Gist; citizens of the City of Newport, submit herewith « formal complaint abrogation ‘by the School Committee and Schoo! offices are located at 15 Wickham Ra. whose oe We, a s ‘of due Newport, RI. 02840. ne a We 5 } ‘hit Haut AaaComplaint: Without docun or overalll cost ¢ ation of comprehensive criteria for overall performance and without a diligent process for communicating such, oF or solic nd integrating widely held public concerns about the appropriateness of the Jesizn, the Newport School Committee (NSC) is rushing to adopt a final design for the $30 million school construction project approved in a bond election in November 2010. Without such criteria or public input, a highly specific design is being rushed through internal review and approval by the NSC which substantially oversteps the general terms by which it was approved by RIDE and by the specific language of the bond question. School District Officials had ensured voters during a two month campaign that the purpose of the rendering was solely for use as a placeholder and that after the election it would institute a public design process to incorporate the community's values and vision of a single K-4 Elementary School in Newport. Citizens of the City of Newport who approved this $30 million bond in November now find that their School Committee has been lacking in its effort to fulfill its duty to the public while it acts aggressively to isolate the actual design process from meaningful influence of well-informed citizens. jectivene: Examples of Supporting Testimony: During the Newport School Committee's February 8, 2011 meeting, three members of the community delivered statements that addressed: ‘The people’s awareness of being eliminated from the process and feeling that they had been deceived during the promotion of the bond.your oes oes LJ board 1 tes = See Thaveaer ioe srcmemee waa ne here anew pe Finally, 1 heard recently from Aida Neary. < eventually have two children i ox eer eee ee Myles, she too vowed chouts. Like Mary, Butte i g ne ie ' inl vil ih ernie aH intl Ht ut Hii Hh | it ill! rae a: t dE it tou e Gi i 4 f i l | | taxpayer; owner of 2 small business: 2 of te Aa He Scho Committee and a professional facilitator experienced in Se ee etree ahaa canna epees tearm School Commuttee (Prabinc Comments February 8. 2011 request the opportunity to express my concerns about the lack of puibiic process ox the Seppe eee cate Rapuaanatonaeriaeae parent children the Sched Nemareas Laer aves of ¢'maal boca: tamer of rt re Scat PeeteEDT from Pet Kelley t James Asbel and Jo Eva Gaines ‘from Pas Kelley to James Ashe! Pegswith fer months of our fruitless wrangling with HMFH to get the work Seman Spates igling HMEH to get the requested work product Trang in a March . 2010 email that his “biggest disappointment Thar ll nice! jo Perform an exhaustive review of alternatives but oniy provice © te a wr on ee ef erat bt ny Mi another email on March 5, Mr. Kelley reported that “There is definitely interest in designs, but that Jo Eva will push back.” Racing my campaign for Newport Schoo! Commitee in the 2010 elections 1 was asked by the Kp website. In 1 Newport citizens 10 share my views on the Knowing Newport nny fe posing | to scrutinize the the 7, 2010 I received continues{With regard to RICHPS, the full CHPS program including its full vision and spirit of advitory cnever presented to or explored by school officials or discussed in depah with sory committee members or the public. Instead a short list of the most easily obtalred Points was set forth by the architect and adopted by the Superintendent and Building Advisory Committee Chair (also School Committee Chair). The CHPS cireutt tae oe ot invited into the process until after the matter had been summarily dispatched. There derail TeConsideration of performance goals. Professionally generated and equally detailed alternative studies show that all other criteria of building function and aecthetice can be significantly advanced by a more robust application of the fuller vision of RICHPS. si proposed by “ in fact provides marginal play areas for the student population. adopted for epoca a a cecetonal areng tn ts ‘becn for schools is not afforded si oxen Profestona ally generate and equally alternative show that more efficient organization of the plan yields significantly greater play areas, ample gardens and prime growing exposures. The proposed site design further limits the availability of play area. By placing the loading dock atthe middle and behind the long building with no altcnative often the Page 7 of 9Sagi: HE) tapngee users ae a Ae Bae i a jhasn gt tit alae Bate Hea fey Head ett ‘Lal Fra, lee ead iat! hth i Heat bit bli tat fae anal ia AH: Hea ft lett lial tii