Where We Stand on the Upcoming May 20 School Board Elections

     The DeKalb County School Board Election is perhaps one of the most vital to the future of DeKalb as residents have seen in some time.  After the Governor removed former board members, several of them are determined to regain their old titles and in one district, the husband of a removed board member is the sole choice for voters.

PLEASE VOTE MAY 20 in DeKALB COUNTY, GA!

Here are the races and the candidates from the DeKalb County election website:

BOARD OF EDUCATION

District 1:  Stan Jester  

(Appointed Member John Coleman is not running for election.  Jester is the spouse of former board member Nancy Jester who was removed by the Governor.  He also has children currently enrolled in the public school system in DeKalb County.)

     Without another choice, GTCO-ATL is in favor of Stan Jester for this seat.  Our main concerns with this candidate is that the Dunwoody homeowner's association has been politically active and vocal about their desire to form their own school system, separate from DeKalb County's system.  We are unsure how Jester will resolve the conflict that would seem to put him in an awkward spot of wanting to help the current system succeed while not wanting to harm the chances of his constituents in their push toward gaining a separate system.  It is not clear how both goals can be achieved as the removal of funds from the north end of the district and return of children who live outside its boundaries would seemingly have a negative impact on the more poor portions of the county, mostly assumed to be in South DeKalb, but also located in the central part of the county where there is a large refugee area.

     Jester's wife Nancy was one of the only "no" votes against cell towers and was able to keep her Dunwoody district without a named school on the proposed list from 2011.  Stan has assisted GTCO-ATL with records requests and bringing the truth to light by his "fact checker" website and video / audio recording of key school board meetings.  GTCO-ATL favors Stan Jester as a positive addition to the board and hope that he continues his efforts toward an open and transparent school system leadership.

     Nancy Jester is running for the state school Superintendent's position and will face considerable competition in the primary election.  If you are a fan of Ms. Jester, she likely needs your vote on May 20, but you will need to request a Republican voting card in order to have an impact on her race for the state seat.  Any runoff elections will not be held until later in July. General elections will be held in November.

District 2:  Don McChesney, incumbent Marshall Orson  

(Orson was elected, not appointed, but did not serve on the former board.  He defeated then-incumbent McChesney so this election is a bit of a re-match between the two.  McChesney is a former teacher and Orson is an attorney in Atlanta with children in the school system.)

    This is a very tough district and the choices are not so much between the old and the new as they are between Briar Vista and Fernbank Elementary School districts.  McChesney has fought in the past for the Briar Vista neighborhood and their school which suffered a loss in student population under the new plan first brought forward by Dr. Cheryl Atkinson, former Superintendent who left amid a flurry of SACS allegations, possibly illegal hiring and firing practices, and her refusal to comply with Open Records Requests.  McChesney was the board member who offered the amended solution to the original cell tower debate that removed the three most vocal schools before the full board voted on the issue in July 2011, but he did not attend public meetings intended to gather input from the school communities in his own district which upset many taxpayers, especially those living in the Briarcliff Heights area near the Margaret Harris School for the physically and mentally impaired.

The location of the original schools affected by the cell tower decision.

   Orson is the former President of the highly influential Emory-Lavista Parent Council and has stepped up in an effort to assist GTCO-ATL and the Margaret Harris neighborhood in their co-joined efforts to determine the current status of the cell tower permits and to get a possible vote on a school board resolution against the cell tower practice in the future.  He has been accused in the past of favoring the Fernbank Elementary School community over others, but since his current tenure on the school board he has presented himself to be a very intelligent and thorough board member.  Most notably, he helped in the settlement of the Heery Mitchell lawsuit that was costing the school district tens of millions of dollars.  That alone has enabled our schools to begin to pay teachers a bit better and reverse all furlough days that had become a standard practice.  Orson is also the board member credited for the recommendation of former labor commissioner Michael Thurmond for the position of Superintendent, so depending on how you feel about him, that might influence your vote.

   GTCO-ATL will accept either of these board members as favorable to our cause as we believe they both have taken the time to research and understand the issue of cell towers and the concerns of their constituents. We have been mostly in favor of the progress of the new board and the hiring of Super. Thurmond, so for those reasons, we favor Marshall Orson in this district.

District 3:  Jerrie D. Bason, incumbent Michael A. Erwin, Jarrod Jordan, Atticus LeBlanc, Willie R. Mosley, Jr

(Incumbent Michael Erwin was appointed to the board by Gov. Deal)

   GTCO-ATL has no solid information that would lead us to believe any of the candidates for this seat would be pro-cell tower.  We have generally favored the job that the current appointed board members have done to date, so for this reason, we favor keeping the appointed current member Michael A. Erwin.

