The Devil is in The Detail (How the Cell Tower Votes Shine a Light on DeKalb's "Corridor of Corruption")

Wonder exactly how the cell tower vote shook out and whether or not your own community said they were for or against the idea of cell towers at schools? 

Read more by clicking the headline for the full story. 

On July 31, 2012 Georgia voters took to the polls in the election primaries. In Dekalb County, a question popped up on the ballot with little explanation:

"Should the local, charter or independent school system of Dekalb County place or operate a telecommunications tower on any elementary, middle or high school property?"

The phrase, "The Devil is in the Detail," refers to a catch or mysterious element hidden in the details.^[1]

While opponents  of cell towers on school grounds were happy when the outcome was a strong 62% of voters saying "NO," GTCO-ATL was wondering if there was more we could learn from the data.  So, we dug a little deeper. 

From the start, we were critical of the validity of any data that might come from this question. First, it was asking too many things at once which is a common error people make when they are not properly trained in survey data analysis or proper question techniques.  We tried to alert those who were responsible for the question, Rep. Karla Drenner and Rep. Chuck Sims, but they did not respond. We then asked Gov. Deal to not sign the referendum as it was vague, not necessary and did not come from the people. He signed it anyway.

So, we determined that even though it might not go our way, at least it would tell us a few things that could be beneficial.

1. First, any area that answered yes, or even close, could be an area that is uninformed of the dangers and problems a cell tower could bring. We could focus more effort with our PR there.
2. Second, if we felt there were areas well informed that still said yes, we might be able to see specifically where corruption was influencing the voters.  Why wouldn't we think a yes could be a sincere, honest vote? Because we have been at this for more than a year and have never met anyone who has thought it was a good idea. Even those who like to debate us on the blogs will not take a pro-cell tower stance.
3. The third thing we thought we would learn would be where these "rural" Dekalb areas actually are located where Mr. Cunningham said they "welcomed the towers." Going by the way things appeared in the media, the South regions wanted the towers and money, while the North was leading the protests against them.  What we expected was to see strong opposition regardless of the location.

But, oddly enough, here is how the vote shook out:

(click chart to enlarge)

Here are some questions we had:

• Are these areas (highlighted in yellow) actually ignorant of the dangers of cell towers?
• Is the difference of just a few percentage points even enough statistically to be concerned about or is it safe to say that overall the entire county was against the idea of placing cell towers on the public school grounds?
• Should the school board inform T-mobile about the few areas that skewed slightly in favor of cell towers so they can be the ones to receive them?
• Is there a chance that the very few areas that skewed in favor of the towers had some sort of "inside information" to reassure them that they would not actually be the ones to receive the towers? 
• Are the areas of the county that were not selected for tower placements not going to receive the cooresponding technology either? 
• What is the purpose of a "non-binding advisory referendum" anyway?  Why did state legislators create this alternative to the total ban on towers that the citizens wanted?
• What did they expect to do with the results of this referendum?
• But, who are we advising?  Who will listen? 
• Who will actually do something with these results?
• If no one is going to act upon this ballot question and it will not influence (or "advise") anyone in a decision-making capacity, then why did taxpayers have to pay for it? 
• Why did we even have to take our time and resources to educate people about the question, and its poor wording, if the outcome was for no viable purpose? 
• Or, as we suggested originally, was this question created for someone else?  Someone OTHER than the citizens?  Perhaps if the results would have gone in the favor of the towers, they would have used the results.  If that is the case, then shouldn't THOSE PEOPLE (or businesses) be the ones who should have paid for it?  Not the voters of DeKalb County. 
• Were we really successful in stopping the towers? 
• Is the school board aware that the contracts have expired?
• Why won't our School Board or our county CEO tell us anything?

We may never know for sure, but we plotted the districts marked in yellow, above, on a map of the voting precincts.  After studying the areas and their relationship to each other, here's what we saw. 

 

(We are working to get a scanned version of this map

uploaded here for you.  Check back soon.)

WHERE WERE THE YES VOTES?

1. A small number of Dunwoody communities, and a

2. A small portion of the Lakeside or Emory-Lavista "Corridor" of schools.  

Note:  Almost all areas in favor were ITP, or "Inside the Perimeter."

WHO COULD THEY BE?

Of course this is all speculation on our part, but there could actually be four types of "yes" votes in these areas:

1. Voters who are completely unaware of the issue (just like we once were before this started)
2. Voters who think tower radiation is harmless for children and therefore our public land should be leased to T-mobile without concern (we have not actually met anyone like this, have you?)
3. Voters who have been told to vote yes (by an employer or friend) and do so because they do not have a personal, vested interest in the outcome.
4. Voters who have spoken to their board member, believe they will not be receiving a cell tower and therefore they do not care if a tower goes up somewhere else.

Note:  It is important to note that none of the areas (in the chart in yellow) actually had a cell tower going up near them. 

Of course we have no way of knowing why people voted the way they did.  We cannot go back and review the votes to ask follow-up questions.  And, people who were unaware of the issue had no way of selecting "I don't know" or "unaware" as their response.  These are just a few of the reasons we asked the Governor to veto this bill, but he went ahead and signed it.

Dunwoody

Those who voted in the Dunwoody area may have done so because they were not faced with this issue at their local schools.  Dunwoody did not have any of their schools on the original or reduced list for cell towers.  Does this mean they do not get the technology, either? 

If cell towers are actually a means for distributing the material of a virtual charter school, did certain folks in Dunwoody already know about this concept?  They have been advocating on the School Watch Blog for separate school districts.  So, have they been promised a way that they can make this happen in return for supporting the cell tower idea? 

Do we have a case of ignorant, but financially well-off, neighborhoods where they do not follow school news?  Or is this a case of yet another area of DeKalb selling someone else's neighborhood out when offered something they want for themselves? 

Lakeside / Fernbank and the Emory-Lavista Corridor

That leaves only a few districts that were either divided in their responses or barely tipped the scales in favor of towers on school grounds. But, with the exception of Lakeside High School, these areas were not facing the possibility of a tower at their own neighborhood school, at least not according to our Open Records Requests to see their contracts. 

So, Lakeside High area again emerges as one sticking out like a sore thumb. The school that reportedly initiated the request to their district representative, Paul Womack, who in turn brought the item to the Budget, Finance and Audit Committee while he was the chairman. Lakeside High School wants a tower, and the money of 12 towers so the Vallhalla Group can "finish the dream."   And the rest of us must endure all the baggage that it means to get roped into this issue while they sit back and smile.

