As Board member did not answer when school should open and admission for 2016-17 year starting in next 3 weeks. It does not look like the Slater will open for 2016-17 year. It may open for next year.

They put off discussion of timing for a future meeting. Next year seems highly unlikely.

OK Steve, you've fulfilled what you felt to be your commitment. Now please go ahead and do us all a favor by resigning!

If you did not watch the board meeting last night I urge you to watch the cached version available on the MVWSD website. The board has turned into a complete circus, much to the dismay of our new superintendent. No one seems to be adressing the fact that this new school does nothing to alleviate over crowding at Huff/Bubb/Landels. Sure, the Huff A section will now have an option to attend the new school but I sincerely doubt many will pull their child out to attend something unknown. Especially if it ends up like Coladonato's proposal, a 6 portable school. Never mind that the board has no plan for how to fund this.

@MV Mama:

I tend to agree that the board is a circus.

I disagree that reopening a school will do nothing to alleviate overcrowding at Huff/Bubb/Landels. There are 69 students from Huff A attending Huff. It's true that all of them probably won't transfer over the first year, but over years it will definitely alleviate the problem as new kids start and older kids graduate. It's certainly better than doing nothing, which is what some of the trustees seem to prefer. Huff and Landels will likely both be moving to lottery for kindergarten in 2016.

I'm sure you would agree that parking and traffic at Huff, Bubb and Landels are not great. With all of those schools projected to go over 600 kids in the next 5 years, it won't get better without some kind of action.

We have collected names and addresses of 40 students who would be willing to attend a new school.

The new school would allow for smaller class sizes in the whole city.

The school WILL NOT be reopened without finding funding for it first. None of the Slater parents are interested in a solution that isn't funded. That wouldn't be in the interest of anyone.

I sat through an hour and a half of the circus meeting last night. I'm a pro-Slater person, as I think we really need to build capacity for the schools in the fastest growing naighborhood before the kindergartens are bursting at the seams in 3-5 years. We need a PLAN. But I'm not sure I want Steve Nelson on my side. He makes us look insane. He went on a painfully awkward rant comparing the need to open Slater in a speedy manner to integration after Brown vs Board of Education. It was ridiculous and dismisses the immense efforts of the civil rights movement. We want a school and a center for our neighborhood, but we are not fighting apartheid here. Calm down and be sensible. Develop a concrete plan with the DFC and BATF with the new development levels and potential kindergarten sizes factored in. It is going to take time, and everyone working together for a new parcel tax. A temporary portable project for K-2 might be a good place to start. But please let's not act like it is WW III.

In the NE Quadrant, we:

1. Have the students
2. Continue to grow
3. Contribute to the bottom line of the district in multiple ways including lease money which other neighborhoods do not
4. Are continuously underserved and undervalued for our current and potential contribution to the district. Reopening Slater fixes that.

@Steve Bell, I think a more immediate solution to the overcrowding would be to redraw school boundaries (starting with Huff A). Theurkauf and Monta Loma both have open classrooms. Maybe the board could then use that time to figure out how to properly fund and open a new school.

Kudos to the Board for voting to reopen Slater. Residents in the Northeast quadrant pay just as much, and in many cases more taxes than the rest of Mountain View, but have been underserved for years. The kids living in the Northeast quadrant deserve the tangible AND intangible benefits of having school in their neighborhood just like every other kid in Mountain View, and I’m happy to see that the Board has voted to right this wrong.

@MV Mama, How would rezoning Huff A into Theuerkauf for a few years and then to Slater affect those families and those kids? Have you considered this? Many may have kids at Huff already. Would your vision mean possibly transferring them 3 different times? Or would parents potentially have 3 different schools for dropoff (if multiple kids/ages)? How is that beneficial to the stability and learning of the children? If they are already enrolled at Theuerkauf and then Slater opens, you decrease the available local population to attend Slater and disrupt Theuerkauf. I find it interesting the entire city uses our neighborhood to shut down schools, uses our real estate to generate revenue, and uses our kids as pawns to fill any and all spaces on a consistent and relentless basis without considering shouldering ANY of the burden for the District themselves. Everyone should be sacrificing something to make the District better. In addition, the portion of Landels in our neighborhood would be redesignated to Slater, so yes, it would alleviate both overcrowding at Huff and Landels, in contrast to your claim.