District 4:  Incumbent Karen Carter, incumbent Jim McMahan, John Oselette, Ella “Coach” Smith

(Incumbent Dr. Karen Carter was appointed by Gov. Deal, Incumbent Jim McMahan was elected to replace former board member Paul Womack, the board member who first brought the cell tower issue to the school board in 2011.)

Dr. Karla Drenner held multiple hearings at the state capitol in 2011 in an
effort to ban the practice of using school grounds for corporate
gain by the telecommunications industry.

     The only person in this district who has publicly opposed the cell tower issue is Ella "Coach" Smith.  Smith is our pick for District 4.  She was one of the only residents to attend a cell tower meeting held back in May 2011 and she opposed the practice both verbally and in a written statement to the board.  She came forward during the time when it was very controversial to do so because she knew then, and knows now, that the health of our children is not something to be gambled with.  A former teacher at Lakeside High School, who was also a cheer and gymnastics coach for many years, Smith has been a contributor to the Dekalb School Watch blog and other public forums in her support for the children all over the county, not just in her own district.  She has made considerable effort to mend fences between the warring sides of Lakeside vs. Tucker which were very heated during the most recent battle over city lines.  And, she gave up her teaching position to work in Fulton County specifically so that she could become a more outspoken advocate for the children and call out the poor governance practices she witnessed.

     We are not specifically opposed to Dr. Karen Carter and the job she has done, but we are unclear as to where she stands on the cell tower issue.  We have presented a resolution to refrain from using cell towers as a revenue stream and provided quality evidence to show the board that the money in other markets has only been used as a slush fund to further corrupt practices.  While members like Mayfield and Orson as well as the Superintendent have reached out to us and others who oppose the towers to help us with learning where things stand in the process of permits and contracts, we have not heard from McMahan or Carter.  Oselette appears to only be campaigning in a very limited area with a highly political tilt.  For these reasons, we are in favor of Ella "Coach" Smith as the best candidate from a perspective of healing this district and remaining in firm opposition to the placement of towers at our schools.  Many of the schools on the list for cell towers were based in and around this specific area of the county.

    We also do not specifically oppose Jim McMahan, but have concerns over his poor attendance record on the current board.  He has made good voting decisions and did speak with us on more than one occasion to tell us that he supported our efforts to keep cell towers off school grounds.  McMahan would not be a poor choice for the cell tower issue, however, we are concerned over his association with the Tucker Parent Council and some behind the scenes changes to staffing at some Tucker schools that may have been an effort to assist the Lakeside City Alliance.  The city issue would have split Tucker nearly in half and has been a very destructive element in this district.  We believe that anyone who is involved in this battle for city borders should not also be simultaneously involved in school related groups when their efforts in one area may be counter productive to their responsibilities in the other.  The children must always come first.


District 5:  Pia “Chaz Afzal” Bhatt, Jesse “Jay” Cunningham, R. Alexander Fitzhugh, incumbent Thad Mayfield, Vickie B. Turner

(Incumbent Thad Mayfield is a current appointed board member.  Jesse "Jay" Cunningham is a former board member who was removed by the Governor.)

    Thad Mayfield has been a very detailed and effective board member since his appointment.  He has listened to the concerns of GTCO-ATL and we believe he would be the best choice for District 5.  We favor Thad Mayfield for several reasons, but on the issue of cell towers, we believe that he has researched the issue, listened to the complaints and would likely vote against the practice of using towers for a revenue stream or slush fund.

Parents at MLK High School in DeKalb showed up to oppose cell towers and meet with their then-board member Jay Cunningham back in 2011.

District 6:  Bridgeman Bolger and incumbent Melvin Johnson

(Incumbent Melvin Johnson is a current board member who was elected.)

       Between the two candidates, we favor Bridgeman Bolger for this race.  We recently learned that Bolger worked for Rep. Karla Drenner, who fought a very good fight in the state House of Representatives in an effort to completely ban cell towers from our school grounds.  Bolger has reached out to GTCO-ATL to make an introduction, which we appreciate.  He understands the cell tower issue and has also worked through  his position with the Young Democrats of DeKalb to ensure federal funds for the refugee resettlement communities are getting to the right places, including the schools that are expected to educate these children, many of whom do not know any English.

     While we do not have any specific issues with Dr. Melvin Johnson, the incumbent and current chairman of the school board, we are aware that he has a somewhat controversial past.  He was a long time employee with the school system and some of his opponents believe he worked for the system during the timeframe that saw a huge increase in administration while schools were being forced to close or run with minimal staff and support.

District 7:  Kim Ault, Lee V. Dukes and incumbent Joyce Morley

(Incumbent Dr. Joyce Morley was appointed by the Governor.)

