The ASD high school project: Better communication
Perhaps it's just an oversight. Or maybe it's a lack of public relations moxie.
When the Armstrong School District Board of Directors voted 7-0 to spend $468,000 on architect's plans for an athletic complex at its new Armstrong Junior-Senior High School, it was done with very little discussion. Certainly, it is the province of school directors to plan and vote on such things.
But it would be beneficial to hear some more dialogue with the public when spending millions of taxpayer dollars on a new school campus.
Debilitating disagreement — under which the former Armstrong School Board suffered — is one thing. But a vigorous public discussion on such projects would at least give taxpayers and voters the sense that they are involved.
South Bend resident Adam Grafton rose in the audience to object to the expenditure, but he received no serious rebuttal.
The administration's and the school board's excitement over the new high school has been a bit of a wet blanket. Shouldn't this be something that they should be trumpeting at every turn? It is not even big news on the district's own newsletter.
After all, a new school is expected to be a big aid to area growth and affects everyone's life.
The district could use some cheerleaders off the field, if not better communicators.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- The overtime proposal: Regressive economics
- The Thursday wrap
- Brewster advances
- The gay marriage ruling: Liberty affirmed
- Social Security’s mess
- McKeesport Tuesday Takes
- King v. Burwell: Affirming ‘SCOTUScare’
- Immigration crock: Inducing illegals
- The gun suit ruling: Start anew
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes