HUNGER STRIKE:
HUNGER STRIKE TO SAVE JOHN MARSHALL HIGH SCHOOL IN CLEVELAND, OHIO WILL START ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2012 AND WILL CONTINUE INDEFINITELY UNLESS THE DEMAND IS MET!

A HUNGER STRIKE IS A CRY FOR JUSTICE WHEN DUE PROCESS IS DENIED TO CITIZENS WHO HAVE NEITHER POWER NOR WEALTH!

City Hall has meted out gross injustice  -- through sustained & collusive inaction, and vote rigging – to over 2,400 petitioners who want to SAVE historic 80-year old JOHN MARSHALL HIGH SCHOOL located at 3952 West 140th Street in Cleveland, Ohio.

MAYOR JACKSON WAS NOTIFIED ABOUT THE HUNGER STRIKE, VIA E-MAIL AND CERTIFIED MAIL, ON NOVEMBER 15, 2012!

SEE YOUTUBE VIDEO:
Save John Marshall High School Part 3: Call for a Hunger Strike
http://youtu.be/nyoL5sFBjeA

DEMAND:
THE DEMAND IS THAT MAYOR JACKSON & OTHERS PROVIDE A RESPONSE BY NOVEMBER 19, 2012, AT THE LATEST, TO QUESTIONS LISTED IN THE NOVEMBER 8, 2012 DOCUMENT (OVER 120 PAGES) ALL IN THE CONTEXT OF
MAYOR JACKSON’S STATEMENT: I HAVE “NEVER LIED TO YOU”
AND THE PLAIN DEALER’S CALL FOR HONESTY, TRUSTWORTHINESS, ACCOUNTABILITY, CLARITY, AND TRANSPARENCY IN PUBLIC OFFICIALS!

The questions are addressed to:
Mayor Frank G. Jackson;
Councilman and City Council President Martin J. Sweeney;
CMSD CEO Eric S. Gordon;
Chair of CMSD Board of Education Denise W. Link;
Cleveland Landmarks Commission Chair Jennifer Coleman;
Manager of Architecture Robert Vilkas;
Councilman Anthony Brancatelli; and
Councilwoman Phyllis E. Cleveland.

Note: There are also a few requests for copies of public documents – and they have been identified as such.

How honest were Mayor Jackson, Councilman Sweeney & others in City Hall & the School District in their dealings with the SAVE JOHN MARSHALL campaign in the $50 million John Marshall High School Construction Project?

Gross Irregularities were committed: Collusive Inaction, Vote Rigging, & Denial of Due Process. Also, the School District did not act in good faith with over 2,400 petitioners who want to SAVE JOHN MARSHALL by renovating the High School including the Auditorium, Underground Running Tracks, and Swimming Pool.

Over 400 pages of correspondence show that Mayor Jackson, Councilman Sweeney, Cleveland Metropolitan School District CEO Gordon, and others have not been honest, trustworthy, accountable, clear, and transparent on the $50 million John Marshall High School Construction Project.

Here is the breakdown of number of questions and public documents requested:
Mayor Jackson: 17 questions,
Councilman Sweeney: 15 questions, 2 public documents,
CMSD CEO Gordon: 13 questions, 2 public documents,
Chair of CMSD Board of Education Denise W. Link: 1 question,
Cleveland Landmarks Commission Chair Jennifer Coleman: 14 questions, 2 public documents,
Manager of Architecture Robert Vilkas: 2 questions,
Councilman Brancatelli: 1 question, and
Councilwoman Cleveland: 3 questions.

NOTE: FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, PLEASE SEE THE EARLIER RELATED POST ON REALNEO WITH THE TITLE: “MAYOR JACKSON & OTHERS IN CITY HALL & THE SCHOOL DISTRICT REQUESTED TO PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES ON THE JOHN MARSHALL HS PROJECT”

QUESTIONS:
The questions are listed in the November 8, 2012 document. The questions which were not included in the earlier post, have been included in this post – without the photographs.
If you need a copy of the November 8, 2012 document (over 120 pages) – please send me an e-mail with your name, address, and telephone no. and I will forward you a copy.

CEASE & DESIST ORDER:
AFTER WE RECEIVE A RESPONSE TO THE QUESTIONS, WE WILL WORK ON OBTAINING A CEASE & DESIST ORDER TO STOP THE DEMOLITION OF HISTORIC 80-YEAR OLD JOHN MARSHALL HIGH!
A RESPONSE FROM GOVERNOR KASICH RE. THE CEASE & DESIST ORDER – IS PENDIND DESPITE TWO CERTIFIED LETTERS DATED OCTOBER 8 AND NOVEMBER 8, 2012.

CONTACT & ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Satinder P. S. Puri, (216) 251-3978, spspuri9 [at] sbcglobal [dot] net,
SAVE JOHN MARSHALL HIGH SCHOOL group on Facebook, REALNEO blog,

Three videos on YouTube:
1. Save John Marshall High School, Cleveland, Ohio
http://youtu.be/S6Shgwi5cuU
2. Save John Marshall High School Pt. 2: Demonstration http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdTaCQrwoF4
3. Save John Marshall High School Part 3: Call for a Hunger Strike
http://youtu.be/nyoL5sFBjeA

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, SEE THE WANTED FOR CRIME IN PROGRESS SERIES ON REALNEO!

GROSS INJUSTICE:
City Hall has meted out gross injustice  -- through sustained & collusive inaction, and vote rigging – to over 2,400 petitioners who want to SAVE historic 80-year old JOHN MARSHALL HIGH SCHOOL (JMHS) located at 3952 West 140th Street in Cleveland, Ohio.

The call for “Investigate City Hall” for denying due process to the petitioners and determine how Mayor Jackson, Councilman and City Council President Sweeney, Cleveland Landmarks Commission, Board of Education, and the Cleveland Metropolitan School District (CMSD) not only contravened the democratic process but also worked together to thwart the efforts of over 2,400 petitioners in their campaign (18-months old as of November 2012), to SAVE 80-year old historic JOHN MARSHALL HIGH SCHOOL -- was made at the January 24, 2012 Board of Education meeting.

Over 400 pages of correspondence show that Mayor Jackson, Councilman Sweeney, Cleveland Metropolitan School District CEO Gordon, and others have not been honest, trustworthy, accountable, clear, and transparent on the $50 million John Marshall High School Construction Project.

Mayor Jackson took no action when the vote rigging and other irregularities were brought to his honor’s attention.

Both Mayor Jackson and Councilman Sweeney are listed on the SAVE JMHS Facebook group as: WANTED FOR CONSPIRING TO DESTROY HISTORIC JOHN MARSHALL HIGH SCHOOL!

The chain-link fence, erected around JMHS in July 2012, is listed on the SAVE JMHS Facebook group as “Jackson & Sweeney’s” Folly.

THE DESTRUCTION OF 80-YEAR OLD HISTORIC JOHN MARSHALL HIGH SCHOOL, LOCATED IN CLEVELAND, OHIO, STARTED IN LATE OCTOBER, 2012!

MAYOR JACKSON & COUNCILMAN SWEENEY -- PHILISTINES FROM CLEVELAND'S CITY HALL -- MAY THEIR NAMES FOREVER LIVE IN INFAMY FOR DESTROYING HISTORIC JOHN MARSHALL HIGH SCHOOL!

NEW SCHOOL OR RENOVATED SCHOOL:
The CMSD (Cleveland Metropolitan School District) wants to build a New School and destroy our 80-year old architectural gem, Auditorium, Underground Running Tracks, and Swimming Pool.  Over 2,400 petitioners want to renovate John Marshall similar to the renovation of landmarked 83-year old John Hay (renovation completed in 2006) and 80-year old Rhodes (renovation completed in 2009) High Schools.

John Marshall High School’s auditorium is used for the performing arts by young artists. The underground tracks– reminiscent of the Roman catacombs, and the swimming pool – are used both by young athletes and the community.

The School District claims a new school will be cheaper – but will not say – it is cheaper only in an apples-to-oranges comparison – as the new school in addition to destroying our heritage – will not have an Auditorium, Underground Tracks, or a Swimming Pool. The District is not providing information explaining errors in their financial numbers or how they were able to renovate John Hay and Rhodes High Schools without destroying them. While the existing school has held up to 3,000 students – the new school will hold 1,200 students

The JMHS Construction Project is being funded through a bond issue – 2/3rd of the funds come from OSFC (Ohio State Facilities Commission) and 1/3rd from the City of Cleveland.