    It is with heavy heart that we are reminded of the passing of former board member Donna Edler.  Ms. Edler was a friend to GTCO-ATL and one of the only two board members to vote against the cell towers initially (although eventually all except Dr. Eugene Walker stated that they would vote differently if they had the choice to do over again).   Ms. Edler died from cancer and was a true fighter until the very end, never letting her illness get in the way of her efforts to provide a better school system for the children in DeKalb County.  Edler's children are still in the DeKalb County School System and our condolences go out to them as well as her husband.

   This is another difficult choice and GTCO-ATL is not completely in favor or opposed to any of these candidates, lacking sufficient information.  However, we are aware that parent Kim Ault has been at the forefront of many efforts to bring the former board members and their poor governance practices into the light.  We believe she would be an honest representative who has her own children in the system and has sufficient knowledge of where we have been in order to serve her district well.

     However, we slightly favor Dr. Joyce Morley as she has done a fair job during her appointment to the board.  She has taken her position seriously and seems to be very committed to continuing the good work that the current appointed board has done so far.  For this reason, GTCO-ATL favors Dr. Joyce Morley.

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. 

 

 

"True Yes" voters may be fewer than 10%





Subtract industry workers and the uniformed.  Subtract those who do not own a home or have a child in the system.  Subtract those who do not live near a school themselves.  GTCO-ATL estimates only about 10% of the yes vote is a "true yes."  Whereas every No vote is a strong message to T-mobile to BACK OUT of the contract they have with our schools.

So, if you are like us at GTCO-ATL, you might be wondering ... who said YES?  We will be getting more into this subject later as the detailed results are made available, but here are just a few thoughts we have right now about the "true yes" voters out there... and there aren't many of them!

When you subtract the percentage of people who work for the telecomm industry, profit from corruption in the school system, or have close friends or family tied to either of these industries, the total Yes vote would likely be cut in half to only 20%. 

When you subtract the number of people who are completey unaware and uninformed on this subject, the true "yes" vote would be reduced ever further. GTCO-ATL estimates that a 10% "true yes" is the likely percentage of those in our county who would actually be okay with a cell tower at a school. 

And, of those "true yes" votes, a large portion would likely be people who do not own their own home, have children in the school system, or live near a school themselves. 

It's clear from the vote on July 31, practically NO ONE truly would welcome a cell tower near their home, their school and would not want to place that burden on anyone else in the county, either.  Great job, DeKalb County! 

T-mobile has said they will not put up towers in areas where they are not wanted.  So, if they try to come to your neighborhood next, you are now armed with valid information to fight against them.  So, when will T-mobile exercise its "out clause" and leave our schools and our residential areas alone?  The ball is in their court!



Crossroads: Town Hall Tonight at 6:30 p.m.

DeKalb School Board sets Tuesday Town Hall on budget

Written by Valerie Morgan

Courtesy: Crossroads.  From Left, back:  Walker, Cunningham, Bowen, Womack, McChestney. 
Front, from left:  Copelin-Woods, Jester, Edler, Speaks.

DeKalb County School Board members are inviting constituents to weigh in on the district’s proposed budget.

A Town Hall meeting will be held Tuesday (June 19??), 6:30 p.m., at Columbia High School, 2106 Columbia Drive, Decatur.

The meeting is being hosted by School Board chair Eugene Walker, board members Sarah Copelin-Wood, Donna Elder and Jay Cunningham.

“We’re looking for solutions. This is not a gripe session,” said Cunningham, who is helping to promote the meeting. “We don’t have any answers. We will be listenening.”

The School Board is scheduled to vote on the budget on Wednesday.

It is suggested that you arrive early to be placed on the list to speak at the Town Hall meeting.

Those who cannot make the meeting but would like to make a suggestion may contact their school board member by visiting www.dekalb.k12.ga.us.


Directions coming from the North: 

Depart I-285 South / GA-407 South toward I-285 West / GA-407 West

1.6 mi

At exit 44, take ramp right and follow signs for Glenwood Road

0.2 mi

Turn right onto GA-260 / Glenwood Rd

1.2 mi

Turn left onto Columbia Dr
Fina on the corner

0.7 mi

Arrive at 2106 Columbia Dr Decatur, GA 30032
The last intersection is Hyland DrIf you reach Irish Ln, you've gone too far

Columbia High School
2106 Columbia Dr Decatur, GA 30032
            (678) 874-0802    

Sample Ballots Posted; Telecommunications Tower Referendum Needs Your NO DeKalb!

The Sample Ballots are Now Posted! 

Above link is the non-partisan election.  You can also see the Republican and Democratic ballots by going to www.dekalbvotes.com.


Please read and get familiar with the candiates in your area today! 

Your local school and your local community need your NO vote on a very important issue: 

*******************************************************
Nonbinding Advisory Referendum
(Vote for One)

"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 elementary, middle, or high school property?"
*******************************************************
There are so many things wrong with this ballot question that we don't even know where to begin.  You can thank Rep. Karla Drenner (D - Avondale) and Rep. Chuck Sims (R - Ambrose), who does not even live in DeKalb County, for negotiating this little gem of a question without even discussing its merits with those of us whom they were supposedly trying to help.  (Yeah, right!)

