verbatim-transcript-co-location-issue

State Board of Education

School for the Blind and School for the Deaf Co-location Proposal

October 16, 2008



Supt. Castillo: Yeah, before Cindy takes over here, I just want to uh, just say that in the

recommendation that you have before you, and this information you’re having presented

today, I just wanted to have you know that I arrived at this recommendation out of my

concern for providing a high quality education and educational environment for the students

that are in our special schools. And that this was a very, very difficult decision to make. And

um, I feel that we have been studying and searching for the most helpful solution so that

we can sustain these programs and keep these programs for the long term. So, after about

three years now, I’ve um, I’ve arrived at this recommendation that you are considering

before you and um, and should you uh, support the recommendation that I’ve made, uh, I

just want to pledge to you that I, I fully intend to work with all of the stakeholders involved

in how we would move forward in the co-location and make sure that that everyone is

involved in making the most helpful decision and how we would actually move forward and

make that happen.



Chair Wyse: Well, that brings the issue before us. Um, we’ve got the issue before us of

whether to uphold, modify, or overturn the decision of the superintendent and the decision

on the legislation on the co-location. And what we’ve got today, I think, um, Cindy’s going

to give us an overview, is that correct?



Cindy Hunt: inaudible



Chair Wyse: Two minutes? And set up the process. And then we’re going to hear from

Morgan and then, then the parties. And again, I really appreciate everyone being here and

taking the opportunity, to hear the sides . . . (inaudible). Cindy, why don’t you help us

frame this?



Cindy Hunt: As Chair Wyse and Superintendent Castillo have stated, this is the second step

in your decision-making process on whether to uphold, overturn or modify the

superintendent’s decision regarding the co-location of the Oregon School for Blind over to

the Oregon School for the Deaf.



Uh, last meeting, we laid out a process for you, which you approved, so, today, like I said,

is the second step along that process. Today, you’re going to hear, uh, presentations from,

uh, a representative of the Superintendent, Morgan Allen. He will be the first presentation.

That will be limited to 30 minutes and from my understanding; I think your staff will be

keeping track of the time. Is that correct?



Jan McComb: Yes.



Cindy Hunt: Okay. That 30 minutes is also going to also include your questions of Mr. Allen

and then, next, you will hear from Elizabeth Rousseau-Rooney, the vice-chair of the Oregon

School for the Blind, uh, board and also, Bradley Kimbrough, from the Oregon School for

the Blind. And, they also have 30 minutes to make a presentation on why they are

appealing the decision of the Superintendent and then next, there will be a 30 minute

presentation from the Board of Directors of the Oregon School for the Deaf and that is from

Don Dorman, who is the chair of that board. And, then after all three of those presentations

are done, each one will have a five-minute rebuttal period that they can address concerns









1

raised by others and then at the end of all that, I am going to come back up and ask you if

you need any additional information to allow you to make this decision in December.



Chair Wyse: OK. Good process. Let’s get started. Morgan. Welcome.



Morgan Allen: Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record, Morgan Allen, Legislative Director for

the Oregon Department of Education. I have to confess I’m under some added pressure,

today, because of one of your newest board advisors, Superintendent Saxton, uh, taught at

my high school and was my high school football coach and track and field coach and he is

studying every move to make sure I’m doing okay, today. (Laughter).



Uh, but again, I am here, today, to present Superintendent Castillo’s rationale to move

forward with co-location for the Oregon School for the Deaf and the Oregon School for the

Blind onto the campus of the OSD. I am going to address some of the issues raised by the

appeals made by the boards of directors of OSB and OSD and, ultimately, to ask for your

support of the decision to co-locate, so, I got a couple documents going around including

my written testimony and I won’t read it verbatim, but, I’ll run through it and then a couple

of other documents I’ll want to highlight.



So, this issue first arose during Superintendent Castillo’s tenure during the 2005 legislative

session. In 2005, again, the legislature, which was concerned about the high cost per

students, the Oregon School for the Blind adopted a budget note requiring the department

to evaluate and the Superintendent to evaluate both co-location and closing and contracting

out the programs at both of the schools. So this is an important point and the legislature

sort of prompted this discussion and asked the Superintendent to look at this issue and the

department to provide an analysis. So in response, the Superintendent formed the State

School Study Committee to help answer those questions and in October of 2006,

Superintendent Castillo announced that contracting out the instructional programs at the

schools was not in the best interest of the students. The State School Study Committee

recommended co-locating the two programs on one campus and in March of 2007, the

department released the State School Committee report, which included details on this

recommendation. Fast forward to the 2007 session and there was no action taken on this

recommendation, instead our agency received another budget note from the Ways and

Means Committee asking us to conduct further analysis on the topic of co-location.



So, in response to this budget note, ODE contracted with consultants at Innovation

Partnership to determine the cost effectiveness of co-location and their report included that,

quote, co-location would allow optimal shared use, operating savings and the rehabilitation

and use of existing buildings. Innovation Partnership also recommended that the

department undertake a request for quotation process and put together a develop-led

process and team to issue recommendations on actual co-location planning.



So, fast forward, again to June 5, 2008, of this year, Deputy Superintendent Ed Dennis sent

a letter to the OSD board chair and the OSB board chair notifying them that the

superintendent intended to move forward with legislation to allow for co-location and of

course, this decision triggered the right of each school’s board to appeal to you today, which

is why I am here.



So, I want to talk a little bit about why Superintendent Castillo decided to co-locate the

schools. Uh, her decision to co-locate the educational programs has involved a careful

review of the facts and circumstances of the schools as they currently exist. She’s concluded

that the status quo is not viable for these schools and that through co-location these schools

can continue to be a viable option for Oregon students that need the specialized services





2

that they provide. And again, I think this is an important distinction; we are not talking

about closing the Oregon School for the Blind; we are talking about moving its location to

the campus of the Oregon School for the Deaf. So, the primary question that the

Superintendent considered while making the decision to co-locate was, are we giving the

students of Oregon the best education possible at these schools and while the staff and

supporters at each have done a very admirable job of maintaining aging buildings and

managing extremely tight budgets, the simple answer is that we could be doing much more

for these students.



Additionally, given the current economic crisis and funding shortfalls that all sectors of

public education are experiencing, the decision to co-locate has the advantage of being able

to self-finance through the sale of the OSD property. While this decision was difficult to

make and understandably difficult for the deaf and blind communities to accept, it is the

most prudent solution possible, to ensure the long-term future of both schools. Again, the

superintendent and I, both, believe strongly that the operation of two schools is going to

continue to be scrutinized by the legislature, especially, during in these tough budget times

and they are looking for ways to find money during the next biennium. So I want to talk

about a few reasons why we believe that co-location is possible and is the best path to

achieving our goal of providing each student at these schools the best education possible.



So we have six primary reasons we would like to bring to the board’s attention, today. The

first is enrollment at the Oregon School for the Blind has decreased significantly over the

past decade. Between 1997 and 2008, the high number of students in enrollment was 52

students in 2000. Today, well, as of February 2008, there were 31 students enrolled; so,

that is a 40% decrease just since 2000. Reason two: buildings at OSD and OSB are aging

and have growing significant deferred maintenance and seismic safety needs that need to

be addressed and many of you were able to go on tours of the campuses and sort of see

that these buildings are old and they are going to need some help and they are going to

need some help soon. Third, costs per students are increasing at a significant rate. During

the 2007-2009 biennium the approximate average cost to educate a student per year at the

School for the Deaf is $61,000 and at the School for the Blind is about $140,000. Reason

four: again, co-location provides the opportunity to sell finance critical upgrades at a time

when state resources are scarce and we very strongly believe that the legislature does not

have the funds to help these schools out. Uh, the property was appraised at $9.1 million

dollars in 2006 and Innovation Partnership consultants estimated the real market value

between about $13.5 million and $18 million dollars. Number five: as you heard earlier,

today, from some other folks, there are a relatively low number of students who are visually

impaired to attend the school, as a matter of fact, about 7% of students with visual

impairments in Oregon attend the Oregon School for the Blind. And, sixth, cost savings from

consolidation of the two school programs on to one campus will really help these schools be

sustainable until the long term. I mean, right now we are offering two cafeterias, two

grounds keeping, two sets of utility bills, so we want to consolidate that to help to bring the

operational costs down.



So, one thing, and I think Superintendent Castillo hit this during her opening remarks, we

really want to make and have made a pledge and commitment to stakeholders on our

principles of co-location. And, again, we understand that change is difficult and unwelcome

to many of the stakeholders involved with this process and we are committed to engaging in

collaboration to make sure that co-location is successful and all the parties are heard. We’ve

made a strong commitment to working with the new OSD and OSB advisory boards and, uh,

we really believe that this has gone a long way to sort of healing the rift between our

communities and I, personally have had the opportunity to go speak to these boards several

times and I have really appreciated having the opportunity to meet with these board





3

members. I’ve really benefited greatly from their feedback and I appreciate the good

working relationship that I feel like we’ve established.



We want to, again, today, renew our commitment, uh, to keep intact key programs at the

two schools. We want to make sure that there’s the (cough) garden at the new co-located

campus, the OSB mobility tracks, space for the Commission for the Blind to operate and we

want to make sure that the OSD alumni museum continues to be able to use Kuenzi Hall in

co-location. It’s clear that we need to developer-led process to develop a co-location plan,

with experts from the field, to generate a co-location plan that delivers the best programs

for our students and we, absolutely, again, commit to include the boards and all

stakeholders in this process and we are going to work with labor and management to make

sure that we avoid lay-offs and job losses, um, from any co-location plan.



So, I want to just briefly hit, and we included these in the summary report that you received

in your background material, I want to just briefly go over a few of the principles that

Superintendent Castillo has committed to in co-location and the first and the most

important is that we commit to stakeholders, including representatives of the deaf and blind

communities and the schools’ boards in the co-location planning process.



We want to design flexible facilities that meet the present needs and anticipate future

conditions so we want to make sure that there’s space for a little bit of growth at both of

those schools, so they can accommodate more students into the future if they need to. We

want to design facilities and programs and emphasize instruction for each student’s ability

to learn and transition back into their communities. We want to share our resources to

maximize fiscal efficiencies at both the campuses. We want to make sure that these schools

serve as a statewide resource and work with our regional programs to carry out an umbrella

of service delivery for all visually-impaired and hearing-impaired students. And, I think

another key point to remember, uh, you know you’ve heard probably that you know, how

can these kids survive together on the same campus and how can they work together? Well,

right now, we kind of have co-location going on right now at the Oregon School for the

Deaf. We’ve got a charter school and a Head Start program, we’ve got dozens and dozens

of school children that interact with our deaf students every single day and that has been

successful and actually, has enriched both, um, the charter school and the Head Start

program and the School for the Deaf; so, we think this is possible.



So, when you weigh your, uh, when you are weighing this appeal to co-locate, we want you

to consider a few other facts and tell you a few other thoughts that the superintendent has

on this issue. The first is that Superintendent Castillo is outlined two very specific courses of

action depending on how this board rules. We’ve prepared two legislative drafts for this

session, which is why we are asking you to make your decision at your December 11th

meeting. December 15th is the deadline to file legislation for the session. The first bill

creates a trust fund for if we are able to sell the school for the blind property. That money

will go into that trust fund and we can make sure it’s secure and only used for co-location.