REQUEST FOR PUBLIC DOCUMENTS:
On March 12, 2012 – Mayor Frank G. Jackson of Cleveland, Ohio was requested via e-mail and certified mail to provide public documents. Among the requests, 6 requests for documents were submitted to Mayor Jackson and 23 to Councilman and City Council President Martin J. Sweeney.

The documents pertain to collusive inaction and vote rigging and deal with absence of honesty and trustworthiness.

After 14 reminders, a response was received – nearly 5 months later in a letter dated July 31, 2012 from City Hall’s Law Department laced in legal gobbledygook. Not a single of the 29 documents was provided.
In addition, the Cleveland Landmarks Commission has not provided documents that address the irregularities and vote rigging that took place at the January 12, 2012 meeting. The documents are not included in the CD that was provided --- despite 14 reminders spread over nearly five months.

REQUEST FOR WRITTEN RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THE $50 MILLION JOHN MARSHALL HIGH SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION PROJECT:

NOTE: The following questions are listed in the November 8, 2012 document (over 120 pages) sent via e-mail and certified mail to Mayor Jackson.

Because of the format of REALNEO – all photographs have been omitted from this listing.

If you need a copy of the November 8, 2012 document (over 120 pages) – please send me an e-mail with your name, address, and telephone no. and I will forward you a copy.

Because the letter was addressed to Mayor Jackson – the mayor is referred to as your honor or Mayor Jackson.

The following questions pertain to the $50 million John Marshall High School Construction Project, are directed at:

Your honor (Mayor Jackson);
Councilman (and City Council President) Martin J. Sweeney;
CEO Eric S. Gordon of CMSD (Cleveland Metropolitan School District);
Chair of CMSD Board of Education Denise W. Link;
Jennifer Coleman, Chair of the CLC (Cleveland Landmarks Commission),
Councilman Anthony Brancatelli (also member of the CLC), and
Councilperson Phyllis E. Cleveland (who also was a temporay member of the CLC at the January 12, 2012 CLC meeting). 

Please direct all the individuals listed above to provide written responses, via certified mail, by Monday, November 19, 2012 at the latest -- all in the context of  your (Mayor Jackson’s ) statement: I have “never lied to you” and the The Plain Dealer’s call for honesty, trustworthiness, accountability, clarity, and transparency in public officials.

Note: There are also a few requests for copies of additional public documents – and they have been identified as such. Also, provide the requested documents by November 19, 2012 at the latest. 

Submitted on behalf of over 2,400 petitioners by:

Satinder P. S. Puri
Retired Structural Engineer, and Community Volunteer at Riverside School
13217 Cooley Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio: 44111-3312
(216) 251-3978        spspuri9 [at] sbcglobal [dot] net

A. QUESTIONS FOR MAYOR FRANK G. JACKSON:

A1.
Swimming Pool in $11 Million Collinwood Recreation Center – Opened in November 2011
(Very laudable of Mayor Jackson to build the Recreation Center)

Swimming Pool in fully-functional 42-Year Old Recreation Center at John Marshall High School will be destroyed unless Mayor Jackson directs  the School District
to save the Recreation Center!

Mayor Jackson was requested in the e-mail of January 8, 2012 and the certified mail of
January 10, 2012 to direct the Cleveland Metropolitan School District to renovate the fully
functional Recreation Center, with a swimming pool, so the John Marshall neighborhood has the same amenities as the Collinwood neighborhood. No response was received.
 

Question A1: What action did your honor (Mayor Jackson) take on the subject request to direct the Cleveland Metropolitan School District to renovate the fully functional Recreation Center, with a swimming pool, so the John Marshall neighborhood has the same amenities as the Collinwood neighborhood? The request was sent via e-mail and certified mail.
Response:

A2.
Here is how the request for the public document was stated in the March 12, 2012 document :
Documentation pertaining to the action taken by Mayor Jackson’s office to the following request included in the e-mail dated January 8, 2012 and in the certified mail of January 10, 2012:

“Please also direct the Cleveland Metropolitan School District to renovate the fully-
functional Recreation Center, with a swimming pool, so the John Marshall neighborhood has the same amenities as the Collinwood neighborhood.”

The Law Department responded – after nearly 5 months and 14 reminders providing a response in legal gobbledygook as follows:
Response (included in Law Department’s letter dated July 31, 2012: This request is overly broad and further is an inappropriate request to the extent it is non-specific and seeks information instead of particular documents. It is the responsibility of the requester to identify with reasonable clarity the records at issue. State ex rel. Dillery v. Iesman (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 312, 314-315; State ex rel. Glasgow v. Jones, 119 Ohio St. 3d 391, 2008-Ohio-4788 at ‖17; State ex rel. Consumer News Serv. V Worthington City Bd. Of Educ. 97 Ohio St.3d 58, 2002-Ohio-5311.