First, this ballot question is actually asking all voting residents, many of whom have no idea what a telecommunications tower nor have they heard about any of the controversy surrounding the school board's vote to place cell phone towers at schools against the wishes and/or knowledge of the surrounding communities.  So, in light of all the budget talks, you have a potential for a lot of uninformed people to vote in favor of something that is actually against our own DeKalb County ordinances and against the warnings of all seven of our county commissioners.

Second, this question does not apply to the actual situation as we have been told exists today.  The school board voted on and approved cellular transmissions towers for 9 schools in DeKalb County, and have only delivered 8 signed contracts under the Open Records Request Act.  T-mobile is supposedly the company that will be doing the "placing" and the "operating" of the towers for a commercial purpose, not the school system itself.  Or, at least that's what we have been told.  But, they have misled us before and so we are prepared for almost anything at this point.

If the board is foolish enough to rely on the verbiage of a "non-binding" referendum as a way to justify placing towers anywhere in DeKalb County, then there is likely a cell tower company out there who is likely to go along with their plan. 

However, that does not mean that we cannot work together to protect our communities and be diligent at keeping a watch over our public property for any signs of constuction. 

At Get the Cell Out - Atlanta, we have remained involved with this issue in hopes of helping to keep these towers off any of our school properties because we do not believe the numerous dangers that come along with them are worth any amount of money.  We also do not believe that a cell tower is the only way for the telecomms or the school or the county's 911 services to improve their products or services.  It is just the cheapest for them, and the most costly to us. 

While we do not have the power, the influence or the money to sway a large number of voters, we do have this blog and the ability to tell a few.  If you share our concerns and think the BOE might look to your school next (or possibly in the very near future), spread the word in your community about this referendum and urge everyone you know to vote NO. 

You may also wish to take a good, hard look at your property tax assessment and appeal it if it is wrong, either way.  The only way to truly weed out corruption is to not get sucked into it.  If your property is estimated too low, you can likely afford to pay a tiny bit more and help us ensure the schools are well funded and can avoid tax hikes and cell towers.  If your estimate is too high, and you can afford it, consider letting it ride.  If a tower goes up and you have appealed for a lower value, you are locked in for three years. 

That means that after the tower, you will not have another county assessment to prove that the cell tower lowered your property value.  You will not be able to recoop any damages or sue to have the tower taken down.  And that will be the end of the story for the next 30 years. 

Help our county rise above the greed of those who seek to keep us all down. 

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.

SPLOST "Oversight" Committee Accepting Volunteer Applications (no pun intended)

DeKalb Schools to Appoint Citizens SPLOST Oversight Committee

June 1, 2012

The DeKalb County School District invites members of the public to volunteer

their services for a 12-member Citizen’s SPLOST Oversight Committee. The advisory

committee, expected to begin meeting in August 2012, provides for citizen review of the

voter-approved SPLOST project list.

Interested DeKalb County residents who want to be considered for the committee should

provide their information online at:

http://goo.gl/ZfoSV

no later than Sunday, June 17, 2012 at 11:59 p.m.

Only online applications will be accepted.

Qualified candidates must be citizens who reside within the boundaries of the DeKalb County

School District, may not be members of the Board of Education or employees of the School

District, and may not have any economic interest in any of the District’s projects.

Experience in accounting, architecture, auditing, construction, engineering, finance, K-12

education, legal, planning, project management and/or real estate is desired.

Members must be volunteers who can dedicate at least two hours each quarter to meeting,

generally in the evenings. Members must pass a background check and sign a non-disclosure

agreement.

For a review of the SPLOST IV program and projects: 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/94284322/Splost-Overview

Questions about the Citizen’s SPLOST Oversight Committee may be emailed to:

splostoversight@fc.dekalb.k12.ga.us

For more information about the DeKalb County School District, visit: www.dekalb.k12.ga.us

DeKalb County's Budget Woes: What Gives?

(click headline to read what board member Paul Womack, District #4, said last August about the state of the school system's budget.)

DeKalb County Schools say they have a $74 million shortfall in their budget this year and have been hearing public comments about what things might be cut or kept. 

Here's the AJC article:  http://www.ajc.com/news/dekalb/dekalb-schools-facing-70-1442996.html

And here is a link to a play-by-play of the citizens' comments:  http://tucker.patch.com/articles/fernbank-supporters-dekalb-parents-address-school-board#video-10186173

But, the elephant in the room is the question of "how did we get here?"

Since the school board does not have an online check register or any other way for the public to see how they are spending our money, we can only take their word for it.