Right now, the superintendent has the statutory authority to co-locate and sell the school;

but, under law that money would just go right in to the General Fund. We wouldn’t be able

to keep it; so, we need to change the law so that we keep those proceeds and put them

aside in a protected trust fund; so, that we can do co-location. And, if the board decides

against us, what we are going to do is go out and ask the legislature for some pretty serious

dollar, dollar figures to help us address some of the seismic needs in the aging facilities out

there. So, those are a couple of things we are planning on doing.



Another key point for the board is neither OSB or OSD is eligible for funds from state

General Obligation bonds for seismic facility upgrades – it is unconstitutional; so, we can’t





4

get into those state general obligation bonds you are hearing talk for seismic upgrades at

the schools. We’ve commissioned and received a report from OTAC Architectural on the

state of the building and facilities on campuses, which I have included in the Executive

Summary and we’ve got copies printed up that I will be able to give to you guys – I’ll give

those to Jan; we’ve also shared the Executive Summary with both of the boards. This report

just came out this week and basically, what it shows is that given the age of the buildings

on the campuses, they are very well maintained, but there are clearly many seismic

upgrades, ADA upgrades, and other facility upgrades that are going to have to be made,

um, in the near future.



Another key point – you know, there’s a lot of unused space by the schools on both

campuses. Multiple buildings on the OSD and OSB campuses are vacant or are used by non-

school tenants and you’ve got a couple of maps going on around there and I highlighted on

the School for the Blind map – there’s a couple of highlights, there; both Howard Hall and

the Infirmary Building – that’s about 15,000 square feet. Those buildings are not used at all

by the schools. They just aren’t used. On the campus of OSD you’ve got the second largest

academic building, Kuenzi Hall, 32,000 square feet that is not used by the school. That

houses the Baker Street Charter School that the Salem Keizer School has there. It also

houses the OSD Alumni Museum. So, those are other things that we want you to consider.

So, I want to take a couple of moments and you have received letters from both the OSD

and OSB boards laying out their arguments against co-location; so, I want to take a couple

of minutes and talk about some of those.



So, you’ve been asked to overturn the decision of Superintendent Castillo to co-locate and

undoubtedly, you are going to hear many reasons brought forward to do that, but I want to

make one thing very clear: the Superintendent has carefully considered all of these

arguments and has come to the conclusion that none of them, separately or in concert, are

a compelling reason not to co-locate. Each point brought up can be mitigated or eliminated

with thoughtful planning. So, many of the arguments that you are going to hear seek

further delay and more study and again, you have heard from the superintendent – we have

been looking at this for more than three years. So, even if the state board sides with the

superintendent in December, the planners and the architectural folks are telling us that we

are at least two to three years away from co-location and that’s assuming we can get the

change we need during the 2009 legislature to keep that money.



So, this is going to be a long process that will be lead by experts and we are going to

involve stakeholders. It’s not going to happen overnight and delaying it further is just going

to push it back for several more years. So, and I think that’s really important because, you

know, look down the block a few streets at the Oregon State Hospital and you can see what

happens when facts are clear on what needs to be done and yet, no one takes decisive

action to address some of these obvious issues before they become impossible problems.



There are going to be some issues coming up on these schools, especially with the aging

buildings and seismic issues and deferred maintenance and we need to start addressing

those today before they become those kinds of impossible problems. So, I want to

respectfully emphasize that both the OSD and OSB boards are largely advisory. They do not

operate the schools or have the responsibility for the students enrolled on each campus and

for their well-being. By statute, by law, the proverbial buck stops with the state

Superintendent of Public Instruction for the operation of these schools and the well being of

those students. Please remember that these boards are not the only stakeholders in the

process. These schools are intended to serve the educational needs and provide educational

opportunities for kids all around the state. They were set up to help school districts so that

there is a place where school districts can send kids that need extra help and extra studies.





5

So, I want to just take, uh, in the remaining time, I want to just talk about the arguments

that you are going to hear from the boards. So, I’ll start with the first argument that the

School for the Deaf Board is going to make and in their letter they lay this out – they

believe that cost and money is the primary reason that the superintendent has decided to

co-locate. And, while it’s true, that increasing costs per pupil and added costs of operating

two campuses are reason enough to co-locate, this is simply not true. When you factor in

things such as declining enrollment, aging facilities with significant maintenance needs, this

unique opportunity to self-finance in an era when government has limited to no funds to do

these types of things and most importantly, the opportunity to improve the educational

programs. These things were all given equal consideration and if we were to say what is the

most important thing, again, it is what Superintendent Castillo said, its what is best for

these kids at schools.



So, the second argument you are going to hear against co-location from the School for the

Deaf Board is that it is premature because they’re new boards and they have not had time

to put together their master plan. So, on that, you know, I believe very strongly, having

gone to these board meetings, the OSD Board is really faithfully discharging its task to

review the programs and create a new master plan. In fact, they are required by statute to

present this to the legislature and the superintendent prior to February 1, 2009, so less

than three months, they need to have that master plan and that review completed. And, we

are committed to reviewing and understanding and utilizing this plan and using it as part of

a developer-led process to undertake co-location. But, this is a very important point – best

practices and programmatic needs for these students are going to be the same, regardless

of where the school is physically located and the findings of the board should be able to be

reasonably incorporated into any co-location plan, regardless of where it actually physically

resides. These are going to be the same, rather we put the school in Portland or Salem or

Eugene or in eastern Oregon – the needs of the kids are going to be the same and we

believe program is more important than location.



The third thing you are going to hear from the OSD board is that the decision to co-locate is

premature because we don’t have a comprehensive or sustainable plan for the future of

these schools. We believe that co-location is the comprehensive and sustainable plan for

these schools in the future. The current two-campus model is not sustainable financially and

we believe that co-location is the best model for long-term sustainability. And, whatever co-

location plan takes shape, it should be managed by a developer-led process and informed

by experts and stakeholders and that is, again, what we are committing to do here, today.



I want to take, there’s are a couple of arguments that the folks from the OSB Board are

going to raise against co-location and some of them are very similar. The first argument you

are going to hear is that they haven’t had time to do their five-year plan; they haven’t had

time review the operation of the schools. So, again, I have met with these boards. I know

that they are working hard on this, on putting these master plans and reports together.

And, again, we are going to review them and utilize them and we are going to study them

and make sure they get incorporated into this developer- and stakeholder-led process to co-

locate. But, I want to remind the board, again, best practices and programs are going to be

the same, regardless of where the school is located – that shouldn’t change at all. So, we

should be able to, again, be able to incorporate their recommendations and thoughts into

any co-location plan.



And, then, the other primary argument you’re going to hear from the School for the Blind

Board is that the studies that we’ve done in response to the budgeting of the State School

Study and Innovation Partners report – they both raise many more questions about this.





6

They are full of questions that haven’t been answered, yet. Well, I’ll concede to that that

point. Those reports are full of a lot of questions, but, each report, unequivocally states that

co-location is the best option for the future of these schools and the questions in the report

are more like, “how do we do this, how do we involve stakeholders, how do we look at how

these services are delivered to regional programs and how they interplay with these

schools.” Those are the kinds of questions that are in those reports, not rather or not co-

location is a good idea.



So, I would like to close, uh, and just say this: Superintendent Castillo and the Department

of Ed are respectfully asking the State Board of Education to uphold and affirm the decision

to co-locate the Oregon School for the Blind and the Oregon School for the Deaf onto a

single campus. Again, we’ve carefully looked at all the options available and have concluded

this is the best way to keep the schools viable into the future. A vote in favor of co-location

will allow the Superintendent to begin talking to the legislature and convincing them of the

efficacy of this idea and you know we’ll be able to go to get that statutory authority we need

and that is a big hurdle. Even if the board agrees that this is a good idea, we still have to

convince the legislature – that’s the next step for us. So, we’re still looking at two to three

years, if you guys agree with us and if the legislature agrees with us and frankly, our

schools and our students can’t afford further delay. So, with that, Mr. Chair, I’ll be happy to

answer any questions.



Chair Wyse: Thank you. Questions? Art.



Art Paz: In our tour, I asked some of the staff at the School for the Blind as well as the

School for the Deaf, uh, how many classrooms were needed to conduct their programs.

And, I found that the response, was uh, didn’t have the clarity that I expected. Uh, and for

me, as a designer that deals with architecture, it flags, uh, the amount of operational space

that a person needs and that they clearly understand is essential for the benefit of their

program for their students. Uh, and I’m not seeing in any of these documents, any

assessment of the fundamental program, which is tied into understanding a five year

projection of any kind of a master plan. But I’ve not seen the fundamental elements that

would create an understanding of the physical structures that are required in a way that’s

articulated to even, uh, an out-of-date plan. Uh, so that concerns me. Uh, the co-location as

a general idea, uh, I think I’m really sympathetic with that notion, uh, for many of the

reasons that you cited.



Uh, the funding trust, uh, I think is something that needs to be a part of this and legislature

needs to understand this. Uh, the partnership establishment of a developer-led team – that

bothers me. Uh, because I felt, as I read all of this, I was looking at a narrative that was

more, uh, an economic expedient plan than it was fundamentally focused on students and

program and logically creating a background of information.



This is a wonderful plan that really talks about real estate and transaction of property and

whether you can get $13 or $18.5 million as opposed to $9.1 and also, if you sell excess

property off on the School for the Deaf, you get $550,000 dollars. I don’t know where that

figure came from. Because I think that you need to look at collaboration with the

community. Once you do that, you might find that the deaf site has a much higher value to

enrich not only the neighborhood, but also the two schools that are going to be housed.



So, the specificity that gives me something that is measurable – I just don’t see it. I see full

speed ahead on a land transaction that is based on real estate and a lot of assumptions.

And, that may be pressured by legislature, but I think that we need to have a more

thoughtful process on what is required by the two schools and then we clearly generate a





7

program that says physical structures need to occur in this community. These are the

building types, and, and also this sense of place which was, uh, provided, for us, by one of

the speakers, this morning, from the audience, I think resonates with me, again, because I

think that the quality of what you’re making is just as important as facilitating this

transaction. And, I know that your direction is to preserve the two schools and you you

clearly stated enhancing the two programs. That enhancement cannot occur unless that

prior work, that programmatic analysis and that hard work occurs. And, that can occur in

the timeline that OTAC and some of the other people talked about. If you say, do it today, I

still have a two-year window. You need to restructure, I think, the front end analysis of who

the parties are. And, it’s not a real estate transaction. This is much more. And, I want to see

that richness. For me, that’s what I want.



Morgan Allen: Well, a couple of thoughts on, you know, I think I’ll take your last point on

the sense of place. I think that is an important thing and, you know, I’m the parent of a

young child and I, as a parent, want to make sure that my child has the best facilities and

the best programs possible, and frankly, I don’t think we’re delivering that with a two-

campus model that currently exists. Those buildings are old infrastructures, aging – they

need serious upgrades and the legislature, again, to be absolutely frank with the board, I do

not think the legislature has the wherewithal and frankly, they absolutely do not have the

funding to put the kind of investments that need to be made into these schools. And, so,

our choices are really to do nothing and to continue to let these schools deteriorate, to go

bang our heads against the wall and ask the legislature for more money or to look at other

options like you’re talking about.



And, I think in this whole idea of collaborating, I think we are absolutely committed to doing

that and I think what we need to do first, is we need to remove these policy barriers. You

have to remember that this process of co-location started and then, these two boards were

created and so, it’s kind of backed us up and now we’ve had to come to the board for the

appeal.