In the Oct. 1 meeting agenda, a donation was accepted to finish the Lakeside construction for an outdoor eating area.  Yes, you read that correctly....

Did people really just vote "yes" to radiating other people's children for 30 years in exchange for an outdoor pavilion so their kids can get a little sun while they eat their non-free, non-reduced priced lunches?  Tell us that is not what is happening here? 

Then again, Lakeside has so many towers in a four mile radius, one more could not have possible been what made the difference, could it?

It appears that everything is proceeding according to plan.   But, who's plan is this??

Protests Come From the "North" (But the Public Votes Yes?)

"South" Board Members Vote Yes, but the Public Votes NO? 

Don't you find it interesting that we saw bigger than life protests coming from the areas where many people voted to be in favor?  AND, at the other end of the county, in the areas where we were told they "welcomed the towers," we saw the largest portion of people who voted against it? 

Have you figured out that things are not always as they seem here in DeKalb? 

And, many board members publically stated that they would have voted differently if they knew then what they know now.  See our story on this subject, here.

The cell towerss are a great lesson in not judging a book by its cover.  Rather, we should be judging our school books by the fact that they will soon not have any covers, just screens.  Hell, we don't even have librarians any longer! 
 
Most important:  Most People in Most Places Across the County Said NO CELL TOWERS AT OUR SCHOOLS.  And, for those of us who agree, if it is not a good idea for my school, then it is not a good idea for any school!

But, these are just a few of the ideas we came up with.  We would love to hear what you think.  Email us at sayno2celltowers@yahoo.com and let us know!

We did it once, now let's do it again! 

Vote NO on the charter school ammendment this November!  This is NOT about charter schools!  It is about creating virtual schools under a sneaky initiative put forth by corporations seeking new ways to profit, NOT about our children or parental choice.

VOTE NO to changing the state's constitution! 

NO MORE CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHORITIES!

Don't GIVE AWAY our power!  Let's Take it BACK! 

What can we do instead?  Start looking for well-qualified people to run for the School Board in the next election!  WE can do this if we keep working together!  Stick up for your beliefs!  Inform your neighbors!  Talk about what is happening so that others will not have to suffer the same thing happening to them! 

See you at the upcoming meetings!  (see our meetings page) Ask Questions!  Remain Alert!  Do not Trust those in power who have something to gain from you.  Seek advice only from those uninterested third parties or people whom you trust before acting upon anything you see or hear in this school system.   

 

 

For more info, watch "The United States of ALEC" here:  http://billmoyers.com/



 VOTE NO TO CHARTER SCHOOLS! 

It is time to STOP FEEDING THE BEAST!

1. ^ ^{a b c d} Titelman, Gregory, Random House Dictionary of Popular Proverbs and Sayings, Random House Reference, March 5, 1996p

T-mobile’s Time in DeKalb County Runs Out

Photo credit:  sabotagefilmgroup.com

Residents near the Margaret Harris
Comprehensive School were among
the many who opposed the cell towers
as soon as they learned what the
DeKalb BOE was attempting to do
to their small residential area as well
as the disabled children who come to
their school from all over DeKalb County.

Cell Tower Opponents Claim Victory!
　(click headline for full story and links to relevent video)

At GTCO-ATL, we have been following this controversy since we first learned about it in May 2011.  However, if you have news or information to share that we are not aware of that might help us complete the full picture of this attempt by the DeKalb County School Board to deceive the public as well as go around our commissioners, please email us at sayno2celltowers@yahoo.com.  Your name will not be published.

According to GTCO-ATL’s understanding of the T-mobile contract, and professional opinion of several attorneys we have consulted with regarding this matter, the extended deadline for T-mobile to secure permits and complete construction has passed. 

(please click headline for more...)

What does this mean?  Well, as long as everyone is following the letter of the law, it appears that no cell towers will be going up at ANY of our DeKalb County public schools, at least not in the immediate future under the agreement that was voted on during the infamous July 11, 2011 work session.

It was just prior to the board's vote that then-Interim Superintendent Ramona Tyson checked with the school system's legal council and confirmed that the "official signature would be affixed" to the contract on the next business day following the vote.  And, then-Director of Facilities Steve Donahue, a former principal with an admittedly limited amount of experience or knowledge of the construction industry, confirmed to the board that T-mobile would have two periods of "due diligence" of six months each.  That would mean the ending of these two periods would have been July 12, 2012, a full year after the contract was approved and signature affixed.

Therefore, if Mr. Donahue was being truthful about the contracts' contents, and we believe he was because we have read the contract carefully and it is consistent with his remarks, then the public property at each of the 9 schools is no longer legally available to T-mobile for the purpose of operating or placing a telecommunications tower.

And, it is a good thing these towers were not approved as the documents that Steve Donahue DID review and post publically were out of date.  The towers being planned for our schools were not up to the specifications required by the industry and would have a higher liklihood of falling over under certain wind conditions as they were planned with "Rev F" technology which is outdated.  The industry now supports "Rev G" or higher.  We  hope this, among other factors, and the local zoning laws were the reasons that any applications, if they were ever submitted, were not approved by the CEO of DeKalb, Burrell Ellis, or the county commissioners.

Steve Donahue, Director of Facilities Management for DCSS
requests that the board approve the cell towers in July 2011.

Congratulations Get the Cell Out followers!  You have helped us every step of the way by keeping this issue in the limelight with the media, talking about it within your own neighborhoods, responding to comments on various blogs, exposing the astroturfers and blog trolls, speaking out at nearly every single school board meeting for a year straight, speaking out at multiple DeKalb County Board of Commissioners meetings and, most of all, by working together. 

We ALL did this together.  If you were personally involved in this fight, remain on alert for any construction signs, but we believe, at least for now, that the towers will not go up at ANY school in ANY neighborhood, just as our county ordinances were written to ensure. 

"There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must do it because Conscience tells him it is right." 

                                               -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. 

For more inspiration from the words of Dr. King, see Wikiquotes here.

For the truth behind the T-mobile Towers:  Please read the portions of the transcript below from the school board meeting in which the vote took place and judge for yourself.

