I am writing this letter in response to a letter by Bob Boxer that appeared in the May 17 issue of the Illustrated. The gist of Mr. Boxer's letter was the way in which the newly proposed bond referendum was rewritten.

First off, Mr. Boxer claims that the architect hired by the district to provide the project proposals "arbitrarily picked numbers out of a hat and said that all of the schools in question need this, that, and the other thing replaced based on their experience working with other school districts without even inspecting the said facilities." For Mr. Boxer to imply that these specs were worked up sight unseen is wrong. I know that for a fact, for it was on my first building tour of Lee Avenue (as co-president of the PTA) with the board of education in December 2000 that I first met Mr. Grillo, the architect in question. In my opinion, after having spent some time touring Lee Avenue's facilities with Mr. Grillo and the rest of the group, Mr. Grillo had quite a grasp on the needs of not only Lee Avenue's facilities, but on other district buildings as well. How did he have the information to form these opinions? I'm sure part of it is based on his experience, his knowledge of facilities and their components, but it also had to include the information he garnered by viewing these facilities with his own eyes.

Mr. Boxer also claims that "once the bond issue failed, this board and administration didn't even have the courtesy to bring it to the very same people who worked on it for the past two years." The first bit of misinformation in that statement is that the Bond Advisory Committee worked on this bond referendum for two years. In reality, the actual committee met over a period of three to four months in the fall of 2001. However, some of us were involved in the process over the last two years, as the district's original "wish list" was worked up, prior to the "B" word ever being spoken. We stayed apprised of the changes of the "wish list" by attending the various meetings that the board of education holds each month - open to the public - and asked questions and voiced concerns over that time period.

The second bit of misinformation in the above-quoted statement is that the administration and board did not approach the Bond Advisory Committee for input once the original bond referendum was defeated. On the contrary, every member of the Bond Advisory Committee was invited to attend a special meeting of the board of education on April 17 in the middle school auditorium to voice our concerns, share any feedback, and offer our opinions as to the possible reworking of the bond. Unfortunately, not many attended. Not only was there a lack of Bond Advisory Committee members present at that meeting, there was a lack of attendance by the community (especially notable when you consider that the evening was also designated as a proposed budget discussion, a discussion on possible class size reduction, as well as the bond).

The idea that the bond referendum was reworked so quickly as a show of "arrogance over logic" is wrong. The fact that as of July 1, the monies available in state aid for approved capital projects drops to 10 percent from a possible 27 percent prior to that date, was really the deciding factor in putting forth a new bond so quickly. The board and the administration did the right thing in putting a new referendum together when you consider that financial impact. And they did so after listening to input.

I hope that on June 19 when this newly proposed bond referendum is put forth to the public for a vote, that the bond passes. In my opinion, we desperately need everything in Proposition 1 in order to provide a safe, healthy environment that conforms to ADA regulations. I also believe we need everything in Proposition 2 in order to move forward and fulfill our responsibility to better our image and appearance. With the passing of this bond, the new members of the board of education will have the benefit of serving in a time of true progress, facility-wise, and will be able to focus their attention during their tenure on other important issues, such as furthering the progress on state assessments scores and bettering our teacher salary scale.

Dolores Garger