School Board, C Of C Differ Over Bonding Data

(FIRST OF A SERIES) The Ann Arbor Board ot bducation and the Chamber of Commerce are obviously on opposite sides of the fence regarding the Jan. 8 bonding election. On Dec. 20, the chamber issued a statement of opposition, criticizing the projected cost of the third high school in light of Huron High's costs, suggesting that an election be put off until spring (and then include only those items which are absolutely necessary) and recommending that the bonding proposal be split according to "relative priorities and needs." Two days later, the Junior Chamber of Commerce released a similar opposition statement. During the Board of Education's meeting on Dec. 27, an informal subcommittee charged ivith studying these statements criticized the chambers for staistical "inaccuracies" in their reports and press releases, a charge which stirred a debate among the trustees. What are the actual facts and figures of the situation? The Chamber of Commerce used three figures in its statement to which the school board' s subcommittee objected: 1) that the statewide average school construction c o s t s during 1966-67 were $2,334 per student; 2) that the comparison of statewide secondary school cost data included both junior and senior high figures instead of only senior high and 3) that a smaller pupil ca acity (1,500 versus 1,800) was used, along with total construction costs of Huron, in order to ■igure per pupil costs of t h e ligh school. According to Trustee Joseph T. A. Lee, an architect, speaking for the subcommittee, "The choice of a yëar other than the proper one whën Huron High was contracted in order to show a more unfavorable comparison between the cost of statewide school constrüction and that of Huron High (was inaccurate). SpecificaUy, 1966-67 ($2,334 per student) was quoted rather than 1965-66 ($2,864 per student) in order to accentuate the comparative cost of Huron High." Regarding the second point Lee continued, "The compari son of statewide secondary chool - cost data, which in- eludes both junior and seniori ligh, with the cost of HuronJ which is a senior - high build-l ng, in an attempt to exagger-l ate the cost of the latter. Forl 1965-66, the cost of secondaryl schools in the state was $2,8641 while that for senior high con-l struction was actually $3,247." Lee's third point of conten-l tion was "the use of a smallerl number of pupil capacity forl Huron High (1,500 versus 1,800)1 and the total project cost of $lll million, which includes equip-l ment, site development, e t c.,j instead of the actual building construction cost (9 million) exaggerated the per pupil cost of Huron High to a figure of $7,720 instead of the rightful $5,000 figure." In essence, then, the Board of Education's subcommittee objected to the interpretation and use of the figures supplied to the chamber of the State Department of Education and by the s c h o o 1 board and administration. A spokesman for the Educational F i n a n c e Committee, which researched the bonding proposal for the Chamber of Commerce, has defended the figures, ho wever. Regarding the school board's first point, the spokesman said that current (1966-67) cost figures were considered appropriate for comparison purposes, especially considering that the same figures were used by the chamber in studying projected costs for the future third high school. Secondly, the state figures do not give a breakdown of secondary (junior and senior high) cost data, the spokesman said. The school board, he remarked, must have estimated its own senior-high figures. Thirdly, Huron High is optimally p 1 a n n e d for 1,500 students, not 1,800, he said. (1,800 is actually the maximum number of students which can be accommodated. The reason for building a third senior high, the spokesman feels, is to avoid filling Huron High with more than 1,500 students, thus 1,500 is the correct figure to use, in his opinión. Other objections of the Chamber of Commerce, namely that the election be held in the spring, with the proposals split according to relative priorities and needs, have already been answered by School Board President Hazen J. Schumacher Jr. Since latest information indicates that an election cannot be held in May, according to Schumacher, ". . . we would be forced to present a June ballot consisting of school board candidates, an operational millage proposal and a splintered bonding proposal." Schumacher also noted that the board rejected the idea of a segmented proposal "because of the clearly interlocking nature of our needed capital improvements. We don't a g r e e with the chamber that there can be such a thing as 'relative priorities and needs.' " Thus, it seems that different interpretations were d r a w n from essentially the same figures, an ironie situation. To put the controversy into perspective, however, it seems that the cost of Huron High ($11,581,000) is still uppermost in the minds of many taxpayers aild Chamber of Commerce members. Again and again, during school board meetings and also running throughout the chamber's opposition statement was the cöst issue of Huron High School, and also the expressed fear that the third high school (a nearly $7 million item of the bonding proosal) will become "another Huron High," as one observer put it. The underlying issue does not seem to be disagreement over cost figures, but fear of mismanagement of the taxpayers' money- a fear that was expressed by one Chamber of Commerce member.