@Vicki C (and others who feel the same way): Please try and remember that there are many scenarios that get you your school, which likely result in the closure of another, or significant impacts to facilities... I hope you agree that if the outcome is a substandard neighborhood school for Slater residents with a bad educational experience (vs. a great education you drive to), then this whole thing should pause. The District needs time to figure out how to do this right.

I've also seen people complaining that the Board is somehow ignoring the work of the committees from last school year. I was on one of them and I'm not seeing that, at least not yet. The Board didn't take a vote like "take money away from ____ to go do this." They didn't say "close ____ school." They said they care enough about this to ask District staff to come up with a plan. Staff might look at the committee work and say, "ok, our plan is to focus on quality of instruction and additional revenue, so that we can attract enough students to grow enrollment, and be able to pay for a school to open in ___ years, and if we can't do those things, we won't open a school." That would be right in line with the spirit of what the committees were saying. Now, if they come back and say they're going to do this within Measure G funding by cutting MUR construction, or dropping 2-3 schools from the plan, then a bunch of us will probably show up and make our displeasure known & we can all have fun with the democratic process in November. We'll see!

How many times do the slater advocates have to repeat that we will not use measure G money. We will not close another school, we need every bit of room we have for the growth that the city has approved! There are another 1600 homes being built in the area approve two nights ago!

But the district desperately needs a plan for a new Parcel Tax, and without a feasible long term plan for the district including a route to re opening Slater in the next 3-5 years, I will have a hard time voting for that tax.

I live in Huff A. I've driven to Huff. I've driven to Theuerkauf. It's actually harder and longer to get to Theuerkauf given the horrible Google traffic. And I have no confidence that the state of Theuerkauf is going to improve substantially given the districts difficulties. I'm a firm believer in a public school, but we are thinking of taking out a home equity loan for private school.

Sadly, it is not up to the Slater advocates if Measure G money is used or not. Right now, that is the construction money we have and in the spring, the conversation around Slater was tied up in the conversation around Measure G.

The big problem is that the board has approved the idea of Slater with no plan and no contingencies. We have all seen how that goes during the Castro/Mistral process.

If money is being misappropriated already, why would homeowners choose to be taxed to put more money into that same fund?

I'd like to emphasize the point that Abigail made. The board approved Slater, but they have absolutely no plan on how to do so. When? How many students? With what funds? Any contingencies around enrollment, funding, or other? Ms. Wheeler even said most of the emails the board received asked for the district to have a plan, but then she voted to approve a school with no plan on how to do so. The board hasn't wanted to repeat the mistakes around the Castro/DI decision (the lack of details, not vote itself), yet they have just put themselves back in a very similar position.

I question this board's ability to make difficult decisions that have many direct and indirect consequences, and I can only hope they don't do too much more damage between now and next November's election. In the interim it is our children who suffer the consequences of their arrogance and dysfunction.

Questions for Slater neighborhood folks:
1) Why did all but one of pro-Slater group leave after the Slater vote on Thursday? There were topics that are highly relevant to the entire district, including the parcel tax renewal, on the agenda. I truly hope that Slater residents will work for the overall benefit of the district, not just for your neighborhood.
2) Are you so committed to a neighborhood school that you will send your child to the first year of a newly reopened school? Will Huff A residents move their children to the Slater school in favor the neighborhood benefits. I have to ask as I listened speaker after speaker from Huff A in the spring declared they wouldn't send their children to Theueurkauf with its low test scores. Is an unproven school different in your mind?

I may be asking these questions out of frustration (with the overall board, district, and funding situation), but I truly would like to understand what you're thinking. I want our district to succeed, and I do agree that all neighborhoods should have a local school, just not to the financial detriment of existing schools.

@curious

1) I left because I have a 3 year old who was not going to sleep for her dad and an autistic 12 year old who is scared if I'm not home at night. I imagine a lot of the other Slater folks also had very young children.

2) I would commit to send my 3 yr old to a new school or a altschool in portables rather than Theuerkauf because I would rather invent my own wheel than try to fix an old one. I also do not want to fight the Google traffic across Moffett and Shoreline to put her in a packed K class.

@curious

Extending on Christine's comment.

Similar to other folks we watched the live stream after we got our toddler down for the night. btw. the meeting already has over 350 views on youtube. I don't think you can judge peoples interest based on their presence in the room alone.

