Division I regional track finals
Fenwick graduation 2012
Ponitz graduation 2012
Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2008 > January > 27 > Entry
Bonaparte: Support to save Roosevelt not there
(Bonaparte in front of Roosevelt in 2006.)
In Saturday’s paper, one of the leaders of the effort to save Roosevelt High School from the wrecking ball did an abrupt public about-face.
Annie Bonaparte, a neighborhood activist in west Dayton who has been one of the most energized advocates for Roosevelt for most of this decade, said she now favors a plan to replace the 1923 high school with a new elementary school and city recreation center.
My colleague Joanne Huist Smith took the call from Bonaparte on Friday and said it was an emotional conversation with Bonaparte crying through much of it. But her bottom line reasoning was this — over her seven years working to save the school, Bonaparte did not see the kind of community support needed to make it happen. And if it’s not going to be saved, then Bonaparte wants to see the more than $30 million the city and school district have on the table for their plan spent in west Dayton.
Her comments echoed something former board member Gail Littlejohn said to me in the summer of 2006 when the school board voted to change its master plan to include the replacement of Roosevelt with a new school. Littlejohn said in the month or so between the board’s announcement that Roosevelt would be demolished and the final vote she only had a couple of phone calls of complaint. If the school were truly a treasure that the city wanted to save, she said, there would be a groundswell of support that the board wouldn’t be able to ignore.
What is your reaction to Bonaparte’s view that the community simply did not step up to save the school and now it is time to move on?
(Image credit: Bill Reinke, DDN)
Permalink | Comments (16) | Categories: Dayton Public Schools, School Construction
Comments
By TB
February 4, 2008 9:00 AM | Link to this
Mario and Oldprof, those answers were a bunch of bull. Oldprof we all know that the district has not seen a dime of that money. Even if they did cough up the cash, the district would have to pay it back. They didn’t “give” the district anything. The Julienne folks have NOT been asked for a “business plan” to save that building. Mario as far as wasteful spending goes; why would the district waste money purchasing a school for Stivers to temporarily call home when it had 2 empty high school buildings already? Sounds like a political move to me.By mario
February 1, 2008 4:57 PM | Link to this
Because Roosevelt was originally not going to be the site of a new school, rather, the intent was to find a reuse for the building itself outside of the DPS system. The Wilbur Wright site was always intended for a new school, and part of the decision to purchase the Julienne building was to later use it as the site for a new school in that neighborhood. The discussion with the latter two communities is whether or not those buildings can be adapted to the district Education Specifications within the budget determined by OSFC.By Oldprof
February 1, 2008 3:47 PM | Link to this
TB, regarding proposals: Stivers was due to be demolished, but its alumni and other interested citizens raised several million dollars to save it. Julienne became part of DPS as a temporary home for Stivers while that work was being done. The previous board would have taken any properly-funded proposal to save any building; I’d hope that the new board would do the same. However, be aware that delays in construction of themselves cost the district big money—something that an accountant with access to the books (Lacey) ought to verify. If the Julienne alumni want to raise the money, the building can be theirs—or, for that matter, if anyone wants to assume responsibility for W. Wright. But if the money isn’t there, poof goes the antique and up goes the new brick and mortar. Stivers proved that much.By TB
February 1, 2008 10:07 AM | Link to this
I ask my question again….why were the ‘Save Roosevelt’ supporters required to submit proposals for reuse of the building, but the ‘Save Julienne’ and ‘Save Wilber Wright’ supporters were not?By mario
January 30, 2008 5:45 PM | Link to this
I first became deeply involved in school district issues after the publication of the Performance Audit in 1999 and the discovery that the district was in the red 9 million dollars and on the hook for up to 20 million. There seemed to be a meeting a week and the First Street meeting room and the hallways were packed with concerned citizens to the extent that they put TVs in the hall so people could participate. The Superintendent selection occurred right after I was sworn in, in 2000. There were several meetings, all with a full house, and many, many people speaking on behalf of Dr. McGill. The last meeting I believe went almost 4 hours. On the Roosevelt issue, there were numerous public meetings from 2003 to 2006. Several were specifically called to present proposals for reuse. In one case, even after an email from Joe Lacy, zero people showed up. Joe was told he had the right to call a special meeting and he declined to do so. The statement that the board avoided meetings where there might be confrontation is insulting. Coming from a sitting board member, it is unbelievable. I have made a public records request for any correspondence relating to postponing the demolition and will be happy to post once I receive it.By Joe Lacey
