Prior to the Milestone press release and subsequent Courier-Record article, little was known by the general public in regards to potential wireless towers on school properties. Responsibility for that sad truth lies in several areas: Dr. Daniel Grounard and the Nottoway County School Board, local media and press, along with the general public. In both this situation and inestimable others, Dr. Grounard and the Nottoway County School Board are taking advantage of the poor coverage of School Board politics by local press and media along with the lack of interest by the general public. By doing so, they are perpetuating the lack of discussion and debate on issues that have a major impact on the future of Nottoway County Public Schools and the local community. The local press and media have, with one notable exception, have done a poor job of covering School Board politics and holding Dr. Grounard and the School Board accountable for the decisions they make. With the exception of the Courier-Record, the press and media outlets in Nottoway County pay little attention to what the School Board is doing. The Crewe-Burkeville Journal is too busy attempting to place the blame for Barack Obama’s mistakes and shortcomings on George W. Bush and Republicans to cover local issues that have a direct impact on ordinary local residents. The two local radio stations, WBBC and WSVS, are also close to being entirely deficient in the area of local news coverage. The general public is quite possibly the most responsible group in terms of perpetuating the lack of discussion and debate on issues that have a major impact on the future of Nottoway County Public Schools and the local community. When more people vote for contestants on American Idol than did during the past Presidential election, something is wrong. Citizens who are apathetic to the political process are empowering local officials such as Dr. Grounard and the School Board to take actions without ever having to explain their decisions. This is a dangerous precedent.
Commenting on the recently signed marketing agreement, Nottoway County Public Schools Superintendent, Dr. Daniel Grounard said that "we are excited about the potential for new revenue that benefits both our community and our school system". Dr. Grounard also added that "a new wireless tower equates to approximately one teacher". Sources who were in attendance at the agreement's signing described the Superintendent as being pleased with both the deal and the potential revenue. The same sources also reported that Dr. Grounard seemed to be "counting his chickens before they hatch" and "putting the cart before the horse" by counting on wireless towers being built on all seven properties. In addition, it was reported that the Superintendent was all but salivating while discussing the potential income which would result in the event that towers were erected on all seven properties.
Despite the differences in opinion that I share with Dr. Grounard in terms of a number of his decisions as Superintendent, along with the belief that taking advantage of the poor coverage of School Board politics and the lack of interest by the general public is underhanded, I must commend him for leading the search for the next generation of sources of non-taxpayer revenue for Nottoway County Public Schools. Although I share excitement, albeit short of the point of salivation, for additional revenue that would benefit both Nottoway County Public Schools and the local community, several questions remain. With that said, I cannot yet count myself among the supporters of either the marketing of school property for potential wireless towers or the construction of said towers until they are answered by Dr. Grounard, the School Board, or a combination thereof.
Dr. Grounard was quoted as saying that "a new wireless tower equates to approximately one teacher". That statement alone raises a number of important questions that must be answered. What exactly does “approximately” mean? Does the term “approximately” refer to a specific dollar figure or will the potential revenue correspond to the specifications of the potential wireless towers? Is "approximately" slightly more or less than the cost of employing one teacher? If the revenue from the potential wireless towers exceeds the cost of employing one teacher, what will the surplus revenue be used for? If the revenue from the potential wireless towers falls short of the cost of employing one teacher, what will be the source of the additional required funding? In addition to specifically defining “approximately”, Dr. Grounard needs to elaborate on the meaning of "one teacher". Is this hypothetical teacher a recent college graduate taking their first teaching job and earning $39,000 or a veteran educator with 20 years of experience making $48,000? If it is in fact it is a recent college graduate taking their first teaching job, what will occur in the event that future pay increases cause salary to exceed revenue from the towers? In the event that the aforementioned wireless towers become obsolete and are deactivated by their respective wireless company, what will happen to the teacher or teachers whose salary is funded by tower revenue? Will their jobs be safe? If they will be retained, what will be the source of the funding required to pay their salary or salaries?
Considering the number of wireless towers currently in operation in Nottoway County, it is unlikely that all seven sites will require wireless towers in order to address gaps in network coverage. In addition; despite Milestone’s claim to be the "leading developer of wireless towers in partnership with school and government landowners", only 112 of the nearly 1,200 properties they are marketing currently have towers or are in the construction process. What does Dr. Grounard consider to be a reasonable expectation in terms of the number of towers to be built on school properties? If the expectation of the number of towers is on the lower end, what impact does Dr. Grounard believe that one or two additional teachers will have on the quality of education across the school system?
In the event that one or more wireless towers were to be built, what impact does Dr. Grounard envision the construction process and the towers themselves having on students, faculty, and staff? Do the wireless towers pose any health or safety concerns? Who will assume liability if the towers are found to pose health or safety concerns? Will the wireless towers cause any inconvenience to students, faculty, and staff by displacing facilities such as athletic fields, practice areas, or parking lots? What control will Dr. Grounard and the School Board have over the timing of the construction process, as well as the maintenance and repair of the wireless towers?
Rather than using the potential revenue from the wireless towers to hire additional teachers, have Dr. Grounard and the School Board considered using that revenue in other areas such as additional security or technology and facility upgrades? If consideration of using the potential tower revenue for additional security or technology and facility upgrades has taken place, what will be the top priorities?
No comments:
Post a Comment