Regarding the district. So far I have been impressed with our new Superintendent. I am eager to see his 5 year vision for the district and firmly believe that passing a new parcel tax will be a big component in enabling the district to achieve that vision. Regardless if a new school is opened in my neighborhood or not, I am hopeful that we can pass the higher range of the parcel tax to improve all of the schools.

Christine C

"I would commit to send my 3 yr old to a new school or a altschool in portables rather than Theuerkauf because I would rather invent my own wheel than try to fix an old one."

This comment seems incredible arrogant. Do you care to elaborate? I'm hoping I just misunderstand your point.

@Painfully awkward of North Whisman

Your prior excellent post helps answer your own question.
First, let me say, I don't oppose opening a Slater school IF a workable plan can be developed and approved to do so without damaging or closing any other public school. The private schools are on their own.

After all, Trustee Nelson has repeatedly demanded a comprehensive plan for how money is to be spent BEFORE going ahead with anything. What makes Slater so special that it should be approved with no plan at all?

You asked:
"How many times do the slater advocates have to repeat that we will not use measure G money. We will not close another school,..." ???

The Whisman/Slater advocates have made a couple dozen "presentations" to the Board over several years and, except for the most recent presentation, the W/S advocates have ALWAYS pushed for Measure G money (Slater NOW not later) AND have pushed for closing Stevenson and forcing PACT to move into the new W/S school as a way to assure the new school will have enough kids...

The W/S advocates presentations included varying scenarios, but closing Stevenson and re-assigning those kids to W/S was always included and the only one that ever got serious discussion and support from 4 Board members and 2 past Superintendents.

And perhaps the fact that this Board voted for Slater WITHOUT the slightest plan on HOW it's going to be done...

Can you blame people for being suspicious and concerned about what is going to happen in-spite of a few recent "assurances" that opening Slater wont do exactly the damage to our district that has been extensively discussed in the past?

"we need every bit of room we have for the growth that the city has approved!"

That could well be true, I hope it is, but it's based on a chosen self-serving interpretation of some pretty vague predictions which can just as reasonably be interpreted differently.

"There are another 1600 homes being built in the area approve two nights ago!"

The details of new units and timing of occupancy does not clearly support the predicted near-term K-5 population explosion the W/S wish to believe.

"But the district desperately needs a plan for a new Parcel Tax, and without a feasible long term plan for the district including a route to re opening Slater in the next 3-5 years, I will have a hard time voting for that tax."

Which brings up an idea mentioned by Trustee Wheeler at the Board meeting. Work on a plan and don't try for a new Parcel Tax or bond measure until a workable plan is done. Preferably, after the next MVWSD School Board election and the voters may fix the real problems.

"I live in Huff A. I've driven to Huff. I've driven to Theuerkauf. It's actually harder and longer to get to Theuerkauf given the horrible Google traffic."

I'm glad you realize that, but when the W/S advocates were pushing to close Stevenson and move PACT to W/S, they didn't seem to be worried about having hundreds of families forced onto Middlefield crossing Shoreline and then 85 to get to Slater (or Whisman) and back twice a day.

"I have no confidence that the state of Theuerkauf is going to improve substantially given the districts difficulties."

And yet you have total confidence in a brand new unknown school with zero track record?????

@wow

I did not mean to come off as arrogant. Theuerkauf has a great community and a lot of potential if problems are addressed (I'm not certain that will be done in a timely manner). But there is a lot of work to do there. I roll my sleeves up and get involved and I try to be an active parent. I'm met some great parents working on re opening Slater. I have to admit I would rather work hard on developing a school that my child can walk to and develop a sense of community than work hard trying to fix a school several miles away. Why is this arrogant? I believe I can make a difference. I believe every person can make a difference. But I choose where I want to put in effort and I would prefer a local school my family can walk to.

@Fairness of Whisman Station, you wrote:
"In the NE Quadrant, we:
1. Have the students
2. Continue to grow
3. Contribute to the bottom line of the district in multiple ways including lease money which other neighborhoods do not
4. Are continuously underserved and undervalued for our current and potential contribution to the district. Reopening Slater fixes that."

You may be surprised to read that I agree with you on all that you said above and IF it were NOT for our elected Board members serious dysfunctions
our district would have fixed these problems by now WITHOUT causing even greater damage and unfairness to the rest of the district.

Closing Slater did severe damage to the W/S area, but shifting that damage to a different school or neighborhood is NEVER an acceptable solution.