Question A2: Please explain in simple (non-legal gobbledygook) what your Law Department meant in the above Response (included in Law Department’s letter dated July 31, 2012)?
Response:

A3.
Your honor (Mayor Jackson) never responded to the request for a meeting to SAVE JOHN MARSHALL – spread over ten months despite five reminders from a senior citizen who voted for you. Three requests were made to your honor via e-mail and certified mail, and two were hand delivered.

Three requests were made to your honor (Mayor Jackson) -- via e-mail (June 14, 2011, August 11, 2011, and January 8, 2012) and certified mail (June 16, 2011, August 12, 2011, and January 10, 2012) on behalf of petitioners, for a meeting to SAVE 80-YEAR OLD JOHN MARSHALL.

The 4th request for a meeting was personally handed out to you (Mayor Jackson) at the March 29, 2012 Community Meeting held at Harvard Community Services Center,
18240 Harvard Avenue, on Thursday, March 29, 2012.

The 5th request was included in the hand-delivered Petition dated April 6, 2012.

On April 19, 2012 – an e-mail (see enclosed Reference Document dated April 24, 2012)
was received from one of your staff members (Chief of Communications – Maureen Harper dated April 19, 2012).

On April 24, 2012, your honor was told both verbally and in writing (see enclosed Reference Document dated April 24, 2012):

“Unless I receive a letter from your honor – on which I can hold you accountable  – this e-mail from a staff member will not count -- as it trivializes and makes mockery of your honor’s accountability on a $50 million project to a citizen who voted for you.” 

Question A3: Why did your honor (Mayor Jackson) not respond to the five requests for a meeting to SAVE JOHN MARSHALL HIGH SCHOOL?
Response:
 

A4.
Question A4: How many requests does your honor (Mayor Jackson) require before your honor will respond to the request for a meeting?
Response:

A5.
Question A5. How many months does a citizen have to wait before your honor (Mayor Jackson) will respond to a request for a meeting?
Response:

A6.
Your honor (Mayor Jackson) never responded to the request for a meeting to SAVE JOHN MARSHALL – spread over ten months despite five reminders from a senior citizen who voted for you. Three requests were made to your honor via e-mail and certified mail, and two were hand delivered.

In an e-mail and certified mail dated July 9, 2012 – your honor was requested:

“Please let us know by Monday July 16, 2012 at the latest – if your honor plans to intervene to SAVE JOHN MARSHALL HIGH SCHOOL. If there is no response from your honor – then the SAVE JOHN MARSHALL campaign will start using the VOTE NO TO TAX LEVY signs in our demonstrations.”

Again, no response was received to this request which was the 6th request made to your honor to SAVE JOHN MARSHALL.

Question A6. Why did your honor not respond to the 6th request (sent via e-mail and certified mail) to SAVE JOHN MARSHALL?
Response:

A7. Your honor’s vision for “building the Cleveland of tomorrow” by preserving our “great past” has been enshrined in the SAVE JOHN MARSHALL yard signs.

The sign reads:
SAVE JOHN MARSHALL
RENOVATE
SAY NO TO DEMOLITION
PRESERVE OUR HERITAGE

Over 600 petitioners
have written to Mayor Jackson
requesting a meeting to promote his vision for
“building the Cleveland of tomorrow” by preserving
our “great past” and SAVE JOHN MARSHALL.

(Note: We now have over 2,400 petitioners)

We have to work with our landmark buildings. Demolishing landmarks, either fully or partially, should not be the School District’s policy. Chopping off the arms of the Statue of Liberty can never be an option.

The January 8, 2012 letter stated: “Petitioners urge you to preserve our heritage and renovate landmarked John Marshall similar to Cleveland Metropolitan School District’s renovation of landmarked John Hay  and landmarked Rhodes High Schools – to 21st century teaching and learning standards.

We look forward to your appearing before the Cleveland Landmarks Commission at their
next meeting on January 12, 2012 and persuade them that John Marshall High School’s 
landmark status should not be revoked and that 80-year old John Marshall High School
should be renovated like 88-year old landmarked Public Auditorium, in front of City Hall,
is being renovated.”