And, we think that, you know, the five-year master plans and their thoughts on the

programs are going to be coming out in the next few months and all those things are going

to inform the future of these schools and we’ve got a couple of policy barriers, we’ve got a

statutory policy barrier – whatever we do, if it’s co-location, you know, whatever happens

on co-location, how we sell that and use that money; we can’t keep that money right now

and that is a policy barrier. We have the state board that is telling the superintendent, yes,

we agree with you or no, we don’t agree with you to go forward with this and that’s a policy

barrier and I think we need to address those things and then, I think we need to have those

conversations that you are talking about, about getting stakeholders together and putting

people together.



If you look at the history in the summary you got, the mistake that prior superintendents or

legislatures made was that they came forward with specific plans and said, okay, here’s

what we’re going to do and they didn’t talk to stakeholders and they didn’t get, you know,

information from the community and we’re talking about doing the opposite. We’re talking

about let’s decide that we’re going to do it and then we’re going to involve people and then

we’re going to figure out how to make it happen the right way.



Art Paz: Well, again, I don’t disagree with. . . .



Chair Wyse: We have a limited time. Let’s come back. Leslie, you have a question.









8

Leslie Shepherd: On - just simply programmatical, providing everything does go forward

with the co-location, has there been thought, yet, about what happens to the OSD, OSB

population, OSD population, while the building is being renovated for the inclusion of the

other students. Uh, do they all co-locate at one school and then, co-locate back to the new,

improved school or is that too far along?



Morgan Allen: I think, uh, I’ll just say this: I am not a developer so I do not understand

these intricacies. I think that we would have to, those types of considerations of what do we

do with the students while we’re making these upgrades or building new buildings or, you

know, reviewing some of the buildings on campus. You know, how does that work? That’s a

question we are going to have to answer, but, I think those are totally do-able because that

happens in school districts all over Oregon all the time. New schools are built, old schools

are refurbished, and they figure out how to do that. And, we’re talking about, you know,

about a 130-150 kids and we think we can, I think it’s possible to do that and I won’t tell

you how, but I believe we’ve got people in the stakeholder community, people who build

schools and our staff – I think we can figure that out.



Nikki Squire: I’m just maybe reacting because it was posted as our role as a hearing, for

today, it would be helpful to me, if we could take two minutes and have you or Cindy Hunt

kind of refresh us about that role. What we should be doing today as opposed to . . . .



Chair Wyse: Right. I think that’s – Cindy do you want to. . . .



Cindy Hunt: Yes, today is a hearing, so, I think you should restrict your comments more to

the questions of the presenters and then, uh, at the end of the presentations if you want to

comment, generally, about the decision, uh, and then also, in December, you’ll have an

opportunity to do that.



Chair Wyse: Okay, thank you. Jerry, do you have. . . . (inaudible)



Rob Saxton: Morgan, can you tell me or do you have any examples of places where these

two kinds of programs have been successfully co-located.



Morgan Allen: Yeah, uh, Mr. Chair, I, we can get you guys examples of other states. I

believe, there are eight other states that have both their school for the Blind and School for

the Deaf programs located on one of their campus, uh, and most importantly, I think it’s

about 45 states have these types of programs, so again, that’s part of the reason, these are

an important, this is really a distinction – we’re not talking about closing the School for the

Blind. These programs in these schools are an important part of the continuum of services

that needs to be available to these students; but, this current model – two aging facilities,

declining enrollment, it’s not going to work. At some point, that’s going to come to a head,

about a block across the street; so, we can get you those examples, but there are many

states where the program are, uh, North Carolina and a couple of others, I know, for sure,

have their programs. Idaho, North Carolina have their programs located on one campus; so.



Chair Wyse: One question: I understand the capital, being able to sell them and use those

resources. How large are the operating savings estimated to be; that is, you mentioned. . . .



Morgan Allen: Uh, the, some estimates, uh, I’m going to, if you look in the summary

reports, uh, on, that was provided in your packets – pages 34-35 detail some types of cost

savings that we could expect. I believe the number in there was about $1.3 to $1.4 million

dollars; that’s, you know lower utility bills, fewer maintenance staff, lack of duplication of

cafeteria services. But, I think that we’re going to, you know, we are definitely, probably





9

going to need the same number of teachers and instructional folks, you know, so, we have

committed to make sure that the schools are staffed to the levels that they need and we

don’t just cut staff to save money. We’re not talking about doing that. We’re talking about

designing a program and a model that’s got the appropriate number of kids.



Chair Wyse: Okay, other questions? OK. Thank you. We want to welcome Elizabeth

Rousseau-Rooney and Bradley Kimbrough. As you come up, just to speak to the process a

little bit more. As you know, the superintendent is independent of the board and the board

is committed to a review of her recommendation, and I would say to all of the parties um,

Cindy and Jan have put together a process where we have a very deliberative process

where we’re taking a fresh look at . . . frankly, we’re all learning together. Susan and the

staff have really kept their distance. So this is a fresh review. So again, we’re really

welcome you here and we’re eager to hear you on this important decision.



Presentation from School for the Blind

Elizabeth Rousseau-Rooney, School for the Blind Advisory Board

B. T. Kimbrough, School for the Blind Advisory Board



Rousseau-Rooney: Thank you for your patience. I wanted to get close enough to see your

faces. Greetings, Chair Wyse, board members. My name is Elizabeth Rousseau-Rooney. And

I’m sitting in this chair today in place of Neil Clever who is our chair and had some medical

issues that prevent him from being able to be here. So, um, he has done a lot of the

preparatory work and I inherited this position. I will tell you that I am a prime example of

what happens when a child with partial vision grows up not learning Braille because it has

impacted my literacy and I can probably almost hold this up for you to read and I still need

to hold it closely. So, we’ve passed out the information we will share, and I am not going to

read word for word. I highlighted some points and I have some additional points I that I

would like to address after hearing Morgan Allen’s presentation and would like to just begin

by acknowledging and respecting your participation in this board.



I sat on the Oregon Commission for the Blind board for 6 years and am privileged, very

privileged to be a part of this board, and I know the impact that it has in the decision

making, in weighing all of the evidence and that you don’t take it all lightly and all of you

are here because you care about the education of children in Oregon on a broad level, not

just the little people. I know you deal with the community colleges and a vast array of

educational, um, components and this is one that I am obviously very passionate about and

it is not just me, I am speaking for the board and for really, the blind community in Oregon.

So, um, thank you, thank you for your patience, because as you tell, I am a little bit

nervous. I do want to acknowledge that some of the arguments that Morgan Allen said that

we would present, we absolutely will present and one that’s a major concern is that we have

not had adequate time to do what the legislature has charged us to do. And I would back up

to say that when the decision was made to co-locate and then the legislature established

the school boards, that was in response to a huge outcry from stakeholders that we were

not adequately included in the original decision and so things came to a process through the

legislature to establish the boards to give us an incredible, unique, historic opportunity that

has never really existed for the School for the Blind or the School for the Deaf to have these

advisory boards and my understanding as a board member is not that we are just giving

advice and then the Department of Ed takes it or leaves it, but that we are substantial

contributors to the process and that is the mode we are operating in.



So, clearly, we are respectfully and unanimously opposing the co-location proposal and do

believe that it is premature in light of the legislative, uh, charge, that we are working under.

and I could give you several different facts and dates and those kinds of things, but





10

basically I’d like to kind of just give you the heart of the issue, which I know you are

capable of reading all of the studies and the information, and we will be happy to answer

questions, but I think, uh, the Department of Education has presented their position and

clearly the impact of the financial economic status of the schools.



But in looking at the population, the current population of the schools, the students who are

in residence is just a piece of the picture, and there are a lot, as you heard earlier, from

Jeanine, the number of blind and visually impaired students in Oregon. And what the

legislature has charged us to do is to collaborate with the Department of Education but also

with the regional programs, the stakeholders, the students and the School for the Blind. So

it’s really a big picture and it’s not just a focused in on this 31, 32 students that are

residents at the School for the Blind.



Um, clearly, the studies that were mentioned by Morgan Allen, the State School Study

Committee and the State School Staff Report, and the Innovative Partnerships

Incorporated, have made recommendations that would support the co-location but there are

also recommendations that they have made that he didn’t mention. So I would just like to

highlight those for you. And that is in the State School Study Committee Report in April of

2006, um, the recommendations including, to strengthen the linkage between schools,

regional programs, to illustrate a true continuum of services and coordination between

regional local schools and state special schools and that continuum of services is big in the

education of blind students in Oregon. And the Oregon School for the Blind is a piece of

that.



It’s important that we are involved with that whole continuum. And, and students may need

services for a partial time in their educational process, but it’s important that the school

exists to interact and provide those services at whatever point in a child’s educational

process that’s needed. Um, thank you for your patience.



Okay, in a separate section of the State School Study Committee, additional

recommendations, a section entitled, “Pitfalls” that includes “maintain a statewide focus, re-

visit weekend programs, which is a big part of why there aren’t more students enrolled at

the school currently, continuous redesign, which I believe it was maybe Einstein that said

that if you do the same thing over and over and over again and expect different results,

that’s the definition of insanity.



It’s clear that we need to not only look, but think outside of the box. In addition to the other

recommendations under “Pitfalls” was that the population considered should go beyond the

numbers enrolled to assure quality and skilled leadership for the program. Um, the policy

package should reflect both community and regional service, uh, and connect all services in

any planning program.



The State School Study report, the Oregon Department of Education staff reports, strongly

recommended that the master plan be developed for delivering services through a new

model, or models, that best serve the needs of the student population, in keeping with the

State School Study Committee report, to demonstrate fiscal responsibility and more

importantly, to address educational needs of the students across the state. Again, we are

looking at the big picture.



Several planning sessions (this is still in the recommendations) should include stakeholders

during the 2007-09 biennium, specifically in program design. In Appendix A of that study

there were numerous discussions by the State Schools Study Committee reporting the

importance of identifying statewide needs, infrastructure necessary for providing services to





11

local education districts for state special schools. So, it is clear that specific instructional

modes and services will require a statewide conversation. And in the Innovative Partners

Inc., their report emphasized the need to slow down the co-location effort until a feasible

study demonstrates the scope of the project and recommended that the importance of

engaging the public in the planning process. Again, so all of these studies, although they

acknowledge this could be an alternative solution, recognize the need to slow down and look

at the process. And again, just kind of highlighting what the legislature charged the boards

with.



And again, this is a really a historic opportunity and has never existed before, and we take it

very seriously We would like to have the opportunity to thoroughly study and look at what

we have been charged to do and to do that. The Oregon Legislature created the Oregon

School for the Blind and Oregon School for the Deaf boards with House Bill 2263 in July

2007 the boards actually didn’t really have our first meeting until October 2007, which took

time to set up, formalize and even figure out what we were suppose to be doing, elect a

chair and co-chair, getting a whole lot of information.



And we are charged to conduct a comprehensive review of policy and procedure for Oregon

School for the Blind and of the state which relate to programs, services and staff of the

school in conjunction with Oregon Department of Education and give recommendations to

the Superintendent of Public Instruction about these policy and procedures and in addition,

we are to adopt a 5-year plan for Oregon School for the Blind that specifies the mission and

objectives of the school and that includes stakeholders, again, looking at procedures for

systematically measuring the school’s progress for meeting it’s objectives. So I’m going to

just kind of try to sum up, here. I know we have a half hour for the whole piece, but I will

not take that long and I want to give you time for questions.



