On May 19, 2021, at 16:43, Ken Cameron via groups.io <rocks@...> wrote:

?

As a follow up to Jimmy’s email, I agree that comments should be constructive, positive and informative. In that spirit, this is an important opportunity for the Board to explain its reasoning for calling for a vote on the mailbox location on Wednesday, May 5.

Asking for an explanation shouldn’t be consider either nonconstructive or negative. These are questions about facts that we all agree on, and I’m asking them in a straightforward and most respectful way. The questions are important because they bear on if the members (taxpayers) were fully informed of all the reasonable options before we voted on May 5.

(1) Site #3. There was considerable interest and support for mailboxes at site #3 because, to at least some, it is the most convenient site because of its proximity to the houses. In early March there was a thumbs-up or thumbs-down email vote on the site. Of the 17 households on the email list, 13 voted thumbs-up, 1 voted “no objection”, and 3 didn’t vote. In light of that vote, the Board should have given serious consideration to the site. This leads to the following questions.

Did the Board seriously investigate site #3 and contact the property owner? If not, why not? If so, how did the property owner respond, and why weren’t the members informed of this?

(2) Proposal to the School Board. Sometime, probably in April, the Board’s request to the School Board changed from asking permission to put the boxes on a nonexistent easement to asking to grant an easement. That a huge difference, but the members were never informed of that change before the vote on May 5.

What was the Board’s reasoning for calling for a vote on mailbox location on May 5 given: (1) the members had no reason to believe that the property owner of site 3 had ever been contacted, and (2) the members didn’t know a very reasonable request would be addressed by the School Board at their meeting only a week away on May 11?

Presumably, the Board knew that their proposal would be considered at the School Board meeting on May 11. So, why did the Board have a meeting on May 5 and call for a vote then? Why not wait a week until May 12 after the School Board meeting, and then have a vote after there was some indication of how the School Board was leaning? At the meeting on May 11 the School Board appeared to be leaning to granting the new easement in a spirit of being "Good Neighbors".

As I’ve said numerous times, I have no favorite site for the mail, I just want mailboxes. I’m perfectly satisfied with the vote on May 5 in favor of site #1 west. However, if I had known there was a reasonable possibility of a more spacious site on School District property, then I would have been in favor of postponing any vote until after the School District made a final decision.

Simply asking questions shouldn’t be considered either nonconstructive or negative. Answering these questions would be a very constructive act by the Board of keeping the members informed and would give the members insight into the how the Board reasons.

Respectfully,

Ken