Or, click the video link below, and skip ahead to 2:42:40 in the video for the full lead-in to the discussion, or to 2:46:46 in the video for the beginning of the discussion about the permitting and construction plans and the two periods of due diligence that we believe expired on July 12 of this year.

Video link: 
http://view.liveindexer.com/ViewIndexSessionSLMQ.aspx?indexSessionSKU=lCRWdFhr4yIvXvAIzyBkTA%3d%3d
 








2:42:40 in the video:
Paul Womack (DCSS Board Member and Filling in for Tom Bowen as Chairman for this Meeting.  Also, Chairman of the Finance Committee that initiated the cell tower request): T-mobile Wireless Placement Approval. Steve Donahue (Director of Facilities, DCSS): names all 12 schools and asks for the approval.
Womack: Motion by Walker, Seconded by Speaks
Don McChesney (DCSS Board Member): Amendment, please. Remove Meadowview, Brockett, Medlock.
Womack:  Dr. Speaks? There’s a second. We need to vote on substitute motion first. Ms. Edler?
Donna Edler (DCSS Board Member): Could Mr. McChesney elaborate on his motion and why that is being made at this time?
McChesney:  We have heard of two communities that I’ve heard of (Brockett, Medlock), and another mentioned by a board member (Meadowview by DCSS Board Member Sarah Copeland-Woods). These communities have made it clear what they want and I’m supporting their decision.
(Later vote was 7 - 1 - 1 in favor of the ammendment with Edler against and Bowen absent.  The ammendment passed.)
2:46:46 in the video:
Pam Speaks (DCSS Board Member):  I wanted to know whether there’s a grace period. Just because you haven’t heard from a community doesn’t mean they are in support or not in support of something. There are still people who may have concerns. Is there a window of time, that they would have a mechanism of letting the district know?
Ramona Tyson (Interim DCSS Superintendent):  Only grace period is to pull the item. I want to ask council … The way I understood is that tonight’s approval is a contract to proceed. Is that correct? (she looks at DCSS legal counsel and she gets a yes.)
Womack: I thought there was a 6 month window.
Donahue (returns to the podium):  T-mobile has 6 months to act on the request tonight. They have to do the due diligence work to go out and get the soil samples, get the proper permits, get the proper approvals, get everything approved through zoning. If that doesn’t happen in six months, we’ve allotted one option of an additional 6 months. If that doesn’t occur, whatever sites have not been permitted and constructed are no longer available to be used.

Womack:  Uh, thank you.

Tyson:   Once the signature protocol is affixed to the contract, it is a binding contract is that correct?  (asks Gen. council and again gets a yes.)

(more discussion and then the vote, 6 - 2 - 1 in favor.  Edler, Jester opposed.  Bowen absent so recorded as abstained.) Facts

The VOTE took place July 11, 2011. The memo to proceed was signed July 12, 2011 (as confirmed via Open Records Request by GTCO-ATL).

The end of the 1^st 6 months due diligence period was Jan. 12, 2012. The end of the 2^nd 6 months due diligence period was July 12, 2012.

Therefore: As of July 13, 2012: The DeKalb County local school properties agreed to by lease, but not properly permitted by the county of DeKalb, are “NO LONGER AVAILABLE TO BE USED!”

Leases No Longer Valid   

This conclusion is per Steve Donahue’s own explanation of the contract terms to the BOE at the time the vote took place. It is also backed up by facts that have been obtained by Open Records Requests by Get the Cell Out - Atlanta Chapter to the school board and/or county for the documentation that verifies these claims.

The FCC Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Sec. 704) states that a local authority cannot discriminate among providers when zoning for cell towers.  If DeKalb's school board attempts to claim that the contracts were not official until December 2011, they would be in violation of federal law by allowing T-mobile more time than other tower companies are given in order to secure their permits because we have documented proof that they were on campuses perfoming tests of the area as early as September 2011. They would (or should) be in trouble with the FCC and the federal government if they are allowing T-mobile extra time not in their contract in order to get local zoning variances approved as this is not a courtesy made available to other such companies and would be an unfair discrimination between providers.

If you see or hear of any construction at any school site that may be linked to the cell tower contracts, please report it to local law enforcement as the company on school grounds may very well be acting upon a contract that is no longer legally binding.  They may have no legal rights to be on the school grounds at all. 

You can also report the activity to GTCO-ATL and we will contact legal representation for immediate action. We can be reached at sayno2celltowers@yahoo.com.

Welcome Jim McMahan and Melvin Johnson Into the Inner Sanctum

 

RUNOFF RESULTS:

Shocking Only to Him,

H. Paul WOMACK is OUT,

Jim McMAHAN is IN for District 4

 

In District 6,

Voters Forfeited by a "No Call / No Show" Strategy

They Put Melvin "Know the Roles" Johnson

Ahead of Parent Activist Denise McGill

 

This adds some new twists to the same old story.  The other victors this election year were Marshall Orson in District 2 who defeated incumbent Don McChesney after leaking a torrid email to the press on the heels of his outright lies to the media about the rules and outcomes as related to the SPLOST IV vote last November.  As a lawyer with a huge smirk, this will be a slippery character to keep our eyes on, for sure. 

 

And, in District 8... we know, we know, you didn't think there was going to be a District 8, right?  Well, apparently the Superdistricts still exist because Dr. Eugene Walker is now the board's chairman and he hasn't finished updating his resume, yet.  So, as we were saying... District 8's Dr. Pam Speaks barely edged out some other woman whom no one really knows and whom no one reported ever seeing or hearing.  She didn't show up for any of the forums and a computerized voice machine made all her campaign calls.  Strange, but true, is that she nearly won, but Speaks will be around for the next two years or until Dr. Walker decides to rewrite the rules again.  Stay tuned...

 

It's the start of a new day in DeKalb County, GA.  At least that is what we would like to believe.  After yesterday's school board runoff elections, we're just not sure what the next two years will be like exactly. 

 

Like all good suspense novels, the story about education, civil rights, political battle lines, corruption and scandal has been unraveled for the past several decades here in DeKalb County, GA.

 

This particular thriller, however, is non-fiction and the innocent victims are the poor, under served, mostly minority and handicapped children who do not know about the price tags being placed on their heads or the reasons why so many venture capitalists and other investors are suddenly turning attention their way.   

 

We will have more of the behind-the-scenes analysis coming up in the next week, so check back with us.

 

Don't forget that the Crawford Lewis trial will begin soon.  We will be covering that story as well.