But, fundamental to the development of a master plan the Oregon School for the Blind

board seeks to understand the role of the Oregon School for the Blind in the continuum of

the services to students who are blind or visually impaired. And I would somewhat like to

read the conclusion because there’s some real excellent points, and we’ve put a lot of effort

into sharing with you the heart and intent and passion of making this opportunity for blind

children in Oregon. The creation of the boards provides for the first time in the long history

of the Oregon School for the Blind that persons with the state and provision of service to

children that are visually-impaired participate in the planning of the services and that should

be authentic participation, and not just token.



This board takes very seriously the duties and understands the importance of collaboration

and open communication with Oregon Department of Education’s regional programs and

local school districts, as well as the other partners and stakeholders. The planning charge to

the Oregon School for the Blind board is the opportunity to heal misunderstandings, rebuild

trust and to move forward with mutual respect, honoring expertise and perspective of

stakeholders. Outcomes will be the, excuse me, when I get nervous it is hard to read no

matter how big it is. The outcomes will be the design and implementation of programs that

deliver the best outcomes for our students. The Oregon School for the Blind board

respectfully requests that the State Board of Education provide us with the opportunity to

complete their charge and overturn the superintendent’s decision to co-locate Oregon

School for the Blind on the Oregon School for the Deaf campus.



Duncan Wyse: Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there questions? Leslie?



Leslie Shepherd: Yes, how is the progress of the boards on the master plan? Do you

anticipate it being done by the first of ‘09?





12

Rousseau-Rooney: Had we not been involved in this whole appeal process which has taken

a whole lot of time for us to kind of side step and focus on this. We are making progress

and there has been a whole lot work towards gaining more understanding of the whole

statewide process of education, and the regional programs, and IEPs and the budget

process and a lot of components so yes, we are making progress.



Leslie Shepherd: Do you anticipate needing a waiver for a delivery of the report or is that an

option?



Rousseau-Rooney: I don’t know if that is an option.



The two talking over each other; hard to make out.



Leslie Shepherd: Maybe it’s a done deal.



Rousseau-Rooney:I don’t know the answer to that question. We will function as well as we

possibly can and give them what we have so far.



Duncan Wyse: Would you like to offer comments, Mr. Kimbrough?



B. T. Kimbrough: Yes, thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the board. I will just take a

moment. What we have here seems to the members of the board of directors of Oregon

School for the Blind as a logical configuration to cause different outcome in the decision

recommended by the superintendent. The points that point to that different outcome that

line up include the fact that this board and the board for School for the Deaf were created to

make a master plan and in order to review procedures and review programs and all of the

three reports that are cited by the office of education as having recommended co-location

also includes strong recommendations for a master plan. Here it lines up. The legislature

brought these boards in existence to make a master plan.



The studies that have been cited, happen to recommend co-location, but also call strongly

for a master plan. Here’s the board set up to do the master plan. Yes, it will take some

more time. This is not a job that should be rushed and is a tremendous undertaking. These

boards have been, certainly the board I serve on, the Oregon School for the Blilnd, has

made tremendous progress in understanding the burden that’s here, and establishing

collaborative lines in many, many directions. Because there are many stakeholders that we

need to communicate with, and unfortunately, we can’t just set up a meeting and simply

invite them all to come. It doesn’t work that way. So, although there’s been tremendous

progress, and a beginning of communication, this is a process that almost certainly will take

more time. It is entirely possible, as the OSB letter of appeal says, but once we have a

master plan the master plan will say, in effect, that co-location is not the best outcome for

the programs that are in the master plan. We don’t know until we get there.



So, although you were told by Mr. Allen that you’d hear a lot of resistance to change, we are

not resisting change, per se. Change will come. We’re asking for the opportunity to manage

the process, such as when the changes occur, they’re responsive to the population, they’re

responsive to what the stakeholders what the programs will be. Should academics be the

prime consideration? Should it be life skills? The stakeholders tell us that the programs

should be academics – but should that be life skills? How much import should be given to

Braille? These are decisions that the stakeholders have strong opinions about and this board

represents perhaps the first opportunity for stakeholders to be involved in the process of

information gathering. So I’m are only asking you for the opportunity to finish the work of





13

gathering the information and making the master plan before the decision is handed down

to where the schools should be. I thank you very much for the opportunity to come before

you.



Art Paz: Using Elizabeth’s terms about authentic participation and not just a token process

for best outcome, how would you project a master plan timeline that helps, uh, policy

makers, uh, in deciding what the time constraints would be for a project you feel best

represents how your information gathering, uh, would transpire? How long would that be?



B.T. Kimbrough: Well, in the letter we asked for a delay of two years. We asked, essentially,

for another biennium because the scope of the work involves a lot of time and obviously if

the plan isn’t completely available by the beginning of this biennium it wouldn’t take effect

until the next biennium. That would be a rough estimate.



Art Paz: I’m going to respond to that, because that is quite an extensive, uh, timeline uh,

when I think of the fact that this question was raised 15 years ago by the Legislature. They

asked about how we could make this whole thing more cost effective and we could still

support educational opportunities for the blind as well as the deaf. Uh, I’m just really torn

with a timeline that is asking a question for a programmatic analysis of 24 additional

months after having gone through all of this I would think that it would be useful to get

some shorter timeline and as far as co-location is concerned, I think there is quite an

argument for co-location. I’m trying to find where the enrichment is and that’s a program

from you folks and the folks from the Oregon School of the Deaf. So help me with that, if

you can, with that in the future. I’m struggling with the timeline, I have to say.



B. T. Kimbrough: Let’s just say that the work will have to proceed, as someone once

famously said, with all due deliberation. Obviously, it will move as fast as it can and no

doubt will be completed well before the next legislative deadline. When I speak of two

years, I am saying that that will be the next time it will have its legislative consequences.

We can only wish that this board had been created 15 years ago.



Duncan Wyse: Thank you, we really appreciate your remarks.



Kimbrough/Rousseau-Rooney: Thank you.







Presentation by Don Dorman, School for the Deaf Board of Directors



Don Dorman: Good afternoon. And um, for the record my name Don Dorman and I am

chairman of the advisory board of directors for the Oregon School for the Deaf here in

Salem.



I thank you for this opportunity to explain to the board why the School for the Deaf board is

appealing the decision of Superintendent Castillo for the co-location of the School for the

Blind on the OSD campus.



And uh, excuse me, I know I won’t use my whole 30 minutes, so you’ll have time for lots of

questions at the end and um, in way of summary, just, uh, I speak for the boards today but

I just want to let you know that I have over 20 years in the profession working with

preschool deaf kids, adult deaf kids, I’ve worked in regional programs, I’ve worked in state

schools, I’ve worked in state schools that were co-located, that were set up that way, in

Arizona. I have a different perspective. I am currently a special ed. director. I’ve worked in





14

regional advisory councils, and have worked on both sides of the fence, as it is, in this, in

delivering services for the deaf and hard of hearing students, being local districts and

regional schools, and state schools as far as placement. And some of the questions and

some of the concerns that have come up are critical that this board understand that

designation because we’re talking about the state schools which is a placement option and a

menu of options for kids that, that cross all those boundaries, the local education district,

the regional programs, the state schools. And, um, part of the questions that I’m hearing

coming up is related to well, why is it so hard to collaborate, why is it so hard to get in

touch with all these stakeholders, why is it so hard to work within a two-year guideline. We

are talking about funding issues and placement issues that cross over a lot of different

boundaries a lot of different players, um, and I’m off-script already. So here we go. I’m

sorry.



It’s the contention of the OSD Board that the decision to locate is premature and that it is

based on insufficient information. It’s premature in that the state schools have not

completed their needs analysis and their five-year plans for the schools, as you’ve started to

hear. And it is also our contention that it is based on insufficient information and that all the

reports that are listed here and additional reports, um, have called for comprehensive and

inclusive uh, process to reinvent services for low-incidence disabilities. They um, my point is

then, how can you know what you need in terms of programs and facilities if you haven’t

really done the work, um, of knowing what is truly needed in this state from the regional

programs, from the local districts, as well as from the kids who are currently served in the

state schools.



A comprehensive review of policies and programs, uh, is paramount, or is the cornerstone

of our five-year plan. I’ve seen within the last year on the board, I’ve seen amazing changes

at the School for the Deaf, I’ve seen the new director taking the school in amazing

directions. The school board has spent the first year just trying to understand the problem,

trying to look for the handles on the elephant as it were, because there’s so much

information out there. This has been studied, started, 15 years ago, and to go through all

that information, about all the different things that people had done, the studies, going

through the condition of the buildings , how the current programs are funded, and the

differences between funding streams for the different programs, regional versus state

schools, is very complex for the board.



This year however, we’ve turn our attention to really trying to organize it into our action

plan we are going to be aligning our plan with the um, ODE’s format for continuous

improvement planning which really outlines what model school should be looking at, to

make sure that it is a quality program and that it is in alignment with those programs you’d

expect to get from any district in our state. I think we will be ready in February to make

some very good recommendations. And I also believe that um, there’s a part of our charge

from the legislature that there’s no way we are going to be able to get to and that involves

getting information from parents and school districts and regional programs about what

their needs are for the state schools. That’s an area that is going to take additional time for

us to incorporate in, over the consequent years of this plan, as we revise that plan.



Um. So, I wanted to speak a little bit about ah, some of the reports, some of the long term

planning that is already happening. I’ll just very quickly highlight a couple of areas in those

reports. The um, our work plan will be focusing on the core services that are provided, the

appropriate design of the facilities to meet those needs, the current and future

demographics of the student populations and of course cost.









15

Operation cost alone is not a sufficient reason for co-location, in that IDEA legislation,

federal legislation, mandates that states and school districts, of course, don’t consider cost

as the only reason for um, making any kind of programmatic decisions. Long term planning,

um, must insure the sustainability of these programs. We don’t want these programs at risk

in another five years or ten years. And I think that its, um, the um, the boards have been

talking a lot about the feasibility of just kind of the drag-and-drop mentality that we can

pick up OSB’s program and just kind of drop it into OSD, um, that may not be what is truly

needed in this state. It may not even be a Salem kind of proposition where the program is

going to be. It may not have the same components or the same grades that are served, or

the same focus. I think that kind of decision has to come out of the, the shareholders and

then of course, um, folded into a comprehensive plan over the next couple of years.



