris and Flat Rock elementary and MLK Jr. High – said he didn’t know the number of meeting attendees when he voted but it’s time to move forward to other issues.
He didn't know that not only did he not show up for the meeting that he told everyone that he had attended, but no one else did, either? Then why did he give details about the meeting and scold the residents in another meeting for not attending and leaving him to make the decision without their input. And, at the school board meeting, he claimed they had meetings and everyone was in favor.
“We should have more people at meetings,” he said. “But I met with the parents at MLK and we have moved on. We are moving forward and waiting to see what the state Legislature does.”
Yes, we should, starting with the representative who is supposed to be holding the meeting. No, they haven't moved on. This isn't something you just come to terms with and accept. And no matter how often you, or Cheryl Atkinson or Walter Woods tell us that it is time to move on, we will not do so until the tower proposal is dead - and T-mobile has moved on for good.
No comments:
Post a Comment
We want to know what you think. Leave your respectful comments here!