 

You can "subscribe" to Get the Cell Out - Atlanta by selecting the email option on the right hand column of our home page.  (Hover over to reveal the toolbar.)

 

Comments are welcome.... if you see a link that says comments, below, then we would love to hear your take on this election and how your family is handling this most unusual start of the school year. 

 

 

Vote! Vote Like You've Never Voted Before!

Sing like no one can hear you!

Dance like no one is watching and...

Vote like you have never voted before!  We really mean it! 

No, really, it's true... even if you have never voted before, but you are registered, there is no better time than the present to get started.  Your voter card has the name of your polling loction.  Take your Driver's License or other ID, show it when you walk inside, push some buttons to vote, remember to vote for the "Mc" in your district school board race as we have directed you to with the illustration below. 

Then, get your sticker and you're done!  It's that easy!  You have just fulfilled your civic duty and it is not even noon, yet!  Now, don't you feel better?


WHAT:  Nonpartisan Runoff Election for DCSD Districts 4 and 6

WHEN:  TODAY!  Tuesday, August 21, 2012

TIME:   7 a.m. to 7 p.m. (But, make it a priority and arrive early!)

WHO:  ANYONE WHO IS REGISTERED TO VOTE IN GEORGIA

WHERE:  at Your Regular Polling Location

 If you do not want a cell tower at your school:

Lakeside, Briarlake, Sagamore, Northlake, Montreal, Brockett, Tucker (DeKalb)

School Board 4 http://web.co.dekalb.ga.us/Voter/Maps/School04.pdf  VOTE JIM MCMAHAN

Idlewood (Tucker), Smoke Rise, Stone Mountain, Stephenson, Redan
School Board 6 http://web.co.dekalb.ga.us/Voter/Maps/School06.pdf  VOTE DENISE MCGILL

Get Out the Vote! It is Super Tuesday This Week for DeKalb Schools!

DISTRICT 4 - if you live here, your vote is NEEDED on Tuesday, August 21st.   Return to your polling place that morning and vote again, this time you will vote only for the runoff candidate in the Board of Education races whom you wnat to represent you for the next two years.  And,  yes, YOU CAN VOTE in this election EVEN IF you missed the last one.

(click headline for full story)
Dear Get the Cell Out - Atlanta followers:


If you live in the School District #4  (see map) or even if you know someone who does, please make a note that this coming TUESDAY (Aug. 21) is a very big day.  It is the date of the RUNOFF election between two candidates for the Board of Education.

Here are the area voting precincts:  Briarlake Elem, Brockett, Brockett Elem, Dresden Elem, Embry Hills, Evansdale Elem, Hawthorne Elem, Henderson Mill Elem, Hugh Howell, Lakeside High, Livsey Elem, Midvale Elem, Midvale Road, Montreal, Northlake, Oak Grove Elem, Oakcliff, Pleasandale Elem, Rehoboth, Sagamore Hills Elem, Skyland, Smoke Rise, Tucker, Tucker Library, Valley Brook, Warren Tech.


From Briarlake to Smoke Rise and the very large voting district that includes Tucker and Brockett, here are a few reasons WHY this RUNOFF ELECTION is even MORE IMPORTANT than the last election you just voted in. 


1.  THIS election on Tuesday is all about YOU... YOUR AREA.  Your friends, neighbors, children, parents - everyone you know who lives near you or has children at your neighborhood school is counting on you to get this vote right!


2.  The value of YOUR home can rise and fall as a result of the decisions made by the Board of Education.  And, mostly, they have been falling.

Read what a Real Estate professional in Tucker, Jessica Crocker, had to say recently:

 

"According to the National Association of Realtors, 75% of buyers consider the quality of neighborhood schools either 'somewhat important' or 'very important.'

The proof is in the pudding. If you research home sales statistics in neighborhoods with 'preferred' schools, you'll see homes that sell quickly - and for great prices."

This should be of particular concern to the residents of Tucker (the DeKalb County side) including the areas from Brockett to Livsey and Evansdale, Smoke Rise in Stone Mountain (very near the border of Tucker) and those of you who live near Briarlake Elementary School in unincorporated DeKalb portion of Decatur. 

Why?  Because one of the candidates, H. Paul Womack, who is the incumbant, has already tried to harm your area as he seeks to help his political friends and big business lobbyist buddies affiliated with Lakeside High School's booster club.  By aiming to help T-mobile place cell phone towers on the campuses of Brockett Elementary School, Smoke Rise Charter School, Briarlake Elementary School and even Lakeside High School itself were among the 12 schools originally on a list to receive huge 60' x 60' cell phone towers that extend 150' in the air.

Womack does not seek to service his district, he seeks to help the business interests and public utilities whom he owes many favors.  He plans to retire after this two year term.  There is no telling what damage he can do in this time frame if he is re-elected. 


3.  Schools will be closed in favor of mega schools that cost less, and provide an impersonal approach to school.  This idea of corporate running of our schools flies in the face of what has always worked well in the past - caring, concerned teachers who are able to find what works for each child so they can help them tap into their inner strength.  We've never met a bubble sheet capable of doing that, yet. 

If you do not vote for Jim McMahan, the involved parent running against Womack in District #4 or if you simply do not vote at all, there is a very good chance that many of our historic public elementary schools, in the middle of our neighborhoods, will be closed.  Womack has already worked with the current board members in an attempt to close Livsey, Brockett, Idlewood and others. 

If you agree that a cell tower in your neighborhood would drastically reduce your property value, then think about this:  try having a cell tower that leads to your school getting closed, to.  The harm something like that would bring to a community has never been considered.  The loss in revenue to the school system from the further decline in property values would negate any benefit that could come from the very little money that Womack negotiated the deal for in the first place. 


4.  Current decisions made by the BOE have simply wasted our money.  Womack's own involvement in the cell tower issue created a diversion by the board when they should have been focused on finding a new Superintendent of schools.  It even distracted Womack from doing his own job, as he reported that $104 million was cut from the budget in the year 2010 when he was the head of the Budget Committee, yet in 2011 when he was focused on the cell tower issue, he failed to notice that the school administration was not carrying out any of the cuts that had been ordered. 