Your honor (Mayor Jackson) never responded to the request, on behalf of over 2,400 petitioners, to appear before the Cleveland Landmarks Commission at the January 12, 2012 meeting.  The request was made both via e-mail (January 8, 2012) and certified mail (January 10, 2012).

Question A7: Why did your honor not repond to the subject request to appear before the Cleveland Landmarks Commission at the January 12, 2012 meeting?
Response:

A8.
On March 12, 2012 – your honor (Mayor Jackson) was requested via
e-mail and certified mail to provide public documents. Among the requests, 6 requests for documents were submitted to your honor and 23 to Councilman and City Council President Martin J. Sweeney. The documents pertain to collusive inaction and vote rigging and deal with absence of honesty and trustworthiness.

After 14 reminders, a response was received – nearly 5 months later in a letter dated July 31, 2012 from City Hall’s Law Department laced in legal gobbledygook. Not a single of the 29 (6+ 23) documents was provided. A copy of the response from the Law Department is included in the Attachment.

Question A8: Why did it take your Law Department nearly 5 months and 14 reminders to respond to the 6 public documents requested from your honor (Mayor Jackson) and 23 public documents from Councilman Sweeney  –  and then not a single of the requested documents was submitted?
Response:

A9.
Question A9: Your honor has said that you have never lied to us. Then why does your honor need Philadelphia lawyers to cover up your absence of honesty, trustworthiness, and accountability on a $50 milllion project using legal gobbledygook?
Response:

A10.
On April 5, 2012 – your honor (Mayor Jackson) was personally given an 11-page document pertaining to your accountability – in the $50 million JMHS Construction Project.  Your honor was asked, based on your statement: I have “never lied to you”  to respond to issues dealing with inaction, collusion, vote rigging, and absence of honesty and trustworthiness. So far your honor has not responded -- despite 24 reminders as of September 17, 2012, and 28 reminders as of October 25, 2012.

Question A10: Please provide a response to all the items listed in the 11-page document dated April 5, 2012. A copy of the subject document which was personally handed to your honor on April 5, 2012 is included in the Attachment.
Response:

A11.
Your honor (Mayor Jackson) has said the proposed levy to cover the deficit is for the kids – our kids! “Then why is your honor permitting on the $50 million John Marshall High School Construction Project -- destruction of the auditorium, which our kids need; destruction of the underground tracks which our kids need; and destruction of the swimming pool which our kids need?” A response to the (underlined) question is pending since April 24, 2012 – despite 26 reminders as of October 25, 2012.

A copy of the April 24, 2012 document (16-pages) was personally handed to your honor.
Another copy of the April 24, 2012 document (16-pages) is included in the Attachment.

Question A11: Please provide a response to the underlined question listed on the previous page.
Response:

A12.
On Wednesday, February 22, 2012 – the 8th Demonstration took place in front of City Hall using the signs: SAVE JOHN MARSHALL! INVESTIGATE CITY HALL! The demonstration took place between 4:00 pm and 5:45 pm on the sidewalk at the entrance/exit to the Willard Parking Garage – on the west end of City Hall. During the demonstration, I was questioned by two police officers who approached me in their car. The officers questioned me on the basis of a complaint they had received. The two police officers were polite and courteous in their questioning.

Your honor (Mayor Jackson) was requested (via e-mail on February 27, 2012, and via certified mail on February 29, 2012) to please conduct an investigation and provide a response with the following information by March 2, 2012:

1.    Name or names of persons who made the complaint.
2.    Their affiliation with City Hall.
3.    Telephone number from which call was placed.
4.    Nature of complaint – what was the complaint about?
5.    Copy of police report.

No response was received despite multiple reminders sent to your honor.

Question A12: Please provide a response to items 1 to 5 listed above.
Response:

A13.
It was found on September 4, 2012 that The Plain Dealer had deleted all JMHS comments – some going back to January 2012 from their website: Cleveland.Com. All comments were critical of City Hall. In addition, the campaign has been barred from making any further comments on their website.

Recent comments showed that both Mayor Jackson and CEO Gordon were not honest, trustworthy, and accountable on the $50 million JMHS Construction Project and thus could not be trusted for the 15-mill levy.

