Planner Says Schools Aloof

Attempts to coordínate city developments with the school district "have been frustrated on numerous occasions by a lack of cooperation from the school administration and board," Planning Department Director Michael R. Pro:haska says. The Planning director was responding to sharp criticisms aimed at the Planning Commission last week which charged that body was responsible for many of the ills now facing the Board of Edu;ation. "These remarks were both intemperate and unnecessary, particularly when we consider the history of this issue," Prochaska said in a letter to School Board President Cecil Warner. "Because the school board has feit the pressure of citizen outrage at its apparent abdication of responsibility in providing adequate school facilities, the Planning Commission should not be made the scapegoat for this difficult situation," he said. "Rather, we should be coming together in an attempt to resolve our collective problems, instead of casting stones of blame on one party in the controversy in a clumsy attempt to absolve oneself. "What makes these remarks so regrettable is that they do not reflect the efforts made by the Planning Commission to involve the school board and administration in land use and other planning decisions," Prochaska said. 'My objection arises not because the commission was criticized - constructive criticism is important to the success of any creative endeavor - but rather because of the indifference to facts that was so obviously displayed. "In short, the statements that were made about planning in the southern sector of the city were inaccurate and simply unsubstantiated," he said. School Trustee Duane Renkin a week ago charged that housing patterns on the city's south side which cause school cial imbalance problems are a result ofl Planning Commission policies. Prochaska sent Warner information I regarding the Planning Commission's at-l tempts over the years to have the school I board involved in city planning matters, I dating back to the early 1960s when a I school board member was named an ex-l officio representative on the commission. I "In summary, it should be noted thatl since June 30, 1965, the Board of 1 tion itself has displayed indifference 1 ward particpating with the Planning I Commission in direct, cooperative 1 ning efforts and a general lack of 1 cern for long-range school planning. "However, f rom mid-1967 and for the I following four years school 1 tion personnel did particípate at I ning Commission meetings thus 1 thening ties between the Planning I mission and the school administration. I "It was specifically during this time I period that initial development planning for the Ellsworth-Stone School área I gan and, as has been indicated, the school administration was well aware of the expected impact," Prochaska said. "It is my opinión that the Planning Commission has done an exemplary job [in. trying to coordínate development in this city, including the south side," he isaid. Prochaska noted that in mid-1968 the school superintendent was notified of the impending residential developments in the Stone School-Ellsworth area, including the expected impact 'on the schools. Prochaska said he requested a response to what the developments would mean to pie school district. "Over a year later . . . the superintendent responded to the above request and indicated Ml knowledge of these developments and a recognition of the administrative communication and cooperation which had already takeii place," the director said.