Dear Editor,
I have three comments about the parent protest in Richmond over potential school closures.
Good on the parents who exercised their right to challenge the provincial decision on school size and closure. I and my wife, Debbie Tablotney (Richmond School Board chair), fought school closure of our children’s school, Austin Harris, in 1990. We also lobbied all levels of government and even threatened judicial review of the decision. The reason for our angst wasn’t as much the decision itself but rather the process. In those days, the school board and its superintendent ran roughshod over anyone who dared to oppose their position; a far cry from today where the Richmond board of education has entered into a yearlong process of consulting with all the stakeholders in the system about the hows and whys of school closure and asking for input at every opportunity.
My wife dislikes the idea of closing schools but the reality is the provincial government will not pay to upgrade to earthquake-proof standards on schools that are underutilized. Richmond applied for funding four years ago for earthquake upgrades and was denied funding when capacity was at or around 85 per cent. So whether the number is 95 per cent or 92 per cent, the reality is the government has said that space will need to be consolidated, if funding is to be forthcoming. My guess is the higher the number the better the chances should be of getting funded.
Debbie is also an owner of an insurance brokerage, so she is well aware of the potential devastation of an earthquake. It is not a matter of if, but when an earthquake will occur. So the question she asks herself is can she live with the potential loss of life to the children of Richmond caused by an earthquake because she didn’t want to close a few schools? A parent’s priority is for their children while my wife has to worry about the safety of all 20,000-plus children in the district.
Which brings me to my second comment. The unbelievably irresponsible decision of Vancouver School board chair Mike Lombardi coming to speak at this Richmond district protest rally. This was nothing but pure unequivocal political opportunism. Here is the person who helps run Vancouver school board deficits year after year because they refuse to make a responsible business decision to close schools in Vancouver. Vancouver has schools running at 30 per cent capacity. Why not 10 per cent as long as we don’t upset anyone? Only until the provincial government threatens to fire the whole board do they acknowledge that something must be done. In my opinion, instead of fiddling away his brand of political discontent in Richmond, Mr. Lombardi’s time would be better served putting out the fires in Vancouver that he and his board helped create rather than trying to fan the flames of disharmony and misinformation in Richmond.
My last comment is reserved for Coun. Carol Day, who threw her two cents in on school closure in a recent letter in your paper. In my opinion, she is just a Mini-Me Mike Lombardi. She is on city council and has been on the school board so she knows the constraints the board is under. Like Mr. Lombardi, she puts her political branding ahead of making tough decisions and is not above scoring political points at the expense of the school board. But this runs true to form with her time on school board where her and some of her fellow party members were never above voting in the negative to look like the fair-haired mavens to the public.
From her letter, it seems she never took the time to attend any of the three open houses the school board put on in May on the issue of school closure or she would have a better understanding of what is happening. I guess you could call her letter a Trumpism — a lot of bluster for political gain with very little, if any, substance behind the comments.
Andrew Tablotney
Richmond
