Students First....Safety Always

City:

Rating: Rate it:

Questions For CCUSD Board

November 3, 2006

Dear Superintendent Dr. Ashby and Board Members,

What a mess the positioning of STMS near those transmission lines has caused! For those of you that inherited this unfortunate morass, my condolences. Up until a majority the board voted to do nothing, I thought we were moving forward constructively. Then suddenly you stopped asking the next necessary questions. I don't really understand your resons for dropping this issue. Would you please answer the following questions:

Dr. Ashby:

1. Why did you recommended that the board vote to not move the power lines?
2. What is being done to fix the high EMF that has been sampled at Horseshoe Trails due to internal wiring issues?
3. What is being done to fix the high EMF that has been sampled at STMS due to internal wiring issues?
4. What can people who don't want to send their children to STMS expect from the district in relation to placing their student in another school?

President Ledesma:

1. Why did you not ask for a proposal for mitigating the high EMF present at STMS from more than one consultant?
2. Why did you not ask for a proposal from an EMF mitigation consultant that does not have a vested interest in the issue as do APS and WAPA?
3. Why did you not ask for the follow up research on what the impact from moving the power lines in plan A and plan B would be upon the ambient EMF levels at STMS?
4. Why did you ignore the recommendation from HEG that advised CCUSD to work with the power companies and mitigate the EMF levels to under 4 mG which the site now currently exceeds?

Board Member Reese:

1. Now that you have the new information as reported in the papers that there is no pending EMF related legislation, and that any legislation, if it is ever passed, would only deal with pushing future new schools away from power lines -- now that you have that info and you know the reason you gave "because of pending legislation" is wrong, why don't you ask to bring this issue before the board again?

Board Member Dr. Christensen:

1. Your October 16th letter was appreciated by many for its candor and heart. Thank you for taking the time to communicate with us. As you point out, there are no "alternative proposals" and I ask you and the board why you have not generated alternative proposals?
2. How can you ask us to go to the legislature to fix a problem that was created at the local level?
3. Why are you ignoring the application of the precautionary principle in light of the evidence that goes both ways on this issue?

Board Member Warren:

1. You agreed with Board member Reese that a no vote was right because of pending EMF legislation and now that you know that was reason was not valid why don't you bring this issue before the board again and look into ways to fix the problem?

All Board Members:

Pretty much everyone stated the fiscal constraints we are facing as a reason for voting "no" on trying to fix the EMF problem. What do you need from us who are very concerned about this issue in order to solve those challenges?

We agree with Board Member Doche's assessment that we must address all of the health issues and the fiscal challenges that our district faces. The best vision is for our community to pull together and work together for students first. That starts with their safety. We have their safety as a common goal. Please do not ignore our request that this EMF issue be mitigated to the community's satisfaction. We can work together. We are willing to work with you for a solution. Ignoring the glaring problem of the proximity of the lines to the kids at STMS is not going to make it disappear. I urge you to address this issue and resolve it.

Please send me a copy of all the ET & T reports submitted to CCUSD93 in relation the auditing of EMF levels on school property.

Thank you for your consideration of these important questions. I look forward to the day when we can truly celebrate STMS as being the facility it was meant to be. I look forward to hearing from you.