That would be fine if we had folks on the board that we felt we could trust.  But, in District #4, less than a year ago, Paul Womack, the incumbant for this area told a room full of parents that everything was fine.  He even said we might be one of the best in the state in terms of fiancial stability right now.  Here's his direct quote from August 31, 2011:

Please don't
vote for H.
Paul Womack,
District #4,
DeKalb
County

Womack:    "Well, let me, let me respond to the taxes. The school board does not raise taxes… since 2000. Ah, I was chairmen of the Budget Committee we cut 104 million dollars out of the budget. A lot of it was in the area that most people were concerned about. And that was in staff. And we got rid of a lot of things that we shouldn’t have. That we know of.  This year the administration was pushing through another budget and I was able to stop it. I’m vice chair. And we cut another 15 million. We are not going into the classroom. We have increased the number of students. But we have, I think, as good of a fiscal record as any school system, probably better than most. We did not do what the county did - raise property taxes, what? 28 percent? We didn’t do that. But you know, I don’t really buy that the community did not know because Medlock and a couple of areas around the county found out. They had to have knowledge because they came to the board and said, “No.” And the board said, 'Ok.' We listen you. But nobody came to, from this community and said 'no.' "

http://dekalbschoolwatch.blogspot.com/2011/09/transcript-from-briarcliff-es-pta.html

Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich: Statement to the Wireless Safety Summit

(click headline for full text.) 

Kucinich (D - Ohio)

October 6, 2011

Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to talk with you about wireless technology. It is an honor to be in a room with people who are so ahead of their time when it comes to thinking about the effects of widespread wireless technology. This is an issue of great interest to me. Many of you know I held a hearing on the topic – the first in at least a decade if not the first ever – on the effects of cell phones on human health. My hearing was followed by a hearing in the Senate which also generated some interest.

I walked away from that hearing thinking the evidence that cell phones could cause brain cancer was fairly compelling. It was far from being authoritative but it was compelling. At a minimum, the current lack of research in the US is not at all justified, especially since some estimates are that half of the world population uses a cell phone. One of the most important areas we discussed at my hearing was the mechanism.

The wireless industry likes to claim that the only way a cell phone could cause harm to a human being is by heating tissue directly – the so called thermal mechanism. This is the way a microwave oven works. But we heard some evidence that a non-thermal mechanism is at work. It is certainly feasible since there are many existing therapies using electromagnetic radiation to induce some effect in the body using non-thermal mechanisms.

It is an important conversation to have because this belief - that there is no non-thermal mechanism - is preventing some influential agencies from being open to the possibility that cell phones and other wireless technologies are a real public health problem. I’m talking about the National Cancer Institute mainly, who is in turn influencing the Federal Communications Commission and the Food and Drug Administration.

These agencies are using this conversation about thermal and non-thermal mechanisms as a red herring, effectively claiming that we can’t move forward with any kind of precautionary action until we know the mechanism. Let me explain.

When trying to link any given environmental exposure to a health problem, scientists like to know exactly how it is happening at the 10,000 foot level and at the micrometer level. In other words, they like to be able to look over vast numbers of people and compare who was exposed and who was not exposed and show that there is a link there. But before they conclude the link is rock solid, they also like to know what, exactly, is happening at the cellular level – how are the molecules changing in cells to make this happen? That is called the mechanism. Scientists are hesitant to say with certainty there is a link until that mechanism is nailed down. And the mechanism is usually the last thing to be discovered – usually years if not decades after epidemiology first uncovers the problem.

That’s fine for scientists. But The NCI, the FCC, the FDA, and Members of Congress are not scientists. We are policy makers. And we have to look at things the scientists don’t. For example, we have to consider that we knew tobacco was killing people in the 30s. The Surgeon General didn’t even weigh in until the 60s. And there was no substantive action on cigarette bans until the mid 90s. In fact there are many places in the US where you can still smoke in public places even though it is well established that people die from exposure to it. It is not an accident that almost 70 years have passed and we’re still fighting to protect public health from tobacco. That was the result of a sophisticated campaign to manufacture doubt in the mind of the public about the link between cigarettes and health. What we have to consider as policy makers, not scientists is this: How many people died between the time we knew tobacco caused cancer and dozens of other major lethal health problems and the time policy makers took real action to protect the public and educate them?

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Each year, an estimated 443,000 people die prematurely from smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke, and another 8.6 million live with a serious illness caused by smoking." 2

So, yes, let’s talk about what the non-thermal mechanisms are. But let’s not let that discussion get in the way when millions of lives are at stake. If we see a danger or even a potential danger to human health, we must act to protect health before acting to protect profits.

I announced that I would be introducing a bill that would do three things. It would reestablish a research program in the US to look at the health effects of cell phones. Almost all meaningful research in the field is now done overseas, save for a few selected pockets at places like the University of Washington and Cleveland Clinic.