January 29, 2008 9:05 PM | Link to this
Scott, you’re saying Bonaparte and Littlejohn have said that people “have not rallied in the way Jerrie�s supporters did for her or as other groups have on other issues.” What rallies did Bonaparte and Littlejohn refer to? Did they refer to Dr. McGill’s rally or are some other that they’ve experienced? I’m saying that there is considerable support for the renovation of Roosevelt that Board members have seen, heard about or experienced in any number of ways. Its that support that they have seen that has led them to avoid any meeting where there might be confrontation on the issue, to postpone demolition when it might effect an election and to withhold a decision until they had assurances that the City’s rec plex would be part of the deal.By Riverdale Ghost
January 29, 2008 4:47 PM | Link to this
Mr. Elliott, a cardinal rule of Dayton is, “Keep your mouth shut and go about your business; no matter who or what you are, there’s someone around who is more important” (in two words, “low profile” — surely you’ve heard the expression). People who are taught that are not inclined to “speak out” at the drop of a hat. The kind of reaction you are talking about would easily be proportionately 50% greater in some other places.By Scott Elliott
January 29, 2008 12:17 PM | Link to this
As a reporter for 17 years, it sometimes feels like I’ve spent half my life at public meetings. I’ve been to A LOT of them. In my experience, when elected leaders at the local level over reach and try to take action that their constituents will not tolerate, the community will make its wishes crystal clear. This usually results in changing the plan. Joe can try to minimize the meeting that won Jerrie McGill the superintendency, but I was there. And I have been there for most Dayton school board meetings over the past nine years. Regardless of venue, that was the largest and most determined crowd of people I have ever seen at a school board meeting. No, the seats weren’t all taken up by administrators. The crowd was made up of supporters of Jerrie McGill — people who knew her from throughout her career — friends, former students, ex-colleagues, community leaders, etc., who felt she was the best choice for Dayton. Had they not cut off public comment, more than 50 people might have gone to the microphone. I have seen this phenomenon at other points in my career. Public revolts to plans for expanding airport runways in Miami County and placing a drag racing strip in Clark County that I covered come to mind. Roosevelt, like McGill, has friends, former students and community leaders that have affection for the school. They have not rallied in the way Jerrie’s supporters did for her or as other groups have on other issues. That is what Bonaparte and Littlejohn have said. I think their claims are credible. Is there evidence out there that, in fact, there is an energized effort to save Roosevelt that has somehow gone unseen? That’s what Joe seems to be arguing.By Joe Lacey
January 28, 2008 8:40 PM | Link to this
In 2000 the board room on First Street wasn’t much bigger than a classroom. Once the administrators took their seats it didn’t take that many more people until you had standing room only. I attended a couple of standing room only meetings on First Street where there was no pressing issue before the Board. Over several meetings, none of which was billed as do or die for Roosevelt, a lot of people came in the interest of saving the building. They just weren’t at one particular meeting. It was announced and publicized that the Board had decided to demolish Roosevelt months before the issue came before the Board. When it came before the board, July 5, 2006, an “information meeting” where public comment is not allowed, a special Wednesday meeting rather than the regularly scheduled Tuesday, it wasn’t clear to the general public or even some board members that this was the do or die meeting for Roosevelt. As for whether Annie Bonaparte is right or wrong in gauging support for Roosevelt, I don’t know how she measured it. I know a lot of people contacted me wanting to save Roosevelt that probably don’t know who she is. I’m also not sure what kind of support she is referring too. She was told by the Board early on that the district couldn’t renovate it because the state would not co-fund a renovation so any plan to save Roosevelt would have to come with tens of millions in support. She may not have seen that kind of support from the community but that’s not necessarily the only way to save Roosevelt according to the Ohio School Facilities Commission. I think Gail Littlejohn knew better. When John Carr was talking about a scheduled demolition in April, 2007, Ms. Littlejohn knew that support for Roosevelt could sink an operating levy in May so she had no problem with postponing the demolition while City Commission members were asking why it wasn’t happening.By dan kennedy