The State Schools Studies report that is in your packet and that Morgan referred to, um,

was talking about the complexity of these issues, and one of the things the reports talks

about is the changing demographics. You might ask why are state school numbers are down

so much. Again, no simple answer. It’s very complex. We’ve increased early intervention

strategies, great increases in technologies like cochlear implants, great new medical and

technology advances, and also regional programs have stepped forward and are providing a

lot more services. However, another underlying facet to demographics is that there has

been a lot of money issued in our state over the last 15 years, it certainly hasn’t captured

the state schools. They haven’t had time or money to do this kind of program planning. In

my, certainly, as longer than I’ve been in the state, and they have had to cut back

programs, they’ve had to, they haven’t had the luxury of doing a lot of forward thinking for

those programs. But the closing the doors on the weekends, for example, limited the access

to a lot of kids in eastern Oregon or kids far down in southern Oregon. Again, if you look

back to the demographics of where the kids are served currently, primarily it’s from

Portland to Salem. Those are the kids who have access to this program. Other kids just

have to kinda make do with regionals. Regional programs themselves are not consistent

across the state. You cannot expect a specific set of programs in eastern Oregon that you

might find up in NW Regional program. So, ODE does retain responsibility for students in

programs but, um, developing uh, developing a strong linkage between schools, regional

programs, and a true continuum of services is one of our primary focuses of the school

boards. The Parrish report was a report that was funded by ODE last year looking

specifically at early intervention programs and um, regional programs across the state. Low-

incidence disabilities, the demographics have changed across the board; vision and hearing

are down, autism, of course, is way up. One of the factors in this whole thing, is that if kids

are not going to state schools, they’ll be back in regional programs, so funding for regional

programs has also been stagnant for the last several bienniums. You can’t really look at the

state schools in this continuum of services without looking at funding, and the ability of our

regional programs. I know that work has also begun, but its another indicator that we really

need to be putting this all together on the table and looking at programmatic themes, and

funding these low-incidence disabilities across the board as part of the same package we

are putting forward. So a direct quote from the State Schools Study is that “policy packages

should reflect community and regional services, they should connect all services in a

planning process.”



So the master plan, um, in the State Schools Study report calls for a master plan to be

developed looking at new models, or models that best serve the needs of both students. Of

course we have to demonstrate fiscal responsibility. We also need to meet the needs of kids

from all across the state. The sale of OSB and the consolidation of both programs in a

different and new location could be considered , um, could be considered, um, that doesn’t

make sense . . . sorry about that. It could be considered. The sale of OSB and the

consolidation of both programs in a new and different location should be considered. It





16

doesn’t necessarily have to be in Salem, for instance. So I guess the um, looking at the

infrastructure for both these schools is the primary reason why we might need two years.

There might also be legislative changes needed for the funding of regional programs or the

funding for state schools and aligning those programs. The state that I was from, Arizona,

was um, they were in alignment. The Parrish report calls for that kind of looking at aligning

programs as well as funding sources, making them consistent from, from different

specialized programs across the state. The uh, the last report, the Innovative Partners

report, I do agree with Mr. Paz, that it does kinda of read like a real estate prospectus, but

the report did reveal the need to understand that the current physical condition of both OSB

and OSD um, is not uh, needs to uh, the current condition of the schools should not drive

the response on in this trust fund for state schools. In other words, if we were to sell one

property and put it in a trust fund for the state schools, the school buildings at OSD are so

old, that that may be a 20, 25 year fix. When most of the buildings, are, you know, were

built in 1948, around that era, it’s still only going to be a 20 or 25 year fix. The state

schools are, our populations, are small populations and we are a um, um, not a program

that often gets the opportunity to do this kind of reflective thinking or to come in front of a

board such as your own, however when you are dealing with so many complex barriers, it’s

only the state superintendent of public instruction or the state board that could actually rise

above this to say that what we need is a more comprehensive plan than even just solving

these issues that are specific to the state schools. We really need to fly the helicopter just a

little bit higher and look at this as an opportunity to look at the delivery system for all kids.



The um, Morgan Allen also had the chance to go to the Idaho School for the Deaf. They are

facing very similar challenges to our state. Adrienne Sexton also went. And they were able

to see a state that had realized the importance, maybe a little too late, of allowing their

communities to be involved in a true collaboration process. The stakeholders had, as I’ve

seen in our boards, there isn’t a rigidity of thinking. There is hope that there’s some

opportunity in this, there’s a realization that in that they are faced with change. There’s the

fiscal realization of the world that we live in, certainly. But um, the stakeholders in Idaho

actually came together and realized that they needed to give us their traditional campuses

and buy a new location, a new site to co-location, to start fresh.



So, in conclusion, um, the legislative charge to the boards really is very clear and we are

charged with systematically measuring the schools’ progress toward meeting objectives. We

are looking at analyzing these changes in student populations and modifying programs and

services to respond to these changes. We are looking at the delivery of state schools’

services to school districts and the plan also is required to honor deaf culture. And um,

these are very specific legislative charges and I am asking the board to consider um, letting

us get this work finished. The completion and comprehensive master plan by the OSD

board, in collaboration with ODE, and the authentic participation of the OSD stakeholders

must be the foundation to change any of the location of either program and more

importantly, the foundation for the delivery of appropriate services to Oregon’s children that

are deaf and hard of hearing. The OSD board requested the State Board of Education

overturn the decision and allow the board to conclude its legislative charge.



Thank you very much.



Wyse: Questions?



Shepherd: Is the OSD board’s report going to be done in February?



Dorman: Yes. We will be done. We are making great strides.









17

Wyse: So my question, just to make sure I’m following you. You are taking a look at the

whole delivery system, both the regional and the state, and I’m not going to try to put

words in your mouth, but you might conclude a very different delivery model that might

suggest a larger or smaller footprint in Salem, is that what you’re suggesting?



Dorman: Well, um. We’re saying that, when just looking at our legislative charge, it’s

almost impossible to complete that without understanding how we fit into the whole state

system. And I know that there is movement under foot, Nancy Latini has begun to look at

low incidence population service models through regional programs. It’s kind of hand and

foot. Both movements are underway right now. We’re saying that the School for the Deaf

Advisory Board and the School for the Blind Advisory Board should at the very least, be part

of that discussion about the whole statewide delivery model for low-incidence disabilities.



Wyse: OK. To make sure I’m following, and that might result in a very different function and

program and size of program in Salem. Is that what you’re suggesting? And at this point,

you don’t know what that would look like?



Dorman: The um, the regional delivery model, any kind of change in that model could make

all kinds of implications one way or the other. Or closing the state schools, could make, in

the other direction, make waves. Anything that happens with one program is going to affect

the other. So we’re asking also for the opportunity to be part of that collaboration.



Wyse: Questions? Thank you.



So our process here, I believe we have five minutes for rebuttal. And I guess, Morgan,

would you like to begin?



REBUTTALS



Morgan Allen: Thank you Mr. Chair. Again, for the record, Morgan Allen with the Department

of Education. And, I’m actually pretty encouraged by what I heard here today. The amazing

thing is that both the department and the superintendent, and both of these boards—we’re

talking a lot about the same things. We’re talking about planning, and comprehensive plans,

and stakeholder involvement, and feasibility studies, and how do we accommodate growth,

and how can we improve these schools and these programs. We’re talking a lot about the

same things, which is very encouraging to me. Um, but of course, we come to different

conclusions about what we need to do in the face of these questions.



I just wanted to talk about, I wanted to clarify a couple of things. I wanted to talk a little

about the idea of the developer-led team. You know, with the report, the Innovation

Partnerships report, when they talk about a developer-led team, what they’re really talking

about is we need to get experts together, I mean, not like my brother-in-law who’s a

construction guy and a developer, but we need those people, but we’re going to need a

team that knows how to bring the stakeholders together, and have the expertise in

designing and building schools. So, I mean, it’s going to be a very specific thing. It’s not

going to be one person, it’s going to be a continuum or group of people doing that. And

that’s just an important thing I want to assure you, it’s not my hardhat brother-in-law that’s

going to build the schools. It’s going to be the right group of stakeholders doing that.



I just want to make it very clear to the board what we’re planning, what the

superintendent’s planning on doing based on your decision. We talked about we’ve got

these two legislative concepts. If the board agrees with co-location, we’re going to foward to

the legislature and try to get that bill passed that creates that trust fund and move forward





18

with co-location. If the board says no, co-location, we don’t agree with that, we’re going to

not bring that bill forward, and we’re going to bring forward a bill asking for a General Fund

appropriate to address some of the seismic and other needs. You’ll see in the OTAC

Executive Summary, that there’s some estimates in there for costs for bringing both

campuses up to code, or just seismic, or just dealing ADA, so there’s a range of costs so we

can look at that and sort of prioritize based on their recommendations. And that report

recommends, at a minimum, you need to start doing the seismic work in the dorms and

where kids learn on a daily basis.



Um, I guess the last thing I’d say is, you know, I want this board to consider is, if you do

say no, and agree to delay, I mean we’re looking at another two years, now we’re looking at

a minimum of five years before anything happens, and you know, what then? What are

these schools going to be like in five years, or six years if nothing happens? Again, with all

due respect to the governor and the legislature, they are in a tough, tough spot this coming

biennium. There’s going to be no money to do anything to help these schools out. There will

just not be money. And we’ve already talked about there are constitutional barriers to using

state General Obligation fund bonds. So even if Senator Courtney and his folks put together

a package of General Obligation bonds to start addressing seismic needs around the state,

those schools can’t be part of that. So, we have to ask the question, what are we going to

do? We need to give some attention to this right now. So I think, I would just hope that you

would consider those things for the urgency of the need to move forward, and you know,

again, I’ll just repeat, you know, I think we’re working well with the boards. And again, I

think we’re encouraged with the boards, ‘cause I think we’re a lot talking about the some

same things. We’re talking about sort of looking at these programs and figure out what’s

best for the students. And I know that that’s what everybody wants. That’s what the

superintendent wants, and I know that’s what both the boards want. And ultimately, again,

we believe that co-location is the best way to get there, in the most timeliest manner

possible. So, with that, I can answer any questions that folks have.



Wyse: Yes, Rob.



Rob Saxton (board advisor): I may be asking more than what’s fair, but can you tell me, or

can you give me an idea, what legislative intent was in setting up the two boards in 2007?



Morgan Allen: I think you know, um, legislative intent, uh, is a question that’s always

asked, and ultimately, there’s a legal answer to what is legislative intent, and it’s what is in

the actual bill. It’s not what may have been said or what I thought the bill meant, or what

one legislator thought versus another legislator. It’s what the bill says. And what 2263,

which created the these advisory boards does, it tells them, its what they’re talking about—

the master plan, review the programs, work with the legislature, report back to Ways and

Means, get information from the department, do these evaluations, but ultimately, as I’ve

said earlier, the buck stops with Superintendent Castillo. That’s not changed. The

department is still responsible for the operation, safety, and well-being and education of

those students. The boards do not have that charge. As a matter of fact, they have two

specific charges and two specific rights: they can appeal any decision to co-locate, and they

can appeal Superintendent Castillo’s decision on hiring either director for either campus.

Those are the two specific rights they have, and then they have this charge, and again, you

know, the legislature, did not change the fundamental charge of who’s in charge of the

schools and who’s in charge of those kids. And that’s what we have to look at, what’s best

for those kids, and that’s ultimately why we think co-location is the best way to go.



Chair Wyse: Nikki?









19

Nikki Squire: Um, I don’t know if you are the right person to ask this question of, Morgan,

but can be. The master planning charge—does that include a general operational structure

for the school or schools? Or just the idea of the physical concerns?



Morgan Allen: I think, you know, um, with due respect to Mr. Kimbrough, I think we’re

mixing the master plan terms and talking about, perhaps, about two different things. I

think, um, in my opinion, the legislative charge to create a master plan for the schools, a

five-year plan, it’s talking about programs, and delivery models, and evaluating all of these

things that are going on. And if you look at say, the Innovation Partnership report, when

they’re talking about master plan, they’re talking about the actual plan of how do you co-

locate the schools and make it happen. So it’s a little bit of mixture of terminology. Um, you

know, but it’s understandable. So.



