OPINION: I Stand By My Reporting On PMSA

Wednesday, October 3, 2018 || By Michael Romain || @maywoodnews 

For a brief moment during a Sept. 18 regular meeting of the Proviso Township High Schools District 209 school board, the local newspapers became the topic of discussion. The subject was our handling of the facilities master plan process that has been going on at the district for a year now.

I (representing Village Free Press) and my colleagues at Forest Park Review have reported on the process from the beginning (before the school board hired Perkins and Will to help draft the plan) until that Sept. 18 meeting, when representatives from the architectural firm, school board members and Supt. Jesse Rodriguez seemed to cast an important part of our coverage in a cloud of suspicion.

“The newspaper stated that PMSA was going to close,” Rodriguez said. “And then they stated that PMSA is not going to close. They’re utilizing information that they receive in the board meeting in a way that they understand it, but what they and the public should know is that no decision has been made.”

Mark Jolicoeur, an architect with Perkins and Will, said that the architectural firm “in no way, shape or form” makes any final decision on the master plan. That’s the board’s role.

“We cannot control what a writer puts in a newspaper and publishes,” Jolicoeur said, adding that he doesn’t have the ability to make Village Free Press and Forest Park Review retract the information in the articles that I wrote (and I’ve written all of the articles relevant to that Sept. 18 board discussion).

I admire and respect every member on the current school board, as well as Supt. Rodriguez. I also think Perkins and Will is doing a fine job handling this master facilities planning process and have done a great job handling a similar long-term capital planning process in a nearby high school district that I also cover.

But I have to push back against the perception of our coverage that seems to have taken root among a critical mass of D209 officials and the district’s outside architect.

At no point have I reported that PMSA will or will not close. At no point have I reported the preliminary plans so far drafted as part of the facilities master plan as if they were final plans approved by the board. At no point have I suggested in my reporting that the architects have, as Jolicoeur claims, made any final decisions regarding the master plan.

In fact, the last sentence of the very first article that I wrote about this matter — entitled “D209 could dissolve PMSA campus” in Forest Park Review and “Architects, Public Ponder Merging PMSA Campus With East And/Or West” in Village Free Press —is this: “[Jolicoeur] said that the firm [Perkins and Will] will have a draft facilities master plan completed by May to present to the board in June.”

Higher up in that article is this: “For the first time in the master facilities planning process, the architects offered a series of very preliminary options for dealing with the district’s facilities burden and most of them centered on what to do with PMSA.”

The architects presented “very preliminary” concepts (based, in part, on public input and an evaluation of the district’s financial realties and capital needs) that introduced the possibility of D209 dissolving PMSA’s campus (hence the headline in Forest Park Review, which may be blunt or worded for effect, but it’s not wrong).

After many PMSA families lodged a strong opposition against even considering the possibility of dissolving the school’s one-building campus (which they thought tantamount to closing the school itself), the architects did what they were hired by the board to do — they modified their preliminary plans, concepts and scenarios in order to take into account that particular strain of community feedback.

The preliminary plan now takes into account all three campuses. The architects, steering team and building leadership teams are no longer even flirting with the idea of dissolving PMSA’s campus. Indeed, D209 board members came to a consensus at a meeting on Sept. 18 that all three campuses will remain intact (they did not, however, formally vote on the matter).

The architects are still working with district officials and community members to draft a plan that they hope reflects the district’s and the wider community’s needs, priorities and values. District officials are currently refining funding scenarios related to the master plan. There’s more community feedback to come in October. The board could vote on a final master facilities plan sometime before the year is out.

That’s what has happened. That’s where this process is at. That’s what I’ve reported. And, so far, no one at Perkins and Will, and no one at the district has offered up any information that substantially refutes my reporting. Besides, my reporting is based on information that they themselves have provided to the public.

I urge everyone to read our coverage critically and thoroughly. If we haven’t reported on something accurately, please let us know in detail and, if you’re right, we’ll issue a correction. But for elected officials and well-respected professionals to perpetuate what I’m confident is a gross misreading of my work is just plain wrong.

You can read most of my reporting on the facilities master plan process hereVFP 

For more local perspectives, ‘Like’ our Facebook page 

4 thoughts on “OPINION: I Stand By My Reporting On PMSA”

  1. Despite your admiration for the board and Supt. Rodriguez, I think you are just getting a whiff of how they use the media to push their agenda and ideas and then when the public does not agree they use the media as a scapegoat. Just saying.

  2. To your defense @thevillagefreepress- It was stated by President Ned Wagner that they would not be closing PMSA. He made this reference when the dress code was in discussion. He stated that many people were concerned about the dress code and PMSA closing .At the board meeting in July/Aug he stated the children will no loner be required to wear uniforms and how we have to embrace change , and not be afraid , and that PMSA WILL NOT BE CLOSING OR HOUSED AT EAST OR WEST . The discussion on PMSA should be the budget amount for PMSA vs. Proviso West & East in pupil spending . The discussion should be the Stone Age Technology at D209, the discussion should be -why is PMSA -” Building needed to house and deliver a curriculum that could be housed at Proviso West or East, the discussion should be on staffing concerns at Proviso West and East together , the discussion should be on housing what should be a private school with public tax dollars and making PMSA a tuition based school if the standard of learning can not be brought up at Proviso West and East . Your are reporting FACTS !

  3. I applaud you Michael for taking out the time to defend what you wrote. You are my guy! I am so proud of what you are doing with “The Village Free Press” to bridge the gap that the “Maywood Herald” newspaper did to report activities, politics, sports, and what’s going on in the village of Maywood and the Proviso Township. You really evolved this blog to now a newspaper. I think maybe you should address this article during the October 9th board of education meeting that will take place at the Proviso West High School cafeteria at 5:30pm. (Don’t forget to write down your citizens’ comment, and give it to Karen O’Shea, the assistant superintendent of Dr. Jessie Rodriguez, before the meeting start.)

    Reading all these comments, I am hoping that residents not only in the village of Maywood, but in the Proviso Township should come to the board of education meetings and see what’s really going on in District 209. If you guys can’t make it, District 209 has an official YouTube channel, that you can watch it online for free. There should be no excuses! You all are tax paying citizens and have the right to know where your tax dollars should go.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.