January 28, 2008 6:51 PM | Link to this
That sounds like a group of teachers to plug for their pick for a boss for whom they already worked. Regardless. We had huge turnouts at the Wilbur Wright meetings. I saw lots of folks at the Julienne meeting too. At WW I asked by what standard they decided to remodel Stivers; so that we could meet that test too. I couldn’t get an answer! How can we sway them when we don’t even know the standard? Does speaking out at the meetings only count if it is done at a board meeting that isn’t at the school in question? Further, OSFC numbers border on outright deception! They cleverly make a false comparison between a 1000 student remodel and a 500 student new building, then say, look the 500 student building is less expensive! When I called them on this false comparison, one of the OFSC men looked at me like I was an idiot and said ‘Then we would have to build one less building.’ The school board said nothing! It was as if they couldn’t follow the line of reasoning!By Scott Elliott
January 28, 2008 1:17 PM | Link to this
Let me give you an example of a groundswell. In 2000, the school board was all ready to pick an out-of-town candidate for superintendent. A tentative deal was in place. At the meeting to name the new superintendent, a standing room only crowd filled the board room. During the public comment period, 15 speakers went to the microphone to condemn the board for overlooking interim Supt. Jerrie McGill. Finally the board stopped public comment and adjourned into a closed session whiile a long line of others waiting to speak ran to the back of the room. When they came out, the board members named Jerrie superintendent. Afterward, board members said were not sure she was the perfect choice, but it was clear the community wanted her. On Roosevelt, I have never seen more than 10 to 15 people and a handful of speakers at any board meeting over the last seven years. If a huge groundswell in the community truly wants to save the school, they are going about it in a curiously quiet way.By Riverdale Ghost
January 28, 2008 12:38 PM | Link to this
By Scott Elliott January 28, 2008 12:56 AM So Joe, you are saying Littlejohn and Bonaparte are wrong and there actually is a huge groundswell of community support to save Roosevelt that they are just unaware of? ~~~~~~~~~ Please define huge and groundswell. If fifty people disassociate themselves from their everyday living long enough to show up, you can figure they represent at least 250 from within their own families.By TB
January 28, 2008 9:11 AM | Link to this
Most in the community do not want the school torn down. The vocal proponents to tear the school down are definitly a minority. Most of the ‘Save Roosevelt’ supporters are your average citizens. I have heard at least a dozen viable ideas for use of that building. Unfortunately, the Board of Education only wants to hear from those who have a financial plan to save the school. They will listen to anyone who talks about Julienne. Why don’t they make these people ‘show them the money’?By Scott Elliott
January 28, 2008 12:56 AM | Link to this
So Joe, you are saying Littlejohn and Bonaparte are wrong and there actually is a huge groundswell of community support to save Roosevelt that they are just unaware of?By Joe Lacey
January 27, 2008 9:06 PM | Link to this
Gail Littlejohn was notorious for belittling her opposition. She said the same thing about EJ Brown after a meeting where all the leaders of the neighborhoods surrounding the school spoke out in opposition to its demolition. When fifty plus people came to a meeting wanting to save Wilbur Wright, she said she needed to see proof that the neighborhood wants it saved. All the while there was no evidence of a groundswell of support for demolition of any of these buildings. I’ve received no phone calls asking me to demolish any school save for some board colleagues. Ms. Littlejohn opposed renovations saying that too much of the financial burden would be placed on our district by the state, a claim that the Ohio School Facilities Commission has said is not necessarily true. I would say that it’s a wonder anyone called her after she had announced that the board had made a decision in May, 2006. The community was led to believe that it was over, done deal. How could anyone think their phone call would have been any more than a waste of their time. They would simply be registering a complaint with one of the board’s most vocal opponents of renovation.By Riverdale Ghost
January 27, 2008 8:26 PM | Link to this
No one has the audacity to announce or even suggest: God spoke on the West Side.