IN A DEMOCRACY, IF THE PRESS IS NOT ON THE SIDE 
OF THE POWERLESS – THEN WHO IS?
WHY DID THE PLAIN DEALER DELETE ALL COMMENTS
CRITICAL OF CITY HALL?

WHY IS THIS HAPPENING IN CLEVELAND, OHIO?

Your honor(Mayor Jackson) was requested (via e-mail and certified mail) to please conduct an inquiry to determine, if any one at City Hall or your 15-mill levy campaign was involved in pressuring The Plain Dealer to delete comments critical of your honor, CEO Gordon, Councilman Sweeney, and others – and provide a response by Monday, September 17, 2012 at the latest.

A response from your honor is pending since September 17, 2012.

A response from Terrance C. Z, Egger, President & Publisher of the Plain Dealer, is also pending. Two requests were sent via e-mail and one via certified mail.

Question A13: Mayor Jackson please conduct an inquiry to determine, if any one at City Hall or your 15-mill levy campaign was involved in pressuring The Plain Dealer to delete comments critical of your honor, CEO Gordon, Councilman Sweeney, and others. Provide the results of your inquiry.
Response:

A14.
Your honor (Mayor Jackson) did not respond to the request made via e-mail and certified mail dated October 1, 2012 re.

USE OF JEFFERSON PARK AS THE VENUE FOR STAGING A HUNGER STRIKE TO SAVE HISTORIC 80-YEAR OLD JOHN MARSHALL HIGH SCHOOL

A response was requested by Monday, October 8, 2012 at the latest.

A Hunger Strike is a Cry for Justice when due process is denied to citizens who have neither power nor wealth!

Question A14: Please provide a response to the subject request pertaining to the venue for staging a hunger strike.
Response:

A15.
Question A15: Your honor (Mayor Jackson) does not respond to e-mails or certified mails – or hand delivered letters -- despite reminder after reminder after reminder. In one case (item A10) your honor was sent 28 reminders. How many reminders does your honor (Mayor Jackson) require before your accountability kicks in?
Response:

A16.
Question A16: Your honor (Mayor Jackson) has said that you want students, parents, and teachers to be responsible and accountable – and they should be. What example is your honor setting with your lack of responsibility and accountability?
Response:

A17.
Question A17: Please state your office policy regarding the time frame in responding to a letter sent via e-mail, or certified mail, or hand delivered?
Response:

B. QUESTIONS FOR COUNCILMAN (AND CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT) MARTIN J. SWEENEY

B1.
Councilman Sweeney, despite repeated reminders, never responded to a request dated April 27, 2011 that he enjoin upon the Cleveland Landmarks Commission not to revoke John Marshall’s landmark status.

Reminders were provided via e-mail on June 14, 2011, via certified mail on June 16, 2011, verbally on September 6, 2011, and again via e-mail on September 9, 2011.

On September 6, 2011, the following comment was made at the NEC (Neighborhood Education Committee) meeting: “Council President and Councilman of Ward 18, Martin J. Sweeney who is pushing for a new school, also did not respond to a letter dealing with related issues.” Councilman Sweeney was absent at this meeting.

While Mayor Jackson was made aware (via e-mail on June 14, 2011, via certified mail on June 16, 2011, and again via e-mail on September 9, 2011) of Councilman Sweeney’s absence of response, Mayor Jackson did not take any action – knowing that revocation of the landmark status would lead to the destruction of our architectural gem – and contravene his honor’s vision for “building the Cleveland of tomorrow” by preserving our “great past”.

A copy of the April 27, 2011 letter to Councilman Sweeney which is part of the Reference Documents (over 400 pages) is included in the Attachment.

Question B1: Why did you (Councilman Sweeney) not respond to the letter of April 27, 2011 where you were requested to enjoin upon the Cleveland Landmarks Commission not to revoke John Marshall’s landmark status -- despite three written reminders?
Response:

B2.
Question B2: How many reminders do you (Councilman Sweeney) need before you respond to a resident from your ward?
Response:

B3.
Question B3: Please state your office policy regarding the time frame in responding to a letter sent via e-mail, or certified mail, or hand delivered?
Response:

B4.
Councilman Sweeney, as invited guest speaker, told an audience, including petitioners, at the December 6, 2011 NEC (Neighborhood Education Committee) meeting held at 14703 Puritas Avenue in the office of BPDC (Bellaire-Puritas Development Corporation) – see page 36 that he was there to listen.