Chair Wyse: So how do you (inaudible). Let’s just take a hypothetical. The master plans, as

the legislature defines it, comes up, the two boards do their work, and includes a very

different model than Salem, that would be better. . .regional . . . I’m making this up, I don’t

know what they might conclude. It would then move the specs, the design specs very

differently from say, co-location, how do you respond to that?



Morgan Allen: Why I think I’ll respond in a couple ways. First of all, I haven’t heard,

respectfully again to the boards, I haven’t heard anything other than co-location is not the

way to go. And again, we haven’t heard—and I know they are still working on their plans—

but we haven’t heard, and they are three months away, we haven’t heard , and you know,

we’re talking co-location now, we haven’t seen or heard any alternatives put forward. And

again, we’d look at those and consider those, but I think the question is, what else could

you do? If you look at the OTAC report that we just got, that sort of looks at what it’s going

to cost, it’s going to be prohibitively expensive to even, I mean, we haven’t asked for a

value of what the property for OSD is, but if you look in the OTAC report, to build a

comparable school, and again, these are just estimates, and if you rebuilt OSB today, as it

is, same square footage, and purposes, and if you rebuilt OSD, bulldozed it and rebuilt it,

the same configuration, the same square foot, it would be $35 million just for OSB and over

$100 million for OSD. So, I mean, we’re looking at tens and tens of millions of dollars. For

example, if they came back and maybe said what we need to do, these buildings are all so

old, and we need to just, you know, find some land somewhere and build new, I think that

that’s absolutely cost prohibitive. If the legislature is not going to be able to come with five

or ten or fifteen or twenty million dollars to begin to address seismic updates, there’s no

way they are going to be able to come with $40 or $50 or $80 million dollars to build a

brand new school. I just don’t see it happening, especially when you consider the high cost

per student, the declining enrollments, I mean, we agree. These are low-incidence

populations, and I don’t see any evidence there’s going to be a big uptick in the number of

kids wanting to attend these schools and we heard about the weekend programs and that

may be some reason that kids aren’t coming but if you look at the enrollments at OSD, it

didn’t seem to have a very big impact on them. I mean, they have gone down a little bit,

but not near as much as they have at OSB, so, you know, I’m not sure that that’s a factor in

decreasing enrollment at OSD. It’s a low incidence population, so who knows, but I hope

that kinda answers your question.



Art Paz: Yeah, I have a question, and you may have answered part of it, anyway, uh, I

haven’t heard anybody talking about just selling both pieces of property and then

consolidating and coming up with a smaller footprint and coming up with something that is

much more sensitive to the present conditions that also talk about a delivery system that is

statewide, regional, and local. You very, very quickly dismiss that, indirectly, with this

“prohibitive amount that it would cost.” I, I just don’t know how to wrap my head around





20

some of the expressions. Even looking at the DOGAMI um, issue on seismic, um, I’m

familiar with some of those things, and for them to talk about imminent collapse of a two-

story, wood-frame building, that has incredible redundancy on the inside, has landscaping

around the outside, is unreinforced brick on the exterior, which is very dangerous, but I

don’t see a lot of sidewalk, or public use next to the building, so I just think we need to take

another step in some of the expressions in the evaluation. And I’m not ready to accept a

rapid visual survey as the basis for making such critical decisions. And, and , and on the one

building where they talk about top stories, and the concrete components and the geometry

and the height—I totally agree with that. But the administrative building for me, again, was

insightful, because I thought the generalization distorts the reality of what’s there. So I’m

looking at, if you sell both campuses, does that better suit, as an investment, the long term

sustainability of both these programs. And I don’t know if I have enough information at this

point to really make that . . .



Morgan Allen: The good news is that I’ll be leaving you a copy of this 300 plus-page report

by OTAC, and they had structural engineers go out and do the seismic evaluations and so

there’s pages and pages for each building explaining that, that is much more in-depth than

the work that DOGAMI did, that is much more detailed, and sort of goes beyond the, the

rapid visual assessments that DOGAMI . . . And again, the DOGAMI folks are not structural

engineers, which is why we wanted actual structural engineers to go up there and look at

that. So I think there’s going to be some good information in there that will answer a lot of

your questions. It will help you understand that. I read it, and I’m like, sounds not so good,

but someone with your expertise will probably read it and get a whole different

understanding than I would. And so . . .



Chair Wyse: Thank you. Um. Alright. Let’s see. The School for the Blind, uh, Ms. Rouseau-

Rooney and Mr. Kimbrough? Welcome Back.



B. T. Kimbrough: Thank you.



Elizabeth Rouseau-Rooney: I believe that Mr. Kimbrough has some comments as well, but

one of the things I wanted to leave with you because it was expressed that there wasn’t

really a whole lot of vision shared of programs possibilities, what we could do with the

schools, and there are a lot of possibilities as we look at interfacing and incorporating

regional programs, creating a model school, for training teachers for working in early

intervention programs, and incorporating parents, and doing weekend programs—there’s a

whole lot of things that we didn’t share with you that would be possibilities for not only

increasing the population and impact the school, and also the fact that it is an historic site

and there are possibilities of preserving it in that sense and gaining funds. I’m clearly, you

know, a financial genius or work in construction, but I believe there are a lot of possibilities

and I think if we are allowed to uh, pursue the charge that we’ve been given, um, that we

can make an incredible school.



B. T. Kimbrough: Mr. Chairman, members of the board, just a brief summary. The same

legislative bill that created this board and the Oregon School for the Deaf board, also

created this appeals process. And we appreciate the opportunity to take part in it, although,

as we’ve said, it took us off focus a little bit, it is a tremendously positive exercise for us

and we’ve appreciated the opportunity to bring these things to your attention. Somehow it

seems in the wisdom of the legislature, that they understood that when this decision was

made, that these boards might feel that if it was subject to appeal that we sincerely believe

that this is a premature decision. Tremendous amounts of money will be spent in the co-

location process. I heard earlier this afternoon that this subject’s been under discussion for

15 years, but if it’s been talked about for 15 years, and there’s no master plan in place, no





21

matter how you define it, then it’s high time there was one. And we believe that the

formation of the master plan that we’re working on would help inform the superintendent in

ways that might very well make what money gets spent, when the money is spent, more

effective. There has been talk of drag-and-drop. The principle of taking services that are on

one campus now and bringing them intact to another, but certainly, the services that are in

place on the campuses have something to do with how the campuses have grown up and

are configured. And it’s almost certain that some of those needs will change. And the lack of

opportunity, the plan, before the decision is made, is a missed opportunity. So we hope that

we will have the opportunity to finish our job and that the results of the plan will have an

effect on a later decision when it’s made. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak

to you.



Chair Wyse: Thank you very much. Any further questions? Thank you, so much. Mr.

Dorman?



Don Dorman: Um, just as some closing notes for you, the uh, Morgan was talking about,

that he hadn’t heard that co-location was not the way to go, well, I guess I wasn’t clear

enough that co-location, you know, will probably be the way to go, but it would be totally

inappropriate for me to speculate what that program might look like. That should be done

with a group, with a large group of people, in a visioning process. So it’s, I will report that

discussions that our board has been very open-minded and they’ve included all kinds and

range of different scenarios. Second thing is that there was a question about the DOGAMI

report, um, and when we wrote this appeal in June, we were just appealing based on the

information that we had in June. The DOGAMI report is pretty recent, so we weren’t able to

incorporate that into our appeal at that time. Another thing that I’d like to mention is that

ODE had listed six points, really, six points for this co-location, and by my count, it’s really

three. Because decreased enrollment, and also, 7 percent of visually-impaired are both

enrollment issues. The aging buildings and the state resources being served are kinda the

same thing, comment, too, and the cost per student plus the cost savings based on

consolidation are basically the same cost configuration. So you’re really down to cost,

demographics, and uh, cost, demographics, and uh, and savings. And what I would say is

that without ODE’s direct participation in the process, we still haven’t had authentic

participation in redefining these schools. So, um, those are my closing comments.



Chair Wyse: Questions? Thank you very much.



Don Dorman: Thank you.



Chair Wyse: I want to thank all the parties for excellent presentations. I’ve learned a lot and

I think my fellow board members have as well.



Cindy Hunt: So now you’ve heard from all of the sides on the issue, do you need any further

information from staff or either of the boards um, so you can make your decision in

December?



Jerry Berger: I haven’t asked any questions, but I’m the one member of the board that

served on the, I forget the title, the state schools’ committee. So I was involved as a board

member, reviewing the deaf school, the blind school, and that combination and there was a

wealth of discussion regarding the closing both schools, keep both schools as they are, co-

locate, with tons of discussion regarding it . I think the one thing that I found out, first I

found out a lot of what I didn’t know, which is always good for me, but there has been

population changes in those schools. Probably more with the blind school than the deaf

school, regarding population. Which is what the curriculum content is, the students being





22

served, etcetera, etcetera. And the question I have, and this is the struggle I have with

what decision we come up to, we probably can’t keep going the way we are. And I live in

Salem. I’ve lived in Salem for 37 years, and we have some great examples of uh, the facility

on Center Street, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, we have that as a great example of

people knowing that it isn’t working, knowing it was inadequate, and never doing anything

about it. It’s the perfect example. If you read the Statesman-Journal, all kinds of things that

people knew something should occur, but no one says that something needs to occur until

it’s at a crisis point. That’s what I’m struggling with regarding the superintendent’s

recommendation and the people who have presented, is what gets us going someplace. And

I think that state superintendent Norma Paulus took action, at some time, took to the

legislature some changes and that was, you know . . . so the question mark is, and the

master plans, and I guess this is a question I have of the master planners, is are the master

planners having any kind of conversation between the two schools regarding co-location? Or

is it only just looking at the schools as they are? Is there any response to that?



Hunt: So . . .



Jerry Berger: The question mark is, it’s one thing to take a look at the School for the Deaf,

and only look at that need, and it’s one thing to look at the School for the Blind and only

look at that need, and the question I think we’ve had problems with, is how do you, with

regional things, with things that are happening regionally, etcetera, and is that discussion

happening anyplace now with the present studies we have going on?



Cindy Hunt: Director Berger, is your question are the two special schools’ boards meeting

together to look at the plans for both schools?



Jerry Berger: It’s probably a rhetorical question. I think the struggle is you have, is you

have the school exists as it is, and what should happen? And you have regional programs

for many of the, not the same students, and we have a difficulty in dealing with those tough

issues that we never have discussions of looking at what’s available for students throughout

the state, what’s the best delivery mechanism, what’s the best bang for the dollar, and I

know that you can’t just do it by dollars, but states have to live within a budget; federal

government does not have to live within a budget, and we’ve discovered the implication of

that, uh, but the state of Oregon has to balance. And the question mark the committee

struggled with greatly, was the fact that, it just can’t be the same. So what the

superintendent has done is come up with (is) co-location and that’s what I think we’re

wrestling with is co-location and both schools are going to exist. The risk one might have, if

you don’t co-locate and go, is maybe that one of the schools won’t exist. It might be gone,

once you get into budget realities. And that’s I’m struggling with, regarding what you do.