We need a real plan approved by a properly functional Board.
Perhaps the voters will give us one in November?

I hope you can agree with my points as I agree with your points.

Opening another school will draw students away from existing ones and may place a financial burden on those. It's kind of what the PACT school is doing. Not being a neighborhood school, they are drawing students from all over the district and damaging those other schools.

It seems that the best compromise would be to re-open Slater and then transition the students out of PACT and back where they belong. Everybody gets a neighborhood school and the financials are strengthened.

)Now, I'm sure the PACT zealots will claim that the financials would NOT improve if we go with the compromise plan, but they have a vested interest in arguing that. )

@Steve Bell of North Whisman, you mentioned:
"...I'm sure you would agree that parking and traffic at Huff, Bubb and Landels are not great. With all of those schools projected to go over 600 kids in the next 5 years, it won't get better without some kind of action."

This is strictly a question about the parking/traffic & drop-off potential situation at a future Slater school. I want to get the perspective on that from someone from the area and who supports a new Slater.

I have visited Slater (and Whisman) a few times, I have seen the overhead pictures presented at Board meetings, I have looked at the satellite views of the schools and surrounding streets.

With Google already on the site, adding another 450 kids sized school to the hundreds of kids at Google means hundreds more kids from all over the whole W/S area and additional kids from the other side of 85 and other kids from areas farther away...

Only a fraction of the kids at the new Slater will be able to walk or bike to Slater (weather permitting) and most of the rest will have to drive on either Whisman (which does not allow parking), or the already over-used Middlefield to get near enough to walk/bike the rest of the way...

What do the Slater advocates think the traffic and parking and drop-off is going to be like?

Are they worried at all?

Or is there a solution I have not yet heard about?

I am asking a real question here, I really don't know what the Slater advocates have come up with about this stuff. I certainly have not heard any discussions about it anywhere.

Wow, OK, lots to catch up on here. Apologies in advance for the long post, but it's also good to see a mostly healthy discussion on here.

1. @Kevin Forestieri: please stop reporting that "reopening [Slater] goes against recommendations by two district committees earlier this year." DFC never came to such a conclusion. At the June 11th meeting of this year, DFC's final recommendation was to "postpone for further study: School for Whisman/Slater neighborhood. Page 18 of this link: Web Link

BATF did conclude that they couldn't make a 9th school work. However, I feel as though both DFC and BATF were severely hampered by bad assumptions going in.

2. I believe former Superintendent Skelly did a disservice to the city, DFC and BATF by overly constraining the committees. The starting assumption of 450-600 for the committees set them up to come to pre-ordained conclusions. As re-explained by Todd Lee in the last meeting, the money starts ballooning when you go over 450 students at our school sites, requiring the building out of 18 classrooms. 600 kids in 18 classrooms is 33 kids per class which is hardly serving the kids or the teachers. Additionally, the committees were given the assumption that enrollment would be "flat to declining," despite the population growth in the city. It also didn't help that BATF assumed that all 149 students in Huff A attended Huff when only 69 did in reality.

3. Whether or not to use Measure G funds is in the hands of the ReopenSlater parents in the sense that we won't fight to try to get whatever's left after the $40+M is subtracted with the approval of Castro/Mistral. The fund is essentially all spoken for for upgrades to existing schools. Fear around Slater taking that funding is what fuels the us vs. them mentality of the discussion, which is something we are trying to avoid.

4. Talk of moving PACT to Slater basically only happens in these forums since the Fall. That scenario was dismissed by all of the trustees at a recent meeting. Our central argument for why we need a 9th school and not to replace or displace another school is that the number of students in the city is going to go up, and the growth is strongest in our neighborhood. @Just the facts, Ma'am summarized it on these boards here:
Web Link
----------------------------
K-8 enrollment in 2020-21, according to the two reports:

October 2014 demographic study (Web Link

"Low" projection (page 64): 4998
"Most Likely" projection (page 65): 5141
"High" projection (page 66): 5210

November 2015 demographic study (Web Link

"Conservative" projection (page 33): 5251
"Moderate" projection (page 32): 5502

This year's study's Conservative projection is higher than last year's High projection. And this year's Moderate projection is ~250 new students higher than that. The total increase of 292 is approximately equal to the current enrollment of Castro or Theuerkauf.
----------------------------
These are the two reports that keep being described as "the same". In actuality, they differ by the population of AN ENTIRE SCHOOL. Also keep in mind that these reports don't include any housing projects that weren't approved at the time, though many are planned. One example is the 1600 unit housing development that was approved this week.