Second, the bill would call for a real measure of exposure to replace the inaccurate, misleading, and downright false numbers used now to depict exposure levels. You know this measurement as the Specific Absorption Rate, or SAR, and it is mostly only accessible in places that are invisible to the consumer as they shop for phones. The SAR has multiple problems; among them is that they are designed for adults, not children; they ignore the fields created by phones that use increasing amounts of power, which smart phones do; and the science has developed significantly since the standards were set, mostly by engineers, not by people with medical training.

The third thing the bill would do is call for a label on cell phones, using the new measure of exposure that is created under this bill. Until we can say with greater certainty whether this is a link between electromagnetic radiation and various health problems, the consumer should be able to decide what they want. But markets are not truly free when the consumer has inadequate information. As it stands, the consumer cannot practically know what a particular phone or smart meter would expose them to. First the SAR is obsolete, as I mentioned. Second, even if it were useful, the SAR can’t be readily accessed when buying a phone. We need labels.

The bill has already accumulated cosponsors and I am awaiting the right moment to introduce it. It will not be easy to make legislative progress because of the enormous financial resources the industry has at its disposal. They have already tried a few tricks to get us to pony up information about the bill’s contents, timing and strategy. But I am convinced we can make legislative progress anyway. We just have to be very strategic about it.

I am also keeping a close eye on the other uses for wireless technology. Certainly there are a lot of questions about the dangers posed by towers. Increasingly, we’re seeing popular resistance to smart meters as well because of the additional exposure they cause. And the wireless spectrum is being sold off to make room for more wireless gadgets like keyboards.

The use of the radiofrequency spectrum is one of three emerging technologies that are proof for the maxim that we are developing technology faster than our ability to manage it. Another textbook case is nanotechnology, which is proliferating by leaps and bounds while research on the effects on the environment and health is slowly lumbering along. What little research we have seen to date is deeply concerning. The third case, of course, is genetically engineered food; another topic which I have held hearings on.

In each of these cases, any progress that has been made has only come as a result of the efforts of a thoughtful, dedicated few who have raised the hard questions for industry and for policy makers. It is a privilege to join you in your efforts to put public health over private profit. Thank you again for the invitation to be with you today.

Reprinted thanks to the Center for Safer Wireless

Womack defends pay raise for Lewis

Paul Womack, District #4 (Tucker, Northlake, Briarlake, Lakeside, Smoke Rise, Jolly, Clarkston, etc.) - the person who brought us the cell towers is seen in this older interview defending the rasie the board voted on for Crawford Lewis, former Superintendent of DeKalb County Schools. Lewis is now facing corruption charges and Womack is running for re-election.

We haven't received statements from two Tucker canidates running against him, but will bring you more when we do. Jim Hensen and Tom Gilbert have both stepped up to hopefully take the reigns from the one-sided power trip that Womack has been on for far too many years now.

Like the man says, "You've got to do what's in the best interest of this county and for the children." (paraphrased, but please watch this clip for yourself!)

From the AJC: Lower Income Kids Waste Most Time on Gadgets

Monkey see, Monkey do! 

Guess what?  Kids can waste time using electronic devices, too! 

This is a video of an adorable baby who thinks that a magazine is actually an I-pad that doesn't work: 

While this video is cute, it also gives us a glimpse of the future.  Children who have never known a world without computers, electronic gadgets and games, but how healthy is all of this "virtual reality" and why are we so set on thinking of technology as a measure of education and achievement? 

Do we think that knowing how to use a calculator makes someone a math wizard? 

Do we think knowing how to use spell check makes us better communicators?

We can't even say for sure that the metorologists on television are any better at predicting the weather based on what type of radar system their station tell us they own, can we?

Did our kids get smarter when the "white-board" replaced the blackboard in our classrooms?  Then why would an expensive "smartboard" be any different?

Warning:  an Economic Divide

A post in the Atlanta Journal today even warns us that technology may even create a bigger problem for school districts, like ours here in DeKalb County, where there is a gap in the economic levels of students. 

If the cell towers that we might soon see going up at 8 of our lower income schools are truly educational in purpose, then is that a sign that our school board is leading us down a path of e-books, mobile homework submission and virtual classrooms? 

Will they be using our tax dollars to fund an "I-Pad in every child's hands?"  And, if so, how will our already poor performing, lower income "Title I" students do when they have the added distraction of a new computer to play with? 

How will the rest of their household react to having an I-Pad to "play" with when it is really intended for the child to use for school work? 

Has our board investigated other similar districts who have tried this solution to their educational problems?  Or, are we, once again, expecting our children to be the guinea pigs?  The RF radiation from a cell tower overhead can be expected to cause insomnia, memory problems, confusion and other issues for as much as 35 - 50% of the kids at a cell tower school. 

What about Lakeside?