How do you get movement? Because even if we uphold the superintendent, there’s going to

have to be tons of input regarding . . . even the question of co-location will probably—I hate

to say this—be reviewed, once you start getting into details. Does that really work, does it

not work? Does not following the superintendent’s recommendation just kind of put us,

here’s where we are, and we might get some kind of master plan, and I have too much

knowledge—I don’t have too much knowledge—but I’ve had discussions regarding, hours of

discussion regarding this and I think the committee ended up with giving probably some of

the best recommendations under the circumstances, realizing that not everything has been

decided. Maybe I’m not making much sense, there. How do you mesh this, when you look

at what Rob’s doing, what local school districts are doing? We’ve had that discussion, taking

all the money that goes to these schools and putting it out regionally. And that could be the

model. Now obviously, the School for the Deaf, School for the Blind, doesn’t like that at all,

because that would be a loss of history, all of that type of thing, but that was discussed very

openly in the committee and the committee decided no, we wanted to have both schools,





23

this is a consensus, and the only way that’s possible is you’d better co-locate, you’d better

make it work, or you might, or you’ve got other risks out there.



Nikki Squire: Yeah, well, a couple of things. I want to ask the question about what the

review entailed. And I, you know, and I certainly agree with Jerry’s observation that there’s

a great risk if something isn’t done here . . the crisis point is here . . . uh, but one of the

concerns that I have is whether the schools are co-located, separately located, this staffing

ratio is unsustainable. And I think it is indefensible. Uh, having managed a school district

that housed a regional program for the hearing impaired, along with everything else, when I

look at the level of management staffing to students, let alone the overall staff level to

student, and I haven’t heard any discussion about whether or not that is being reviewed.

And I think that’s the elephant in the room. For somebody to suggest that they haven’t had

the quote, luxury to plan, there isn’t a special ed program at a regional ESD or a local

school district, that has anything close to this level of staffing. Now I don’t know if that—I’m

not saying that the hearing-impaired kids and the kids who are, are blind are not in need of

very intense staffing levels for their teaching and instruction. But somebody needs to call

the trick on what these costs are, here. Whether that’s been a matter of inertia, whether

there’s any reason for this tremendously disproportionate level of staffing for these

particular populations, as opposed to special populations that are being served in the

regional programs of the local school districts. I certainly haven’t heard anybody articulate

it. So I think that—this isn’t a statement about whether I will support the superintendent’s

recommendation or not—but I think that whatever happens here, unless that operational

piece is addressed, in a really responsible, thoughtful way, uh, then, we’re not really going

to solve the cost problem, long term at all. We’re going to be right back where we are. So,

um, that’s one of the observations. I think that we’re also presented with what I consider to

be something of a dilemma, and I think it probably has to do with timing. We had a

committee that worked for a long time. Jerry was on it. They had a lot of participation. They

came up with recommendations. Susan and her staff have worked very hard on this, they

came up with a recommendation. And then some time, after the first process started, these

two boards were created and given a charge by the legislature. So if I’m having to struggle

right now with the recommendation it’s how to fit those pieces together, because we’ve got

people with very good intentions and really legitimate charges, that have been given, you

know, what might be kind of a conflicting mission. I think that Morgan’s comments about

the planning process that must take place, um, regardless of what the decision is today, you

know, helps with that a little bit. That’s still a little confounding.



Chair Wyse: Art?



Art Paz: To get to Jerry’s point, I think that it is right on, and Nikki, as well. Operating costs

when I look at $66 thousand dollars and a $143 thousand dollars per student, depending on

the school you’re looking at, that’s pretty high. Um, when I look at planning and co-location,

if the individual schools and their boards are not thinking of co-location, and articulating

that, then they need to do that. If they are not willing to establish a committee that has a

blended board membership that deals with the co-location activity, that’s very important

because I think, that for me, by default, I’m backed into a corner, and I can’t look into what

you really need and therefore, I have to look at almost an operational decision that deals

with this extraordinary cost, the declining student count, and a legislature that is hard

pressed for coming up with dollars to support innovative, creative programs. I need some

help. Right now, I feel like I’m being backed into a no-option corner. So, that programmatic

statement of who you are, who you need to be in the future, and how you serve your

population, is very important. And, and, have conversations together. Because we’ve talked

about collaboration and partnerships, you need to partner together. And also, I feel that

there are other partners, because the whole real estate thing, I don’t think, has really been





24

explored. It has been explored from a monocultural, kind of single strategy, and it’s to co-

locate, this is the largest site, this is where you’ll get the biggest bang for the buck on this

other site, because there’s an adjacent hospital and university that might be interested. I

think it’s just too fast. It’s not been rigorous enough to show insightful implications. The

nuances of how you need to move into the future, I don’t think have been articulated by

people that have provided evidence to the superintendent, at this point. So help me, and if

I’m looking at the OTAC’s 200-page report, I want to see a statement from you, before the

12th, that helps me to see more carefully how you see the future of your programs in this

state.



Chair Wyse: Leslie?



Leslie Shepherd: A little conciliatory remarks. First, it seems to me like regardless of this

board’s decision, that legislation ought to be drafted to establish a trust fund for the sale of

the property, for whatever reason. So that at some point, something’s going to need to be

done, and money is going to need to be available to do that. I’m not sure what the process

is for them to, to establish a trust fund. It might sit empty for a few years, but it would be

done. Secondly, um, perhaps, as Morgan said, we should then also ask for money to do the

seismic and safety upgrades to those . . . Again, regardless of the decision that this board

makes, there are some safety issues that need to be addressed. And as well, uh, can we

take simultaneous paths so that, that will allow the schools to complete their master plans

and for us to continue looking toward a bigger solution. It doesn’t seem like we have to do

one and then the other, when we’ll be asking for the stakeholders to respond to whatever

we do, anyway. And maybe that can be done simultaneously. And one more thing? Does

this board’s decision. . . .are we required to make that at the December meeting? Or would

it behoove us to do a special meeting sooner or after that depending on . . .just depending

on . . . ?



Cindy Hunt: The reason we’ve selected the December meeting was that the . . . we have

until December 15 to introduce the legislation; so that’s why. And so, obviously, if the board

were to overturn the superintendent, we would not introduce the legislation. If you were to

uphold, we would, and if it was somewhere in the middle, we would react to that. As far as

having a special meeting, like in between, or something like that, that would be a decision

of this board, to do that.



Leslie Shepherd: I would just appreciate a lot more discussion, then we have time for,

today.



Cindy Hunt: Another option that you have in December would be to have more discussion

on Thursday and then the decision on Friday. That would be an option that you could

explore, as well.



Art Paz: A comment, because I’m hearing that there’s some really good recommendations

Leslie’s made. The funding trust fund, I think, is fundamental, that’s uh, uh, a great idea.

I’m not certain that I would support a seismic upgrade investment, at this point. Because

once we go through this master planning, we may find that out that we are (inaudible) a

dead horse. That that wasn’t the way we should have gone. So I need more information

before I would OK a seismic investment. Because right now, you might vacate that building

and relocate into one of the other spaces, that you’ve got two other occupants in, and be

able to invest much less, not have a seismic investment, and just have an interior

decoration or partitioning investment and that buys you the planning time to do the other

plan. So, I’m just not sure . . .









25

Chair Wyse: So,



Jerry Berger: I heard two things, and maybe (untelligible) two options the superintendent

was considering. One is co-locate, or . . .trust fund. Tell me what were the two things you

said?



Wyse: Sure. Come on up.



Morgan Allen: Mr. Chair, again for the record, Morgan Allen, Department of Education. What

we’ve talked about today and what we communicated to the OSB and OSD boards, I

actually have copies of the legislation, if you’d like me to pass it around, the draft

legislation, they’re not in bill form yet, but, but, the first thing is, if the board says we

agree, co-location is the best path, we still have to, we have this policy barrier, that we

can’t keep any money from the sale of OSB, it goes directly back into the General Fund, so

what we have is what we call the trust fund bill. And so, the proceeds would go into that

and then we could protect that and it could only be used for the co-location or upgrades. If

the board disagrees with the superintendent, and says co-location is not a good idea, we

have a blank General Fund appropriation bill; we’ll use the OTAC report and talk to the

boards and say, OK, we’ve got this report that says here are the problems, ADA, seismic,

and other things. What are the priorities we need to go ask the legislature for this session.

Do we need to go ask for $15 million dollars to seismic upgrade the dorms, and ADA the

school buildings. I mean, that’s something we’d need to work on, but that’s our only other

option. Those are our two options.



Jerry Berger: The point is, you go to the second option, the ramification might be, maybe

we’d better close both schools because of the cost factor, and what that might be. So really,

it’s a decision that we’re struggling with regarding what’s best for students, which I think all

of us want, what’s best for students. Who’s the population we’re serving, and you’ve got

regional programs, you’ve got these programs, etcetera. Because seismic is not just a

problem with these two schools. Seismic is a problem for many, many, many schools in this

state, regarding safety, etcetera. And I think I’ve heard, Peter Courtney’s talking about 500

. . . it’s millions of dollars. So, in some ways I worry about this, and actually when you are

in there 24 hours a day, it’s a little different, too, when you have dorms, I can understand

that. Seismic is not just a problem of the two state schools. I think, I think what I’m

struggling with is what action do we take, or what action of the superintendent, what best

ensures that we get some place, instead of we just wallow in . . . Because this has been

discussed before. Maybe not well, maybe I’d like to find too bad we didn’t have the boards

15 years ago. Too bad the decision wasn’t made 15 years ago.



Chair Wyse: So, what I’m hearing is, I think, what my sense of the board is, one is, I think

we’ve heard from everyone today, is that current conditions, for a couple of reasons, are

not sustainable. One, the costs are way too high, we’ve got huge maintenance needs, and

we’ve got safety needs. So where we’re at right now, isn’t going to. . . we’ve got to do

something in this area. The superintendent’s made a proposal, so how do we address it, but

I think I’ve heard from the parties. I think it’s great news that everybody’s thinking deeply,

not just about this move but the students and the best way to serve them. And what I’m

hearing from the two boards is that they at pretty bold and potentially radical change. And

to Jerry’s point, I mean, um, you know, it’s not clear to me, if out of that change you’d have

two schools in Salem, in the end. I mean, it might be that the best delivery model is more

regional. I don’t know. This is not an area I’m familiar with and that provided, if that were

the result, um, then, you know, closing them is an extreme example, then co-location is not

an issue, because we don’t have the schools, in the long run, that’s where your work goes.

So I guess, Cindy, my concern is we’ve got to make a decision, we’ve got to help the





26

legislature, the superintendent needs to help the legislature, it’s going to be a huge budget

issue, and so I’m wondering if, if for the December meeting, we could look at, certainly we

could make a decision on the superintendent’s option up or down, but we might want to

think about an option that would give the superintendent even greater authority to create

trusts, if, if different options emerge from the parties, um, with the understanding that we

are not, we cannot, um, we can’t just go ahead with another biennium and not do anything.

We’ve got to have the superintendent, the superintendent needs the authority to make

decisions to move along the plans and I guess I’m wondering if there’s a third option,

maybe perhaps that gives her greater authority to innovate with the resources available to

her, as these, as these master plans come through. And I’m exploring that on the fly, but I

guess when you ask what additional information, I’m wondering if there might be another

option. And Nikki, I don’t . . .