This failure to oversee the administration and failure to sanction the Interim Superintendent Ramona Tyson (and instead reward her with a huge bonus) is what directly led to the buget crsing the board was presented with this year.  The para-professionals, teachers, librarians, security and other resource personnel who lost their jobs can thank Mr. Womack for failing to keep an eye on the day to day operations of the school system.  Since Womack has already announced his plans to retire, before changing his mind and running for re-election another term, he is much less likely to be connected to the real people and real concerns in his district. 

GTCO-ATL members can tell a variety of personal stories that would back up this claim.  Mr. Womack, it has been said, does not return phone calls, emails or even address concerns directed toward him during the public comments portion of many board meetings.  He does not acknowledge or understand the damage his lack of ethics and concern has caused many children and many schools.

Womack's cell tower plan even included a school, Margaret Harris, for disabled children who are in one of the most vulneratble populations with regard to harm that can be caused by a cell tower.  Instead, he got his local school, Corralwood, a pre-school that is not even required education under federal laws, a 10.5 million dollar upgrade while Margaret Harris will get next to nothing and a cell tower on campus.

5.  The school board is a non-partisan race.  There are people of both major parties as well as the DeKalb Green party who have all come fortward to state their objection to cell towers and the process by which the lease for school grounds was approved. 

You have a choice about the type of person whom you want to represent you - the values of this part of the county that you call home.  Will your elected board member make you proud, or will you be embarassed to tell people where you are from?  Is this the type of person you would like to see your district attract?

5.  The children of DeKalb have been dropping out or failing at an alarming rate.  The schools are in disarray and teachers are being forced out.  Our school system has even been ranked as low as the worst performing district in the entire U.S. and we are frequently the largest district at the bottom of the list in graduation rates and test scores in Georgia.  We cannot afford two more years of the harmful decision making that the current District #4 representative has been involved with, supported and defended.

TUCKER - BRIARLAKE - BROCKETT - SMOKE RISE - LAKESIDE - SAGAMORE

YOU HAVE A CHOICE

and we think it should be a pretty simple one: 

Jim McMahan - a refreshing change, an involved parent, a business background combined with stay-at-home parenting skills, accessible, accountable.  This is the candidate who has the qualities most people want to see on that school board, representing them proudly!  He has spent several years working with school councils, the PTA and other activist groups in his neighborhood and has a plan that would expand that program to include all schools in District #4 and potentially al schools in DeKalb.  He talks about ways that the Board of Education can improve their transparency and has made a vow to remain loyal and easily acessable to the families he serves. 


His opponent (the incumbant) - three decades in the school system with ties to the folks who have nearly caused it to completely collapse.  This would be more of the same, which no one wants.  H. Paul Womack and some of his supporters believe his years in the DeKalb School administration is what makes him the best person for the job.  They do not understand that his lack of understanding or compassion for all the children and his insistance on funnelling resources only to one small area of the district IS a major contributor to the overall educational declnes in the entire county.

Cell Tower Blog Trolls... Take Heed! (Now THIS is Funny!)

 

After the success of the "No" vote on July 31 to the cell tower referendum question, we thought the next steps in this process would be fairly simple: 

 

1.  Advocate for the best quality school board members who will not put other parents or taxpayers through the same nightmare we have endured for the past year. 

 

2.  Work with an alliance of other protest groups in the U.S. to support national legislation to protect our children and everyone else from the unknown dangers associated with RF radiation.

 

3.  Keep a close eye on the school cell tower sites and be ready to jump into action if any construction begins, esp. without a valid zoning or building permit.

 

What we did NOT expect was an opportunity to engage in more meaningless debate with a real life cell tower blog troll.  But, that's exactly what it felt like to read this article on the DeKalb School Watch Blog.

You will notice that anytime there is someone who is trying to warn others about the dangers of RF radiation, it is usually a regular person, not someone who works in the industry.  They will usually give you their real name and a way to contact them directly.  But, who exactly is it that is speaking up in favor of the cell towers? 

We will look into this question in more detail once we have completed our review of the recent cell tower referendum question that landed on our last election ballot.  But, we can tell you from personal observation that those who come out in favor of a cell tower are usually the people who work for the industry or someone who can expect to profit as a result of the tower going up.

This recent walk down blogger memory lane gave us a big laugh as we recalled one of the best "rants" we have ever, ever, EVER read on the subject of cell towers. 
It is written by someone called "Dr. DeKalb" and was posted on the Tucker Patch in July 2011 in response to a early cell tower article. 
Just to bring you up to speed, these comments started after at least 100 or more had already been posted.  After a long, drawn out debate between multiple people across the country, it seems Dr. DeKalb had simply had enough.

He not only called out "Neil" for his blog troll comments, but also tried to make sense of all the false logic that was being presented. 


********************************************************************************

 

From The Tucker Patch....

 

6:13 pm on Saturday, July 2, 2011

 

7:08 pm on Saturday, July 2, 2011
Dr. DeKalb comments...

 

"And, just to make sure we are all following your logic, Neil... let me summarize it for you...

1. Towers emit radiation.
2. Fear of tower radiation is ridiculous and should not be tolerated.
3. Science should tell us that our phones (the ones that the adults carry around near the local school when they should be at work) are far worse for us unless we build more towers.
4. We should not be afraid of towers at schools.
5. Instead we should buy more phones and a bigger cell plan so that our children who currently do not carry phones, but will soon have a tower, will finally have the very thing (the phone) that you just said was the more dangerous of the two.
6. Now, once we have the right amount of phones and towers, if that state of balance will ever be something we can obtain, then we will rejoice because we will finally be permitted to fear them both equally.
7. And, most importantly, there are other threats that we should fear more and we should teach our children how to respond in these non-specific emergencies in a way that is contrary to the emergency procedures they practice at school.
8. And, while the cell tower radiation is the least thing to fear, we should be reassured that if it falls over or catches on fire that our children will be able to make a call for help.

Ooops, that's right, they probably will not be able to make a call if the tower has fallen over, will they??"


Remember, if you are involved in a fight to keep a cell tower away from your home or school, do not let these "blog trolls" get you too angry or take those whom might be reading your blog too far away from the subject at hand.

 In a rational debate between mature adults who want what is best for the educational system, and the children in their community, each side would be willing to listen to the other and work toward a consensus. 

If you suspect a blog comment is from someone paid by the industry, the best thing to do is just try to call them out on their role and refuse to engage them in a tit for tat debate unless they will give you their real name and state their professional connection to the issue.  If the industry bias is out in the open, then those who read the comments can take that aspect of the conversation into consideration.

