Tower trouble

Drawing the line on using school bond money for necessities and aesthetics caused a stir among school board members this week.

Perhaps members of the Lawrence school board should take a better look at architectural plans or at least insist on being informed about any significant or unique features involved in a building project rather than to be surprised and embarrassed.

Apparently, none of the board members knew a lighted tower was slated to be built as part of the new gymnasium entrance at Lawrence High School. The $37,400 cost of the tower is not a major part of the $54 million bond issue approved by Lawrence voters in 2004, but it was a surprise to some board members who wondered whether the money could have been better spent on other building needs.

Plans to add 1,200 square feet to the media room and storage space at LHS already had pushed bids for construction projects at LHS and Free State High School to $360,000, $208,000 more than the planned budget. With the LHS tower, the total rose to $397,000.

However, because bids on the projects at the city’s four junior highs and at Broken Arrow School had come in about $1.5 million under budget, some board members reasoned, the district could afford to spend $37,400 for the tower. The tower finally was approved, despite the strong objection of board President Leonard Ortiz, who said voters expected the bond issue to be used for necessary improvements, not aesthetic towers.

Again, the $37,400 is a minor part of the $54 million bond issue, but it still is a significant amount of money. It also caused significant debate – and some hard feelings – among board members. Those hard feelings carried over to a conversation after the meeting between Ortiz and a school district teacher who supported the tower. Although Ortiz and the teacher have had a chance to discuss that conversation and reach some understanding, it was an unfortunate incident.

It is hoped the new lighted tower will greatly enhance the building and that this incident will act as a reminder to architects that even matters they view as minor should be fully outlined to clients before the bidding process goes forward.