5. I appreciate @Curious's sincere question about why most of us left. If you were there, you probably noticed that a lot of us had young kids. That is the answer to both of your questions. We had to leave early because it was really late for little kids, or we were leaving one of the parents to deal with the little kids at home and wanted to get back for support. The demographic of our neighborhood is moving toward people with young kids, which is why we're pushing for a neighborhood school. We will need to go into a lottery for our kindergarten kids to get into Huff and this coming year likely Landels, the closest schools to our neighborhood. So ask yourself if you had the option of spending an extra hour per day in the car with one or more of your kids or to go to a new nearby school with neighborhood parents in a similar situation? The parents I've met through being involved are generally really great people who are hoping to raise the quality of public schools in the city. If you look at the presentation we gave here
Web Link it gives a good representation of what we are thinking.

6. Concern about parking: Yes, we have some concerns, but no more than at the other schools, and likely less concern than at Mistral/Castro. My original point was that reopening Slater would ease traffic and parking at other schools, which is still true.

@Christine C

So if the whisman people would rather abandon the Theuerkauf community, how about as a courtesy you offer all Theuerkauf residents the chance to transfer to the new school that you are working to build with such great people?

I would rather send my cHildreth to a school with a great community, even if I have to drive. A neighborhood school doesn't matter to me, I just would like a good school.

You probably will suggest that I work to build a great school in my neighborhood, but with half of our neighborhood kids going to Stevenson, and another large percentage going to the DI program Theuerkauf enrollment is small and limited. If the few remaining active parents move and create there own school, what's left for us? We are part of your Mountain View community even if we don't live in your neighborhood.

Thanks Ellen Wheeler, the swing vote on thiS decision to open Slater. You've probably put the nail in the coffin for Theuerfauf. I hope you're happy.

Wheeler obviously voted with next year's election in mind. Pure politics as usual.

to PACT parent, sour grapes?


I'd have more respect for this district if they'd admit they made a mistake in closing Slater in the first place. Hopefully pact will not come along for the ride back home.
Congratulations to Slater Gators!!!

@mom of Old Mountain View,

"Meaning of expression: "sour grapes"
Used to refer to an attitude in which someone adopts a negative attitude to something because they cannot have it themselves."

That describes the haters who spew ignorant remarks about Stevenson. Most haters tried to get in, but didn't win the lottery, so they feel compelled to hate what they didn't get. Others tried in recent years to get a new school and DI got one instead, but screaming to shut-down DI would bring racism accusations, so they scream at Stevenson instead as the convenient target. Sour grapes come from the haters who want to tear-down, I just want to protect our schools.

I would be happy to see a Slater open as long as it can be done without damaging or closing any of the other schools as a result.

"to PACT parent, sour grapes?"

Not in any respect about anything.
If you mean my remarks about Measure G, you misinterpreted badly.
I never said Measure G was bad, nor do I wish it had not passed, unlike one Trustee who actively opposed it.

I wish we could have some of it, but that's not going to happen and yet, I have no animosity towards any of the schools that will get Measure G funds.

Every school listed to get Measure G funds deserves the money and more. Not listed is Theuerkauf which also deserves Measure G money, but I don't see how Theuerkauf or Stevenson or Slater or the badly sub-standard District Offices will ever see a penny of Measure G. I have no problem waiting for some other future construction bond to provide renovations for Stevenson.

My priority is Stevenson continue to exist as the home of PACT where we are. Keeping what we have is the priority, getting money for renovations will be nice, if/when.

Again, the "sour grapes" is coming from the people who want something they couldn't have and now want to destroy it, we simply want to keep what we do have and protect all the existing schools.

"I'd have more respect for this district if they'd admit they made a mistake in closing Slater in the first place."

Only one of our Board members was on the Board back in 2005 when that decision was made. Ask her to admit she was wrong then.

"Hopefully pact will not come along for the ride back home."

There we totally AGREE!!!!

@Pact
I think we al know the definition, but thank you anyway
Your paragraph, ' that describes the haters....'
Makes my point, so check your attitude. I'll stick with the kids.
As fas as the board, if it's 2005 or 2015.
They made a BIG mistake.
Really who would want to be part of such a devisive group of parents who cause so much strife.
Now go look up the definition of 'strife.