When dealing with a blog troll, you will never, ever win.  Except this once...  We definitely think Dr. DeKalb got some "closure" in his hilarious post and we are thankful to him for his comments and for giving us a much needed laugh!

Super District Showdown - Does Anyone Even Know About This Race?

Super District 8 was originally expected to be eliminated by the state law that created confusion among voters and caused many people to vote in the affirmative for SPLOST IV. 

 

(click headline for full story)

This Super District race is probably the most unexpected match-up in the July 31 school board election as most people we have been in contact with are totally unaware that it is even up for grabs.  There was significant press coverage of the SPLOST IV referendum in Nov. 2011 and the Friends of DeKalb (led by District 2 opponent Marshall Orson) spoke to much of the media about the reduction of board members being linked to a yes vote, which was incorrect. 

So, there is only one incumbant and one opponent for this area of coverage, which is roughly half the county, but still only controls one vote on any issue.  We have voice our concerns to the campaign committee for Dr. Speaks that the ballot does not include her title, where it does include titles for other candidates.  We do not believe any candidate should be set up with a disadvantage in terms of credibility while others are given the advantage of titles, surnames, nicknames, etc. which has been proven to affect voter behavior.

Although Dr. Speaks did vote yes for the cell towers on July 11, we believe she also was misled by information provided by Mr. H. Paul Womack (Incumbant, District 4) and Steve Donahue, the Director of Facilities at the time.  We have heard, but not officiall confirmed, that Mr. Donahue has since been demoted to a teaching position. 

Dr. Speaks overall has a responsible voting record and seems to have the best interest of the children in mind, however we have mentioned on this blog that we would like to see her ask more questions and to push harder for accurate information before casting her vote on important issues.  She was at least willing to contact us by phone to address our concerns in the early days of our learning about this issue, which is more than our own board member, Mr. Womack or the Chairman Mr. Bowen did. 

And, in all fairness, during the July 11, 2011, vote on cell towers, Dr. Speaks did ask about the public's rights to bring their concerns to the board or the county if they had not been properly informed, which most of the board has now admitted was the case regarding cell tower notices.  She voted yes only after hearing Dr. Eugene Walker and Mr. Jay Cunningham speak about their knowledge of people who wanted the towers in their area and after believing that the only schools/communities against having a tower were removed by the ammendment made by Mr. Don McChestney and previously voted on and approved.

We do not know aything about her opponent, Michelle Jenkins-Clark, and are trying to learn more.  As we have information available, we will post it here.  Right now, we are not awarding either candidate our "Get the Cell Out - Atlanta, Seal of Approval." 

If you have any information to share about these or any other candidates, please let us know in the comments section!  Thank you! 

And, please remember to tell everyone you know to vote NO on the ballot questions regarding telecommunications towers on school grounds.  For more details, "like" us on Facebook or email us at sayno2celltowers@yahoo.com.

Is THIS Lakeside's Cell Tower?

New permit approved by DeKalb County for cell tower by T-mobile near Northlake Mall:

Is THIS the cell tower that will solve the communications problems at Lakeside?

Or could this FCC permit from several years ago be the new Lakeside cell tower?

Is this application on file the one that was shot down by the community in 1997?  Is it still valid today, even without a tower actually being built there?  Has T-mobile applied for an actual permit to build a tower here?  Can they move ahead without a contract with DeKalb County Schools? 

The players:

There are a lot of players trying to get OUR money.  Let's take a look:

Lakeside

Why aren't those people in the Lakeside community complaining about how they were the ONLY school to state that they actually WANTED a tower and they are the only school to NOT have a signed agreement?  Could it be that the tower is not what they really want?  Perhaps it was just a way to bully the other parents at the other schools into keeping quiet about expressing their concerns for fear of ridicule by those who were so "in favor."  Can any of the other contracts be valid when the whole purpose (as stated publically by Paul Womack, Pam Speaks, Donna Edler, Jay Cunningham and other board membbers) was to improve the cell reception at Lakeside?  If T-mobile is not holding up the primary intent of the agreement ... then the whole deal should be OFF. 

The School Board

And, just because the school board wants to press ahead with building, shouldn't our county still uphold its own zoning ordinances regarding safe placement of cell towers away from residential areas or other areas where the public can reasonably be expected to gather (like schools)?  There is NO educational purpose to ANY  cell tower at ANY school.  AND... the money CANNOT be used for any primary school purpose.  Cell towers provide a slush fund for those at the top,  or special interest groups and nothing more.  The money does not come from taxes and in a public education system, that means the money cannot be relied upon as a portion of the budget as that is an intrusion by the private sector. 

The board will meet tomorrow, June 20, to announce their plans for cuts to the budget in order to make up for the shortfall being blamed on our property values.  Funny - if they did their jobs then our property values would be increasing and we wouldn't be in this mess at all, would we?

The CEO

If the CEO of DeKalb County is considering special permits, shouldn't the public at least be aware of them?  Don't we have the right to know if construction will soon begin in our own neighborhoods?  Don't we have the constitutional right to address our own governement over grievences?  How can we do that if we don't know what they are planning to do?

ATT

If ATT wants to build a school or contribute to Lakeside's construction, then let them make a donation to the Valhalla Group.  We should not expect some neighborhoods to pay a high price by giving up valuable educational space for the next 30 years just to fund a few pet projects under the table.  Why should anyone be forced to have a cell tower in their own backyard or at their child's school? A possible carcinigen on school grounds should be something we would PAY to eradicate, not something we are considering allowing on our grounds. 

The Tax Commissioner

We pay a large portion of our property taxes to our school system to educate children, but they are cutting valuable resourses, teachers, science centers and more while they increase their own budgets, discuss their own travel plans and approve millions for lawyers to get them out of trouble. 

This budget shortfall is being blamed on the tax situation in DeKalb County, but our Tax Commissioners office has admitted to giving out "faulty data" last year due to a software issue.  And, again this year, they are claiming the same thing.  If the taxes were correct, would we have enough money to fund all of our programs without having to look at these cuts? If the state wasn't cutting our funding or "redistributing" our money to other counties, then would we still be in the dire straights we find ourselves in today?

