Menlo Park getting shafted by M-A

Peter, I'll bet if asked why they can't respond more quickly, the school district's answer would be, "because we don't have to", or, "ok, we just voted to exempt ourselves from any requirement to do so".

Peter

You forget part of original article, in a rather blatant attempt to cast blame on the school:

"The main problem, Brandell said, is that the city is too short-handed to spend the necessary time booking programs."

The above sentence came directly between the ones you copied. Odd you would selectively edit that one out.

Let's see if I can spell the next word correctly:

d-i-s-i-n-g-e-n-u-o-u-s

Yes, I think I got it correct.

"Why am I not surprised?"

Willy - when quoting from others sources it is usually appropriate to just quote limited portions - the so-called Fair Use Doctrine. I quoted the information that made clear the the school district was being dilatory in its responses - regardless of how much trouble the City was having making those responses. You are right the school's dilatory response times also made the city's scheduling problem more difficult. How can you plan for an event 12 weeks ahead of time when the venue isn't even confirmed until the eight week, if then?

Geez, Peter, are you really trying to defend it?

You took three sentences out of four to build your pro-city, anti-school premise.

And in the middle of the four sentences, you cut out the city saying: "The main problem, Brandell said, is that the city is too short-handed to spend the necessary time booking programs."

Forget about fair use doctrine, methinks your personal "doctrine" needs a little work.

Willy - we simply disagree. After spending $2.6 million I think that the city deserves an answer in less than eight weeks if it wants to book the Performing Arts Center. There is nothing to suggest that if the city asked more or faster that the school district would be more responsive.

Now, what is your point - as opposed to simply criticizing my choice of verbatim sentences? Why did you not post the entire article? Nothing in the entire article changes the facts that I have selected from it. What do you think the city should get for its $2.6 million contribution?

Peter:

I don't agree or disagree on the point of the article; frankly I'd like a response from the school before I were to offer an opinion.

What I disagree with is your blatant cherry-picking of 3 of 4 sentences, when the fourth clearly would have offered a more balanced view.

It took actual effort on your part to NOT include that sentence.

I rather thought of you as more even handed, prior to this.

Bluster and spew forth all you want.

Willy - facts are important.
1 - There were 16 sentences in the SJ Mercury article, not four. I choose three and you seemed to have preferred a fourth (which would have in no way changed the facts of the three sentences which I selected)

2 - Somehow you overlooked that the article DID include a response from the school district:"District spokesperson Bettylu Smith said the school principal tries to respond to requests in a timely manner.
"There's a good deal of coordination involved," Smith said. "The school is currently reviewing ways that they might streamline this process and assist the city in full use of the center." Note that the school district spokesperson did not refute the fact which I quoted that "Sometimes it takes six to eight weeks to get a response from the high school, Brandell said, making it difficult for small community groups to plan their events."

Now, once again - having the school district's response pointed out to you - what is your opinion on the matter (rather than your opinion on me)?

Peter:

Quit obfuscating. Of course facts are important about any issue. What awareness I seek to raise is not about the issue, but HOW *YOU* ADDRESS THE ISSUE.

You deleted on purpose a sentence out of the middle of what you pasted, just to skew your point against the school.

Balance, my friend.

Willy - calm down. I choose the 1st, 6th and 7th sentences from a 16 sentence article. You can certainly argue your point, which is?, by presenting other facts (as well as ignoring, as you did, the response in the article by the school district's spokesperson). Does one need to quote the entire US Constitution to make a point about a particular issue?

I rest my case in the absence of a substantive counter argument - the school district is shortchanging the city, i.e 16 days vs the promised 55.

Duly noted about your "case." You may rest.

Also noted is your intentionally dismal effort to sway the public by choosing to presenting sentences 6 and 7, while ignoring sentence 5:

"The main problem, Brandell said, is that the city is too short-handed to spend the necessary time booking programs."

So the City says "The **MAIN** problem is..."

But you ignored that, didn't you, in your zeal to blame the school?

Zealotry.

You do not need to be a rocket scientist to understand that if the school district makes it so difficult, i.e. an eight week response time, to book some time at the PAC that the city a) will properly deduce that it does not have enough staff time to deal with such an unreasonable response and b) will end up with little to show for its $2.6 million investment. I just don't see that the city should 'staff up' in order to get what it has already paid for.

Perhaps others have useful input on this issue.

Peter:

Please, please, please tell me you are intentionally ignoring my point.

I find it hard to fathom that you do not get that I'm just pointing out the unfair and unbalanced slant of your original post.

The *MAIN* point...

Willy - I have no obligation to present both sides to the story just as you have no obligation to state your own opinion.

Let others judge the merits of Menlo Park 'buying' 9% of the PAC and only being allowed to use 4% of the days.

More to the point of the story...

How much effort does it take to ask just one school district employee to put a calendar on their wall to track events at the MAPAC? They could even devote an Outlook calendar to these events.

But that seems to be too much trouble for the SUHSD. After all, all MP did was allow the construction of the facility.

Pogo: Atherton "allowed" it. Menlo contributed to the cost. ;-)

Peter: thanks for admitting it.

I already stated my opinion. I will withhold assessment until I hear more from the school, not a fluffy comment from a district spokesperson who barely addressed the issue.

To me, the whole thing doesn't pass the "smell" test; there has to be more relevant information.

As Pogo points out, why can't the school reply faster? Why is the city too shorthanded to spend the necessary time to book?

Why can't someone pick up the gosh darn phone?

Something is missing. That's why I'd like more info.

Until then, before you jump on to the "I hate the school" bandwagon, lets stick with what the city admits is the main point:
"The main problem, Brandell said, is that the city is too short-handed to spend the necessary time booking programs."

I'm guessing, if I looked back to the MAHS PAC threads pre-construction, you were firmly on the aforementioned bandwagon.

But I agree with what you said, you are under no obligation to be fair.

Thank you for sharing that.

Willy states:"But I agree with what you said, you are under no obligation to be fair."

That is NOT what I said, I stated:"I have no obligation to present both sides to the story"

There is is big difference between arguing one's case and not being fair - I am neither a judge or a reporter. And Willy simply loves to play with the truth rather than sticking to the facts and presenting, in a persuasive manner, his opinion. Remember that Town Square is meant to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion.

Peter:

Keep digging.

I think this thread is exhausted.