@Mom of Old Mountain View

"I'll stick with the kids."
As should our Board, but they prefer politics over our kids.

"As fas as the board, if it's 2005 or 2015. They made a BIG mistake."

They indeed made a huge mistake in 2005 and have made several in 2015. Unless the voters change-out the Board in November 2016, the huge mistakes will continue. In fact, if the most dysfunctional Board members get re-elected in 2016, things will only get much worse because they will feel their "difficult difficult" dysfunctional behavior is being rewarded.

"Really who would want to be part of such a devisive group of parents who cause so much strife."

Indeed (except for the most recent proposal), the Whisman/Slater parents groups many proposals have always been highly divisive over recent years and have caused enormous strife and division. The W/S parents have consistently pushed divisive tactics to achieve their goals by always proposing closing various schools to get a school for themselves.

It has been the divisiveness of these many W/S proposals which has caused hundreds of parents from several schools to spend thousands of hours away from their kids and families and even jobs to try to defend their schools from these W/S proposals.

And don't forget, in 2005 the alternative to closing Slater was to close Castro, a highly divisive tactic.

The W/S proposals of recent years have suggested closing Castro a few times, closing Theuerkauf, closing Monta Loma and always included a push to close Stevenson and drag PACT into the new W/S school to keep enrollment high enough to keep the new W/S open. This was because the W/S advocates didn't actually believe that they would in fact have enough kids to keep a new Slater open, so they needed to hi-jack the PACT kids.

In every past W/S parents group proposal, they were all about dividing the district and endangering the educational programs at other schools in the process and thus pitting the schools against each other to protect themselves against the damaging effects of opening a new W/S school.

It was only the most recent W/S parents group proposal which finally stopped attacking other schools and instead focused on predicting a huge K-5 population explosion in their local area. They are also now focused on NEW sources of funding for a new W/S school rather than trying to move ahead of the other schools to get Measure G money.

Hopefully, the W/S parents group will never again go back to the old politics of divisiveness and tearing-down other schools to build their own and will now keep their focus on the whole district, new money and new kids for a new school.

Stevenson families have always been supportive of W/S getting a new school IF a plan can be developed to do so without damaging or closing any other school in the process. It's only our existing Board of Trustees inability to develop a plan which stands in the way.

Why does pact refer to themselves as family?
What are the rest from other schools?
I'll stick with neighborhood.
Congrats to Slater

@Max of Cuesta Park Asked:
"Why does pact refer to themselves as family?"

OK, I assumed the kids in our public schools come from families.
Some kids in MVWSD may have no families at all, but I'm not aware of any.

Perhaps you meant "community"?

"What are the rest from other schools?"

I have heard others refer to Theuerkauf families, Slater families, Huff families, Castro families, Huff/Bubb/...

When you're including the larger group of relatives, like grandparents, aunts/uncles, older siblings, etc, and the kids one says "families".

I have seen quite a few people at Stevenson which are actively involved grandparents/aunts/uncles/older siblings, etc.

I have heard from Theuerkauf kids and parents about involved relatives of all sorts as well, thus "families".

"I'll stick with neighborhood."

I also refer to my neighborhood as a neighborhood, but a school is NOT a "neighborhood".

A school, can be a "community" as Stevenson is a community of families who live all over the district in many neighborhoods. Our "community" is our school and our school is our community.

Theuerkauf has a geographic neighborhood, a community and a walking school.
Same for all our traditional schools.

Stevenson has ONLY a community and a school, but not a geographic neighborhood. Only about 1/4th-1/3rd can walk there (weather permitting).
Mistral has ONLY a community and a school, but not a geographic neighborhood. Not sure what percentage can walk there.

Currently, Whisman has a neighborhood and community, but no walking school.
This will NOT change with the opening of Slater.

Currently, Slater has a neighborhood and community, but no walking school.
This WILL change with the opening of Slater for a FRACTION of Slater families and not at all for Whisman families.

"Congrats to Slater"

That's what I said to the Slater parent who was sitting near me when the 3-2 vote was cast.
In fact, I congratulated Slater parents I know after the prior Board meeting when Trustee Wheeler stated she already had 4 votes for opening Slater and it was a done-deal when the Dec 10th meeting came.

She was off by one vote, but still, she was close enough.