Nikki Squire: I think, I think it’s related to what you’re talking about, but one of the things I

wondered about, is because I agree with Leslie. Because it seems to me that the legislation

to create a trust fund is an important piece, regardless—



Chair Wyse: Yes



Nikki Squire: . . . of what the current decision is now. And I’m wondering if it needs to be

limited to the sale of the School for the Blind. . .



Chair Wyse: That’s exactly where I’m going . . .



Nikki Squire: Say, for example, let’s go with the notion that co-location was going to be

approved, but the site was left open-ended and allowed the planning process to go forward,

and what came out of that was some other kind of co-location, uh, co-location at a third

site, and both of these being sold. A co-location program in several regions . . . something

like that, then why wouldn’t we want to have a trust fund set up for, to pay for that, for

whatever might emerge, uh, regardless of whether it (inaudible) or two?



Chair Wyse: Yes, and that’s what, and that’s what I kind of, could we bring additional

options next time and again, like Cindy I’m . . .



Cindy Hunt: Yeah, I’m, Chair Wyse, I asked Morgan for the bill drafts specifically, because I

think it’s a little broader than what was discussed today.



Chair Wyse: OK.



Cindy Hunt: From what you were discussing, although Jan, if you could help me out, and

what the draft does, it does do the trust fund, and it does very specifically specify that

monies that the State Board of Education specifically receive and hold from the property be

deposited into the trust fund and then the trust fund must be used for these special schools.

But it is not as specific as money from the sale of OSB, only.



Chair Wyse: OK



Cindy Hunt: It does allow for a lot of the, I don’t know, the options you’ve been discussing

today.



Chair Wyse: Jerry?









27

Jerry Berger: As a member of the State Schools Study Committee, the concept here was

probably the one consensus the committee had. We shouldn’t make $15 million dollars on

the property and it goes into the General Fund, and then go out and spend $6 million dollars

on those services. That was never the intent, that was one thing the study committee

agreed upon, so that this legislation, to me, makes a lot of sense. When you start looking at

the details of co-location, you’re going to run into all kinds of questions regarding all kinds

of things. And it may bring us to a different point. I think that’s the beauty of, er, whatever

you run into. We’ll have two reports by that time. But we can’t just punt on everything and

wait, we have to be looking at what are we doing for this delivery system, for students.



Chair Wyse: Um Hmm. (agreement) Well, so maybe, in trying to get a sense of the board,

maybe things, Cindy, next time, is having a path, assuming the path, of, of, going with a bill

like this, how do we take the really good input from those two boards as Susan and Morgan

will do, to make sure we’ve got respectfully listening, I think I’m very impressed by the

level of interest, concern, and innovation, from both boards, and taking a hard look at the

delivery system, and then using that information as we move forward, in deciding,

ultimately, the design of whatever facilities we need in Salem, um, I just think we need to

have that in mind, um, because that will be a critical piece of the decision. How do we make

sure we get the best insights, and I think, to me, giving the superintendent ultimately a

great deal of flexibility, as this, this work occurs, as we learn more, about what’s (inaudible)

so let’s (inaudible) . . .



Susan Castillo: Is it OK if I just address your question Nikki raised, about sort of, about the

confusion about the work that Jerry served on had and the recommendation and now we

have these two boards. We very much appreciate that these two boards exist and we see

that they have contributed very very importantly to the work, and um, the decisions, uh,

that are happening for these two special schools and are helping us make better decisions

about serving those children in those programs. So we are very supportive. I mean, I don’t

know if all of you are aware, but when the legislature passed the bill, we said yes, we think

the boards are a good idea, here’s what we need in funding to adequately support them and

help them function. We did not get funding for the boards. So we were still committed to

the board work and we figured out how to cut the resources in parts of the agency so that

we could support them and make sure that they’re functioning in the best possible way to

do their work, because we do believe that there’s a very important role for them to play. We

do see them as great partners and appreciate what they, what they’re doing. So absolutely,

as we move forward, on how we are going to address the challenges, that we all face, we’re

all in this together, on these schools, we absolutely see the work that they are doing in

these master plans and their great advice to all of us is going to be a real important part of

that work. So it is a bit confusing when you look at how we’ve gotten to where we are, but

we do believe that it’s really great and, and, we support the work of the board.



Jerry Berger: Duncan?



Chair Wyse: Yes, Jerry?



Jerry Berger: Serving on the Study Committee, and all that, the face validity, of we have

two new boards, that are doing master plans, and they’re giving us input, and we make the

co-location question before they give us their input. The face validity is, it looks like we’re

not following the process. If we just take those steps. It looks like we’re not following the

process. And I know, Susan, that you followed the process, but you take that from an

emotional thing, you’ve got a board, and that board descends upon the Capitol, that they

didn’t even wait a month and a half for a co-location question, because when are those

reports due? When?





28

Many voices: February 1st.



Jerry Berger: February 1st. That’s problematic to me, because I’m, I’m looking, I live in

Salem. (incomprehensive) oh yeah, we want to listen to them. So there’s that question

mark, it’s that, if any monies are made concept, it stays with those schools. Or those

students, not schools. Those students, because that’s so it isn’t a windfall for somebody.

That concept I buy. The, the tough one is the emotional appeal of poor me, legislature, you

did it, now the state superintendent and state board doesn’t even wait another month to

hear from us, that’s problematic from a emotional, what-are-we-doing thing. So we could,

I’m just saying, what are the options for that one month then because we could go with

something like this. Which could be moving, we’re moving to do something. And I don’t

know if I’m making any sense at all, I’m I’m looking at local newspapers . . .



Nikki Squire: You’re making sense to me. I hear you saying that if we go ahead and agree

that we want this legislation dropped, then is the December date the drop dead date on the

other one. I heard you say earlier, Cindy, that the reason the December date had been

chosen was there was a December 15 deadline for introducing a bill. And if we agree as a

board, that this trust fund is the right thing to do, regardless, then do we have some way to

make our final decision on the co-location recommendation, after the two advisory boards

have had an opportunity to complete their work. Would that, would that, what kind of

problems would that create?



Cindy Hunt: You could, I mean, part of your authority is to modify the decision of the

superintendent. And so, you could choose to say this piece of legislation is important to

move forward. But, you know, the reality too, on the legislative process is that even though

the legislature starts in January, especially, we know how controversial this subject is.

They’re not going to decide this in January. OK? I mean . . . Yeah. It’s not going to be until,

I don’t know, June. Something like that. So, even if this legislation is introduced, it’s not

going to be decided in January before the master plan is presented. I mean, part of the

discussion is going to happen, all of it is going to happen, after February 1, after this bill,

after the master plan, after the decision to co-locate. Um, and so, uh, I guess, I mean, part

of the timing of this is the fact that the legislature comes in in January. And the deadline of

December 15 is what was established for state agencies to introduce legislation. So in

bringing forth the decision, we try to give you, you know, at least, you know, four months

to talk about this before December which was, I think, the most amount of time we could

have given you.



Chair Wyse: No, good process, I think, and we’re a little over time, so my suggestion is um,

Jerry has been a leader on this for some time, and I would ask him to take the lead on

coming back, working with Cindy, and come back with some options for us next time and I

think we would want two days, um you know, a discussion day and then a decision day, so

we could really work through it. And Jerry, if you wouldn’t mind do that,



Jerry Berger: And when you say Cindy you are also talking about the state superintendent.



Chair Wyse: Well, no, just Cindy because again, to be respectful of the process, we are

reviewing her decision, and these are the people chosen to help us, Cindy and Jan, and are

helping us, and again, with respect for all parties, we want to be very fair, um, I think that’s

the way, and again, I, I, I, I think we all sense there’s a range of choices that we might,

including this whole question of the timing of the decision. I’m sensing a pretty strong

interest in going ahead with the legislation in any event, and if that’s true, then we may









29

want to delay the final decision. I don’t know. But I think we don’t need to decide that now.

I’m putting you on the spot, Jerry, but if you’re willing to help us think through this . . .



Jerry Berger: I’d be willing to brainstorm with Cindy and with Jan’s help, to see where we

are and to (inaudible)



Chair Wyse: OK.



Art Paz: I’d like to join with him.



Chair Wyse: Sure. OK. That’s great, and again, I’ll—what I’m really asking, that’s great, Art,

you’re on, and again, what we want from this committee is just options. You understand

where we are. What are our choices, in terms of how to move forward. And I think we’ve

had a rich discussion, including how we move forward, you know, with the two boards and

their own processes, so we can make the right decision for the kids in Oregon.



Leslie Shepherd: Just a process check, then, is today just the hearing then, we’re not to

make any motions.



Chair Wyse: No. No. This is just a hearing. Yeah, yeah. I want to be clear. That this whole .

. . and I want to thank Jan and Cindy for you know, we had the tour, we’ve had the hearing

today, and this is definitely not for a decision today , but we’ll come back, but what Cindy

wanted was a sense of direction in terms of options and I think we’ve done that. So we’ll

have plenty of opportunity for more discussion.



Jerry Berger: I could ask board members that Cindy would be the contact person regarding

your . . .because we aren’t going to be meeting as a board. She’ll just be giving us some

ideas. I think that that would be, for the other people in the audience, Cindy is the contact

person.



Cindy Hunt: And what, for the people in the audience, too, if Director Berger, Director Paz,

who I’ll be working with, if they have additional questions that they need to ask this special

board, then I will be forwarding those to you. Or that they need to ask to Morgan Allen

based on his report, or the superintendent, or whoever you need information from.



Chair Wyse: If you’ve got a question from the audience, go ahead.



Unidentified audience member: Perhaps this is presumptious, but it would be highly

irregular for one of the members of the committee to meet . . . I would consider you might

consider having one or two board members from the schools, um, join you.



Chair Wyse: Well, um. Again, Cindy will be the contact. I wasn’t actually thinking of this as

a, that’s one reason, I was thinking of maybe just putting Jerry on point. I don’t want this,

I’m not seeing this as a committee, an official committee of the board. I’m trying to have a

way for Cindy to just help serve up options, and I think, I would work with Cindy, if that’s

OK, that’s how I would handle this.



Jerry Berger: I appreciate the comment. I think if we aren‘t careful, before we know it,

you’ve got—



Chair Wyse: Yeah, I’m not creating a subcommittee. I just, I just, I just think it’s important

when, I, I, I, we’ve had a great discussion, just working through um, the options would be

helpful.





30

Jerry Berger: And I think Cindy’s the contact person, so if you have opinions you want to

give Cindy, please call her and tell her. I’m in the community so people can call whomever

they want.



Cindy Hunt: Yeah, and Jann Lane has my contact information and she works pretty closely

with both boards.



Jerry Berger: But to clarify what you’re asking Cindy and I to do and maybe you’re asking

(inaudible) too, I don’t know, is to, we’ve had discussions as a board, and what the board

would take as possible options with Susan’s recommendation, that’s really all we’re doing.



Chair Wyse: Right.



Jerry Berger: Which might be a delay of a month, it might be you know, wait for the report,

but it isn’t a whole review of what we’re going to do, why we would co-locate, or why we

wouldn’t co-locate, etcetera. It’s a process thing from the standpoint of what—



Chair Wyse: Correct. Correct. Bringing some options for the next time.



Jerry Berger: OK



Chair Wyse: OK. Is that? Thank you, and again, I can’t thank all of the parties enough. It’s

been an excellent discussion. I’m really very hopeful about how we are going to move

forward here. Thank you. Um let’s take a, we’re a little behind, let’s take a ten-minute

break.









31