KITSILANO SECONDARY SCHOOL 08/09
SCHOOL RENEWAL/SEISMIC MITIGATION COMMITTEE
MINUTES 06 24 February 2009
PRESENT:
Alex Grant, Principal; Karen Coflin, teacher, Julie Bond, teacher
James Burton, Gwyneth Edgcumbe, Paige Axelrood, Jacqueline Stoeckler, Lisa Hererra, Mary
Chipman, Larry Benge, Paul Edgcumbe, Randy Sharp, Andrew Larigakis, Tracy Monk, Cathy Goodban,
Karen Gilmore, Lesley Wright.
Michael Jaworski, Student
Location: 3rd Floor Staff Room - Kitsilano Secondary School
Minutes Action
6.01 Those present were asked to provide feedback to the group on the Visioning
Workshop day:
-James Burton thought there was a consensus at the Workshop to retain the
1927 Classroom Block.
-Paul Edgcumbe congratulated everyone for having put on such a successful
event.
-Gwyneth Edgcumbe also thought retention of the heritage block was a
general consensus.
-Cathy Goodban did not hear any mention at the Workshop of retention of the
1927 Classroom block for any use other than a school.
-Tracy Monk felt the event was good. She felt the Group Summaries were not
a good description of what happened. She noted that it is not our mandate to
design the layout of the new school.
-Randy Sharp noted that the Kitsilano area was the epicenter of the green
movement.
-Paige Axelrood felt that a detailed analysis of the survey was required. She
would like to see pages 11-13 removed from the facilitator’s report. Rather
than titled “Groups’ Proposed Design Schemes”, should be called “Key
Design Features”.
-Lisa Hererra felt the Visioning event was fine but not great. She felt there
was insufficient time.
-Jacqueline Stoeckler was at the event but not in any one group. She was
video-taping at all the tables. She observed that key issues did get discussed
and people troubled over the questions. She thought it was great that the
VSB attended the Workshop and felt that the outcome was the best possible
for the VSB.
-Andrew Larigakis stated that he felt that overall the Visioning event was very
successful. He thought the speakers were limited by having so short a period
in which to speak but felt that the groups were able to address the important
issues.
-Thomas Winkler did not feel his group’s discussion was reflected in the
group summary.
-Michael Jaworski thought the day was good and liked the result.
-Karen Coflin felt the Visioning Day was good, and the Visioning was good,
but noted that the hard reality is still in front of us.
-Julie Bond thought we had a good day and that there was were many
divergent opinions. She noted that the kids appreciate the heritage block.
-Lesley Wright attended for half of the Visioning day. She commended the
parents for getting the VSB to have a visioning day. She thought the students’
film at the Open House was excellent, however, Lesley noted a significant
factual error in the film. She noted that we need to continue to
keep stakeholders informed.
-Alex Grant thought it was a good day for building community. He noted that
the VSB took the risk to participate in and fund the event and that they
listened to the parents concerns about not liking the previous process. He
Info
noted that the expert panel did not include those familiar with the Feasibility
Report and that the outcome was the best we could expect. He did not feel
that there was a consensus emerging from the Workshop and that the next
steps would be a challenge.
6.02 -James noted that there were many commonalities in views Info
6.03 -Alex felt that we need to go to basic principles about what is important Info
6.04 -Paige felt that what is most important is that we have the best possible
school for teaching and learning.
-wants to know what the teacher’s thought.
-felt we need to look more at the survey.
Info
6.05 -attention was drawn to Lesley’s breakdown of the survey results which show
that, looking at teachers in isolation from all other stakeholders, the majority
of teachers would prefer an all-new school. Lesley noted that there were
several ways in which you could break down the survey to show that heritage
retention was not important to many people.
Info
6.06 -Andrew noted that the survey could be broken down in any number of ways
to demonstrate the support for any number of conflicting outcomes. He noted
that parents were already aware of teachers’ concerns regarding heritage
retention and that we need to continue to try and address those concerns as
best we can.
Info
6.07 -Jacqueline reminded the group that it was an unscientific and uncontrolled
survey. As one who was administering the paper survey on the street, she
noted that many people didn’t understand all of the questions. She stated that
the survey was contaminated.
Info
6.08 -Andrew reminded the group that we knew the survey was flawed when we
put it out and it was the best we could do at the time. The survey was partly to
inform people about the issues as well as an opportunity for them to voice
their opinions. He felt that it was more informative to read individual
comments from the survey than to look at numbers which could be
manipulated in any number of ways. He noted that we only agreed to put out
a survey on the condition that the results would not be heavily weighted in our
decision-making (see SRSMC Minutes from 27 jan.09 “Those present agreed
that the survey was for the purpose of informing the community regarding the
issues, and would be just one tool to be used in deciding on how to move
forward.”)
Info
6.09 -Mary felt we should not get hung up on construction management issues. Info
6.10 -Karen Gilmore thought we should begin to list some points which would form
the basis of our proposal for presentation to our MLA, Gordon Campbell. she
began to list a number of points.
Info
6.11 -Andrew presented to the group a list of points he had already prepared for
discussion by the group. The points were broken down into five categories:
Ensuring Best Possible Educational Facilities
Space Needs
Heritage Retention
Minimizing Disruption During Construction
Green Design
-the draft list was gone through point by point and numerous revisions,
deletions and additions were proposed by the group.
Info
6.12 -it was agreed that Andrew would revise the draft document based on
comments from the meeting and then the revised document will be
presented to the PAC at the Extra-Ordinary PAC meeting on February 26th.
Andrew
End of Minutes to meeting of February 24th, 2009
Minutes by Andrew Larigakis