The Astroturf Campaigns (fake "grass roots" groups claiming to be ordinary citizens but really advocating for hidden agendas)

Is it so far fetched to believe they might also try to give the public the false impression that there is any support out there at all for cell towers on school grounds?  Wouldn't it make more sense that most parents wish their kids would pay attention in school and not be texting each other?  Wouldn't most logical human beings advocate protecting children and not risking their health? 

Where are all these "supporters" for cell towers?  They have not actually shown up to any event where both sides were encouraged to speak out.  Even T-mobile doesn't want to talk about the "good" side of cell towers.  Otherwise they would have worded their event flyers in a way that actually encouraged people to attend.  That's because they know that the only good in it is for them... they get tax free access to our neighborhoods and schools.  They get to take the cheap way out of providing their service.  And they get to sublease their space (our space) for big profits. 

Are there any true supporters for cell towers at schools?  We may find out the answer to that question when the July 31 election results are available.  If it does nothing else, perhaps this ballot question will shine a light on the pockets of corruption in our county. 

VOTE JULY 31 for NO CELL TOWERS ON SCHOOL GROUNDS

No matter where you live... please vote and tell others to do the same.  We will continue to hope that the good side of human nature will prevail and we will learn that no matter what else is involved here - politics, money, corruption - that no one really can say "yes" to placing a possible carcinigen at an elementary school in our county.  No matter what they have been promised, no matter what they have been told - there is nothing that will make us turn on each other to the degree that we would put an innocent child in harm's way. 

We are counting on the good inside of our followers to help us spread the word.  No cell towers.  Not now.  Not ever.  Not at our schools or near our homes.  Raise our taxes, but please don't radiate our children.  The science isn't certain.  The research isn't in.  The top scientists in the world have urged caution ... it is up to us to listen.

YOUTUBE VIDEO: The Trashy Side to Lakeside

The housing market in Atlanta has taken a hit, like most areas of the country, but the pricey homes near Lakeside High School have managed to maintain their value and, in some cases, even increase. Ever wonder how?

Real estate agents might tell you that it is due to their well-known high school, Lakeside.
But, as this video suggests, perhaps the inflated home values are the result of "McMansions" being built on lots far too small for them.

It's a builders way of preserving a declining home market in a bad economy. The high priced homes infused into reasonable priced neighborhoods makes every home value in the area go up, whether the actual buildings next to the McMansions are actually worth it or not.

The home buyers are told the school is the reason. But when construction plans fell short due to abuse of taxpayer funds, the boosters devised a plan to "finish the dream." It involves claiming to want a cell tower while knowing they would never get one. Then sticking 8 other nearby schools with them, thus lowering the appeal of those neighborhoods while you rake in all the money through an agreement you've made with your school board member and the cell tower company.

It appears there is one thing that is available on a more "equal opportunity" basis in Atlanta than education - is the corruption.  Thankfully, the trials of Crawford Lewis, Pat Pope Reid and Tony Pope are expected to begin this September.  Perhaps the outcome could signal the end of an era, and the beginning of something better.




Before anyone provides feedback, please understand that this video is not intended to offend anyone who lives near Lakeside or attends school there.  We love the area.  We have friends who live nearby.  We think they should feel the same way we do. 

In fact, even the folks at the Yahoo news group must have similar questions.  Check out this story, titled "The American Dream is a Myth."

We don't want to harm anyone's neighborhood.  And, we don't think the ordinary citzens who live near Lakeside would want that, either. 

Instead of allowing corruption to ruin our schools, which harms everyone's property values, we need to vote the most responsible school board members into office and weed out the ones who are pitting us against each other.

Let's take matters into our own hands.  We can apply for the SPLOST oversight committee!  We can encourage responsible people to run for the school board (in two years) and we can vote for the best choices availabe on July 31.  We can vote NO on the cell tower question.

We can speak up at board meetings, but not just for our own schools.  Let's start speaking out for the sake of ALL our schools and ALL our neighborhoods. 

We can encourage others to vote.  Talk about the important issues.  Make a difference.  Do the right thing instead of trying to help those who are digging themselves in deeper, we should take a step back and look at our own behavior.  Let's be role models for our children and show them the way things SHOULD work. 

Let's leave a legacy that will make them proud of us!

[ ] YES             “Should the local or independent school system of DeKalb County or a charter   
                          school in DeKalb County place or operate a telecommunications tower on any
[ ] NO                elementary, middle, or high school property?"

VOTE NO!  VOTE NO!  VOTE NO!  VOTE NO!

Congress Asked to Investigate Marketing of Mobile Phones to Children

Children's Advocates Ask Congress to

Investigate the Marketing of

Mobile Phones to Kids

In 2005, privacy, consumer and childrens advocates sent letters today to key Members of Congress, asking them to investigate the marketing and sale of mobile phones to children, and their effects on children’s privacy, education, safety and health.

The letters were written and organized by Commercial Alert, and sent to all members of the commerce committees of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. The letter follows.

It is important to note that after this letter and other forms of protest were heard across the country, Sprint and Walt Disney backed away from its children's line of phones.  But, today the industry may begin pushing the envelope again as the proliferation of cell phone towers at schools makes the children who are inside those schools tempting targets for marketing efforts as they already have a technology-ready facility and simply need someone to place the products in their tiny hands. 

We, as parents, teachers, guardians and responsible adults need to stand firm in our efforts to protect the children and not allow ourselves to fall victim to the persuasive messages that are everywhere in our own environment.  We need to remain alert to the messages the children are seeing and help them understand the difference between perception and reality.

July 16, 2005

Dear Members of Congress:

On July 6th, the Walt Disney Internet Group and Sprint announced their intention to offer wireless telephone service to children 8-12 years of age.

This was just the latest in what is emerging as an industry trend. Earlier this year, Firefly Mobile enlisted 100,000 children for their mobile phone service. Enfora has announced plans to offer mobile phone service targeting children as young as six years of age. This fall, Wherify is planning to offer a “Wherifone” for children with built-in Global Positioning System (GPS) location tracking. In August, Mattel is expected to market Barbie-branded mobile phones. Hasbro is preparing its own mobile phone for children, too, called “Chat Now.”

The targeting of young children as the next growth market for the telecom industry is one of the worst ideas to appear in the American economy in a long time. Does anyone really believe that kids today lack sufficient distractions from their school work, that there are insufficient disruptions in the home, and that child predators and advertisers lack sufficient means of access to kids?