Meanwhile, Lakeside High School, the school that was reported by board members to have been the original requestor for the cell towers to help them with their coverage problems, is yet to receive a signed contract OR an FCC license for a tower. 

We've suspected all along that they needed Brairlake Elementary School to receive a tower because they knew they would really not be getting one of their own.  And, since cell towers decrease property values, we aren't surprised that the other schools around Lakeside will be getting towers as a means to continue to help this overpriced community justify their sky-high mortgage rates. 

Here's an excerpt from the article from the AJC's Maureen Downey.  As you read it, think about whether or not this is the right direction for DeKalb County.  And, please remember the children when you plan to vote July 31.  Help us keep cell towers off school grounds by voting no on the ballot question and voting against the incumbants who brought cell towers to our schools in the first place, like Paul Womack, District #6.

Get Schooled - Gadgets Waste Time for Some Kids More than Others

3:01 am May 31, 2012, by Maureen Downey

Full text here:
http://blogs.ajc.com/get-schooled-blog/2012/05/31/new-digital-divide-lower-income-kids-waste-more-time-with-their-gadgets/
(Click link above for full article as well as a link to the NY Times piece.)

Excerpt below:

When technology first began to infiltrate American childhoods, there were fears of a digital divide; children from lower-income families would not have access to the emerging new technologies because of the cost and thus fall behind their more affluent peers whose families could afford cell phones, computers and video game systems.

However, now that access to cell phones and other electronics is widespread, there are fears of a new divide: Poorer kids are wasting more time on their assorted electronic and computer gadgets than more affluent peers.

“Despite the educational potential of computers, the reality is that their use for education or meaningful content creation is minuscule compared to their use for pure entertainment,” said Vicky Rideout, author of a decade-long Kaiser study on online patterns, in a New York Times story on the issue. “Instead of closing the achievement gap, they’re widening the time-wasting gap.”

Closing the digital divide is not improving the educational outcomes of low-income kids, in part because their families have the least ability to monitor their usage of electronics or limit their time.
These issues are important to understand as we are increasingly urged to expand online education options for students, even elementary-age children.

But all children, regardless of income, have come to largely see computer and electronics as entertainment. The challenge is recasting technology as an educational tool.

Nancy, What's Up With That?

 

Board Member Nancy Jester has started a new blog site called, "Nancy, what's up with that?"  You can find some of the common questions she receives and her responses here:  http://whatsupwiththat.nancyjester.com/

 

 

May 31, 2012

 

 

Hi Nancy,

Keep up the great work you are doing on behalf of the entire county.

I was reading some of the SPLOST IV information you provided to the DeKalb School Watch Two Blog and noticed a link in one of the Power Point presentations.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/OversightCommittee

However, when I clicked on it today, May 31, it led to a page that says, “The online application process for the DCSD SPLOST Oversight Committee is coming shortly. Please check back to this website.” But, the Power Point also stated that the cutoff date to apply is June 10, 2012. So, we have 10 days and no way to apply.

Do you know if this online application will be working soon? Or will there be another way to apply? Perhaps the website that was provided could also give the alternative information?

I would like to apply, but that doesn’t appear to be possible. What’s up with that?

Cheryl Miller

(Get the Cell Out - ATL)

District #6

Denise McGill for District #6 - first DeKalb School Board Canidate to Take Hard Stance Against Cell Towers on School Grounds!

When reading and commenting on the DeKalb School Watch Blog Two, we learned that one of the canidates, Denise McGill, running for District #6 (Tom Bowen's District) was employed by Verizon and our warning bells went off! 

Here's the lowdown...

DeKalb School Board District #6 Canidate Denise McGill,
http://www.thepeoplefordenisemcgill.org/index.html

We've been told by advisors from other states battling cell towers that we need to be on the lookout for the telecomm industry to try and infiltrate our PTAs, Parent Councils and even our school board.  They find out where their own employees live and then encourage them to run for the various offices in the school system.  Once they are in, the companies will pressure the employees to try to further the corporate objectives even if they are contrary to their own personal opinions or contrary to what is actually good for the school or the community.  These objectives can include the use of public funds, gaining of tax breaks and leasing or acquiring our public schools, parks and other land. 

And, we heard from board member Jesse Cunningham during his meeting at Martin Luther King, Jr. High School, found here, that Verizon may be coming to our schools next, right on the heels of all our protesting against the T-Mobile cell towers.

So, we replied to the DeKalb School Watch Blog article, titled "Time is Running Out," with some pretty tough questions for Denise McGill.  Our line of questions is posted below.  And, much to our surprise (and relief), Ms. McGill responded with some very strong words of her own that we absolutely applaud her for.  She sounds to us like a very qualified, committed and responsible parent who really understands why we, and so many others just like us, have the concerns and objections that we do to placing cell towers on school grounds. 

