October 2010: Fielding Nair International (FNI) was awarded a $863,114 contract by the BHSD Board of Education, with a 6-0 vote, to provide a "schematic design" of a consolidated high school and to assist the district in persuading voters to approve a new tax to pay for the project.
What did we get for the money?
We got a "schematic," which is not a design, and not a blueprint and not really a plan.
The word "schematic" is both a noun and an adjective. In this case, we'll use the noun form, because the FNI "schematic" is a "thing" that we bought for $863,114.
Here's a pretty good definition of the word schematic: "A schematic represents the elements of a system using abstract, graphic symbols rather than realistic pictures."
RATHER THAN realistic pictures. Further.....
"A schematic usually omits all details that are not relevant to the information the schematic is intended to convey."
What details are we intended not to know about?
Therefore, BHSD taxpayers need to be aware that the pretty pictures generated by FNI may not represent reality. In fact, they may not include those details which the supporters of the new tax and new construction don't want you to know.
Why did the BHSD board of education pay $863,114 for a "schematic" design of a consolidated high school project? You'll have to ask them.
Before I vote to approve any new tax for construction in this school district, I would like to know EXACTLY what we are going to get.
A "schematic" is not a plan, not a blueprint, not a promise and not necessarily reflective of reality.
I think the trustees of the BHSD need to understand that taxpayers here are still wondering what happened to the 2004 sinking fund, and may well be reluctant to approve more funding based on a "schematic."
Architects design buildings and construction companies build them. No "schematic" necessary.