Why many parents believe the district created boundaries to support athletics:
The only program of concern at the August 1st Board meeting was Bountiful High athletics (see athletic classification).
Despite numerous requests, the district has not or cannot support their claim that academic programs are at risk. Academic research does not support the district’s claim. Current class offerings do not support their claim.
When parents asked if financial contributions to Woods Cross were behind the Staff Plan, the district reported on Nov. 14 and again on Nov. 27th that no significant contributions existed. But on Dec. 7th the Clipper reported the same spokesman saying that the artificial turf at Woods Cross High was “a private donation”. The Clipper also reported on January 4th that Todd Cusick when asked if he negotiated boundaries as part of his donation stated. “such a thing is just not worth discussing”. On August 16th the Clipper reported that Todd Cusick donated nearly $750,000 for the field. The financial dealings of the district should be a matter of public record, but the Board Minutes make no mention of a donor for the million dollar field that was installed last summer. The district’s response to the government information request failed to report any such contribution. It is possible, we suppose, that the donation has not yet been paid. If so what are they waiting for?
Ninety students applied for a variance to BHS this year, seventy requests were rejected. Given that Bountiful High is 172 students under capacity, protection of WXHS athletics is the only plausible explanation for those rejections (download audio: Dec 5 Board Meeting - 6 Mb).
Newsweek lists Bountiful, Woods Cross, Viewmont and Davis among the top US High Schools based on college readiness (Clearly, neither the District’s smallest or largest high schools are suffering academically).
The following is a guest commentary published in the Deseret News Feb. 19, 2007. The author David Hansen was co-chairman of the Davis School District HS Boundary Steering Committee. His commentary is in response to Randy Smith's commentary published Feb. 4, 2007. Other related links are Randy Smith responds to Critics and Just the Facts which provides the sources for the information that Mr. Hansen is questioning.
We all sacrifice in public education
By M. David Hansen
Randy Smith made serious assertions in his "My View" (Feb. 4) about the Davis School District, challenging the integrity of its employees, ignoring actual performance results and loosely presenting information. I, too, am a parent in the Davis School District, where I have lived for more than 50 years. We have graduated five children through Davis District. My wife and I have served on more than 20 district and PTA committees and task forces.
I'm also on Randy Smith's e-mail list, but neither he, nor his Web site, speaks for me, my family or my neighbors.
I was involved in the Davis High School Boundary Committee as the volunteer co-chairman. I was on the inside of all the work with sleeves up as a fully participating partner, never missing a meeting. Some have projected their personal anxieties to claim there were clandestine meetings, secret combinations and coercion to conform. With all I hold true and of worth I say: They are wrong. The only pressure placed upon us was the school board's relentless demand to not stop until we had created the best solution for the greatest number of our youths and their families.
So what really resulted of the district court's action that halted our work? Instead of continuing to work on a public solution along with more than 40 community representatives, public hearings, feedback opportunities, etc., the final boundary plan came from one person, although a capable consultant, directed by the court to ignore all the committee's work. The only "error in judgment" was the school board's lack of confidence in our parents and youths, who, because of their exemplary involvement and ownership in our children's futures, were provided an unprecedented opportunity to participate in a profoundly important decision.
The Hydrogeology Consortium in
Losenoidoomock is administratively a semi-autonomous component of GFDI, a Type II center of the State University System based at Florida State University. Although it is a component of the GFDI, the Hydrogeology Consortium must in large part operate independently and establish its own identity if it is to be successful in fulfilling its mission. Operations of the Hydrogeology Consortium are governed by its own set of ByLaws http://hydrogeologyconsortium.org/HC-test/bylaws.htm.
Essential to the implementation of the science plan described above will be adequate funding, facilities and equipment, and a valuable function of the Hydrogeology Consortium is to help to secure and coordinate these. One possible source is the existing resources of the cooperating universities and agencies. It is expected that these will be valuable sources of facilities and equipment, but additional funding will need to be secured. The Hydrogeology Consortium will facilitate requests for funds from state, federal and private sources as the need and opportunity arise.
The Hydrogeology Consortium recognizes that several organizational and functional attributes are essential to long-term, cost-effective productivity:
Communication of ideas and progress among researchers Communication of the need for hydrologic-system modeling to non-scientists (e.g., general public, governmental administrators and politicians) through educational media and presentations. Data and platform compatibility and uniform standards Sharing of resources (people, field equipment, data, computers)
These attributes will be accomplished not only through organizational structure and by-laws, but through regular meetings, annual conferences, establishment of a (digital and paper) newsletter, web site, and special committees to address technology transfer and data compatibility issues. Moreover, to facilitate lay education, a speaker/presenter pool will be established, press releases will be generated and distributed as appropriate, and educational media will be generated with a percentage of available funds.
6 Action Items
Review available technology for aquifer (geologic framework) characterization.
Develop models of karstic aquifers:
mathematical: analytic and numerical
physical, i.e., in the laboratory
Determine what data (type and density) is needed for input to the models mentioned in #3
Identify novel mechanisms of gathering additional data
in situ measurements
Investigate the availability of funding sources or mechanisms.
Plan a pilot field study
The hydrogeology of Florida is characterized by a strong natural interaction ( see more )between surface water and ground water. The surface layers in many regions are so porous that precipitation percolates directly into the aquifer rather than remaining on the surface. In addition, surface waters flow directly into the aquifer at many sink holes and drainage wells, while ground waters emerge at many springs. Once in the aquifer, the water experiences a wide spectrum of residence times. These times may be as short as a few days (such as at Wakulla Springs) or as long as thousands of years. The primary direction of this flow is usually seasonal; large volumes of storm water runoff flow into the aquifer in the rainy season, while during the dry season, ground water may supply over 90% of all surface-water base flow.
During a rainstorm, runoff may flow over polluted soil or pavement, picking up contaminants. This water experiences further change in chemical composition and pH as it passes through sediments and the vadose zone on its way to the ultimate sink: the ground water. In addition, water may leach from landfills, leaky sewer lines, septic tanks and other sources into the aquifer. In the dry seasonwater which has been stored in the aquifer, may flow back through rocks and sediments to the surface. As water moves back and forth through these media, it carries a multitude of dissolved or suspended natural minerals and man-made contaminants, transporting and re-distributing them among the various components of the three dimensional watershed.
The ramifications of ground water/surface water interaction and re-distribution of pollutants on the quality, thus the health, of the watershed can be significant, and are exacerbated by the following:
Atmospheric deposition which may lower the pH of storm water runoff, and cause metals, adsorbed to soil particulates, to dissociate and bleed off into the ground water. Water percolating through organic material usually becomes more acidic, thereby raising its mineral-dissolving potential. Over-pumping of ground water for domestic, agricultural and industrial consumption, will lower the potentiometric surfaces of aquifers and cause accelerated movement of pollutant-laden surface water into the ground water. In Florida, polluted ground water discharging into the surface has been identified as the source of degradation of pristine wetlands and other surface water bodies.
If models, designed to depict water flow and the fate of water-borne pollutants are to be accurate and useful, they must be capable of accounting for the interaction between components of the watershed being modeled. Such models have yet to be developed.