Here is the line of questioning from us:
  
getthecelloutatl says:

May 29, 2012 at 3:57 AM

 

Since you have done such great work for Verizon Wireless, can you please tell us why there is no cell service at Lakeside High School with 130+ cell towers in a four mile radius of the school? This is the claim of our current board and has resulted in 8 schools being on the list to receive cell towers (Lakeside not being one of them) in an attempt to improve their “coverage.”

What are your thoughts about cell towers on school grounds knowing what you likely do about the link between RF radiation and multiple health issues ranging from insomnia to cancer, with children being the most vulnerable group?

Will you be in support of Verizon if they follow the lead of T-mobile (ATT) and want to lease our school property without proper public notifcation or without going through the proper zoning regulations of our county?

Are you still employed by Verizon? Will you continue to hold this position if you are elected to the board? If so, will you admit to the conflict of interest and remove yourself from any vote that involves spending our tax dollars on technology as you may be unfairly pressured to vote according to the way that would best help your company and not our children?

Reply

 

And he is the response from Ms. McGill:

Denise McGill says:

May 29, 2012 at 4:45 AM

getthecellouatl,

I worked for MCI who became Verizon Business. Verizon Business (not Verizon Wireless) developed networks and IT solutions for major corporations as well as provided networking, security business and IT, advanced communications. I have no understanding of Verizon Wireless, nor did I work in a capacity that facilitated anything to do with their wireless services. I have not worked for Verizon Business since April 2009. The last three years of my life have been focused on Youth Advocacy, and Volunteerism. After 26 years, surviving multiple mergers, watching countless friends walk out the door- and the stress of not knowing when your turn was coming- I was relieved, and when given the opportunity, I re-evaluated my life. I wanted a change from Corporate, and worked diligently towards focusing my efforts on what makes me happy- which is community service. I am grateful to have a husband who has allowed me to pursue my passion which is serving my community and its children.

Before I answer your question let me preface it by saying this to you…

I am a parent of a child who was born with an extremely rare life altering medical condition. My child was not to live for 24 hours let alone be six months away from being 20 years old… She lives with this condition everyday and we live in fear EVERYDAY. One thing that we are guaranteed- is that we know without a doubt that we are going to be in someone’s hospital for a minimum total two weeks within a 12 month time span. It’s a given-
I know what it is like to live in hospitals, and to fear for your child.

I Live it EVERYDAY.

So to answer your question- NO, I am not a supporter of cell towers ANYWHERE in a general population of people. They need to be as far away from people as possible
Cell phone towers have no place near any school grounds- nor do they have any place in heavily populated area’s. We are all wise enough to know that the effects of allowing this have unlimited consequences. We have seen what radiation does over periods of time. Who knows what else might come with the erection of these towers? The damage might be years out- but we know that with it, damage will come.

Who wants to have on their conscious that your decision allowed life altering long term unknown effects on generations of individuals? I don’t know about you, but that is not on my agenda of things that I want to do while on earth.

I personally do not want that on my conscious, nor do I want ANY parent to go through the agony of watching a child suffer. Why would I want to purposely put someone else through that torment when I know what its like to watch this on a personal basis?

With that said getthecellout-
I don’t have a conflict of interest here- but if I did, yes, I would remove myself from any vote that I could not be impartial. I do have a conscious, and I could NOT in good conscious approve something that I know might put someone’s child in a scenario which would be life altering in any way shape or form. Anyone who could do it for money simply does not have a clear understanding of the long term effects- if they can live with it so be it- that however would not be me.

If you look on my website: wwwthepeoplefordenisemcgil.org, read about me, and feel free to look at my resume.


Good Job, Denise McGill, and you have earned the Get the Cell Out - ATL "seal of approval" for a canidate we recommend to the voters in School District #6!

To our GTCO-ATL followers:  If you are like us, and you are concerned about the possibility of the school board placing more cell towers on our school grounds and, consequently, in our backyards, playgrounds and residential neigbhorhoods, please research the canidates up for re-election on July 31!

If you are in an EVEN NUMBERED DISTRICT

(click here to see the map), 

your school board member

is up for re-election!

And, all voters in DeKalb County will be asked their

opinion about cell towers on school grounds!

Get your friends and neighbors to show up and vote this year!  The low voter turnout in November is what resulted in the SPLOST IV continuation.  If you cannot afford to continue throwing your money out the window so that those in governement can spend it on attorneys, jobs for their friends and family and not do anything to improve our education system and home values, then please do something about it this year - VOTE!

Make sure you vote for a canidate, like Denise McGill, who is willing to take a stand now as being someone who will absolutely never approve a cell tower as an alternative funding source.

And, please remember to vote NO to the telecommunications tower question on the ballot that asks if you think the schools should consider them for our schools.

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

 "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 elementary, middle, or high school property?"

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