If the Disney Corporation and the others just wanted to give children a way to contact parents in emergencies, that would be one thing. The telecommunications companies—to parents at least—are playing up this angle. Telecommunications lobbyists in Washington will harp on it as well.
But despite the industrys rhetoric, Disney and the telecommunications companies really want to use children as conduits to their parents’ wallets. And marketers want another way to bypass parents and speak directly to the nations children.

Already, marketers are leaping to send advertisements via mobile phones. For example, Advertising Age reported on July 11th that many corporations, including McDonalds, Coca-Cola and Timex, are moving “from small [mobile phone advertising] tests to all-out campaign[s].” Children already are bombarded with too much advertising. They don’t need more advertising through their mobile phones, whether it is telemarketing, text message marketing, adver-games, or any other type of commercial messages.

Before the telecommunications industry declares “open season” upon the children of this country, we urge you to investigate and make absolutely certain that the industry has answers to the following questions.

Child Predators. Will adults other than parents be able to contact children through these phones, without the permission of parents? What about sexual predators, convicted criminals, etc.?

Disclosure of Children’s Whereabouts. For mobile phones to work, telecommunications companies must know where their customersҒ phones are. Will anyone other than the childs parents, law enforcement officials and telecommunications companies be able to track the physical location of the child’s mobile phone?

Interruptions in School and Church. Will the mobile phones cause disruptions and distractions in church and school, or will they be designed not to function in such locations? The potential for disruption here affects not just the individual child, but every child in the group in question.

Runaway Billing. Will parents have absolute control over billing and charges, so that no charges can be incurred without the parents specific prior consent? This includes charges for regular and special services, 888 numbers, and the rest.

Children’s Health. Children are vulnerable in ways that adults are not, physically as well as emotionally. In January, the British National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) issued a report, titled “Mobile Phones and Health,” which warned about the possibility that mobile phones could cause benign tumors of the ear and brain. The NRPB recommended that parents not give mobile phones to children under eight years of age, that older children should limit their use of mobile phones, and that “the mobile phone industry should refrain from promoting the use of mobile phones by children.”

Upon release of the report, NRPB Chairman Sir William Stewart said, “I don’t think we can put our hands on our hearts and say mobile phones are safe.”

He also said that “If there are risks, and we think there may be risks, then the people who are going to be most affected are children, and the younger the child, the greater the danger.”

How has the U.S. mobile phone industry factored this warning into its service plans? Can it guarantee that children will suffer no adverse health effects from the use of mobile phones? If not, then why is it offering mobile phones to children? Is the industry willing to take full responsibility for the effects of its phones upon childrens' health?

The move to put mobile phones into the hands of children as young as six years old is not a decision to take lightly. It opens up a plethora of problems, not just for the children with the phones but for schools, churches, families and classmates as well.

Now is the time to pause, investigate and consider. Once the phones are in classrooms, playrooms, and in children’s bedrooms, it will be too late. Already we read with grim regularity of children molested by predators who contacted them over the Internet. We read of children who cannot focus their own attention even for short times. We hope we will not now read about children abducted by adults who seduced them through mobile phones, and of school rooms that cannot function because of mobile phones that ring constantly, just because Congress did not stand up and act.

Sincerely,

Joan Almon, Coordinator, Alliance for Childhood
Michael Brody, MD, Chair, Television and Media Committee, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Brita Butler-Wall, PhD. Executive Director, Citizens’ Campaign for Commercial-Free Schools
Angela Campbell, Professor, Georgetown University Law Center
Raffi Cavoukian, D.Mus., D.Litt., founder of Child Honoring, singer, author, ecology advocate
Nathan Dungan, author, Prodigal Sons and Material Girls: How Not to Be Your Child’s ATM
Leon Eisenberg, MD, Professor of Social Medicine Emeritus, Harvard Medical School
Henry A. Giroux, PhD, Waterbury Chair Professor in Secondary Education, College of Education, Pennsylvania State University; author, Stealing Innocence: Corporate Culture’s War on Children
Susan Grant, Vice President, Public Policy, National Consumers League
Nicholas Johnson, Former Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission
Carden Johnston, MD, FAAP, FRCP, Emeritus Professor of Pediatrics, University of Alabama School of Medicine
Tim Kasser, PhD, Associate Professor of Psychology. Knox College; author, The High Price of Materialism
Jean Kilbourne, author, Can’t Buy My Love: How Advertising Changes the Way We Think and Feel
Diane Levin, PhD, Professor of Education, Wheelock College; author, Remote Control Childhood?: Combating the Hazards of Media Culture
Susan Linn, EdD, Instructor in Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School; Co-founder, Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood; author, Consuming Kids: The Hostile Takeover of Childhood
Robert W. McChesney, PhD, Research Professor, Institute of Communications Research, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Founder and President, Free Press; author, The Problem of the Media
Bob McCannon, Founder and Executive Director, New Mexico Media Literacy Project; Vice President & Co-founder, Action Coalition for Media Education
Ken McEldowney, Executive Director, Consumer Action
Jim Metrock, President, Obligation, Inc.
Ed Mierzwinski, Consumer Program Director, U.S. Public Interest Research Group (USPIRG)
Mark Crispin Miller, PhD, Professor of Media Ecology, New York University
Diane M. Morrison, PhD, Professor & Associate Dean for Research, University of Washington School of Social Work
Peggy O’Mara, Editor and Publisher, Mothering Magazine
Alvin F. Poussaint, MD, Professor of Psychiatry and Faculty Associate Dean for Student Affairs, Harvard Medical School
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse
Hugh Rank, University Professor Emeritus, Governors State University; author, Persuasion Analysis and The Pitch
Gary Ruskin, Executive Director, Commercial Alert
Phyllis Schlafly, President, Eagle Forum
Juliet Schor, PhD, Professor of Sociology, Boston College; author, Born to Buy: The Commercialized Child and the New Consumer Culture
Remar Sutton, Founder, The Privacy Rights Now Coalition
Victor Strasburger, MD, Professor of Pediatrics, Chief, Division of Adolescent Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine; co-author, Children, Adolescents, & the Media

< ------------letter ends here----------------->


For more information about the marketing of mobile phones, see our web page on mobile phones.
Commercial Alert is a nonprofit organization based in Portland, Oregon. Our mission is to keep the commercial culture within its proper sphere, and to prevent it from exploiting children and subverting the higher values of family, community, environmental integrity and democracy. For more information, see our website at: http://www.commercialalert.org.