This is an excellent example of the wide disparity between what some elected officials say in public and what they are actually doing behind the scenes.

Petitioners want existing John Marshall High School (JMHS) to be renovated. However, Councilman Sweeney’s actions reflect that his mind was already made up (before he came to the NEC meeting) to advocate for demolition of 80-year old landmarked John Marshall High School and eventual construction of a new school.

Despite all the public posturing, Mr. Sweeney never told the NEC audience that he had worked behind the scenes to get his name listed on the agenda (item 11) of December 8, 2011 CLC (Cleveland Landmarks Commission) meeting – a meeting that took place two days after the NEC meeting -- as advocating for demolition of John Marshall High School -- see page 37.

Eighteen slides of JMHS (see page 38) are also listed on the CLC website.

As a result, Architects for the School District and a representative from  Bellaire-Puritas Development Corporation – both advocates for a new JMHS – were able to make a presentation before the Cleveland Landmarks Commission at the December 8, 2011 meeting while the petitioners could not – a denial of due process.

BPDC – along with Councilman Sweeney – have always advocated for demolition of historic 80-year old JMHS and build a new school.

In December 2011, the School District, for four months, despite reminders, had not provided information petitioners needed to SAVE JMHS, and was working with Councilman Sweeney to de-landmark it, and had not provided calculations to explain mathematical contradictions in their work.

Question B4: Why did you (Councilman Sweeney), as guest speaker on the topic of JMHS, at the December 6, 2011 NEC meeting – fail to inform the audience that your name was listed on the agenda for the December 8, 2011 CLC meeting as advocating for demolition of John Marshall High School?
Response:

B5.
Question B5: Please refer to your office records and provide the date on which you (Councilman Sweeney) requested CLC (Cleveland Landmarks Commission) to add your name in the agenda of the December 8, 2011 CLC meeting (see page 37 ) as advocating for demolition of John Marshall High School?
Response:

B6.
Question B6: Please refer to your office records and provide the date on which you
(Councilman Sweeney) requested CMSD (Cleveland Metropolitan School District) or its
architects to be ready for a presentation at the December 8, 2011 CLC meeting?
Response:

B7.
Question B7: Please refer to your office records and provide the date on which you
(Councilman Sweeney) informed BPDC (Bellaire-Puritas Development Corporation)
about the December 8, 2011 CLC meeting?
Response:

B8.
Question B8: Please refer to your office records and provide the date on which you
(Councilman Sweeney) informed BPDC (Bellaire-Puritas Development Corporation)
that they should send a representative to the December 8, 2011 CLC meeting?
Response:

B9.
Request B1: Please refer to page 35 which is a copy of a CMSD supplied public document and provide a copy of the minutes of Wednesday, November 23, 2011 meeting.
Response;

B10,
Request B2: Please refer to page 35 which is a copy of a CMSD supplied public document and provide minutes of meeting between you (Councilman Sweeney) and Gary Sautter (Deputy Chief, Capital Programs, CMSD) regarding timeline and process for de-landmarking John Marshall as described in item 1.
Response;

B11.
Question B11: At the December 6, 2011 NEC meeting you (Councilman Sweeney) had stated  that John Marshall’s auditorium was not up to mark and needed replacement with a new cafetorium. Please explain why, according to you,  John Marshall’s auditorium is not up to mark and needs replacement with a new cafetorium?
Response:

B12.
Question B12: Please state the pros and cons as to why for the new JMHS -- a cafetorium is an alternative to an auditorium?
Response:

B13.
Ref. OSFC (Ohio School Facilities Commission), Pamphlet titled Renovate or Build New states:

“OSFC works closely with local communities to ensure that, where possible, local treasures should be renovated and upgraded to accommodate 21st Century systems and equipment. Renovated or built new, the goal is the same – providing quality learning facilities for Ohio students.”

Question B13: You (Councilman Sweeney) have stated that only new schools can provide
a 21st century learning environment. 83-year old historic John Hay High School was
renovated in 2006 to 21st century learning standards. 80-year old Rhodes High School was
renovated in 2009 to 21st century learning standards

Please explain why renovated schools cannot provide a 21st century learning environment?
Response:

B14.
Question B14: In the article “Cleveland Landmarks Commission clears way for John Marshall High school demolition” by Ken Prendergast of Sun News posted on Cleveland.Com on January 19, 2012, you (Councilman Sweeney) stated that “we will soon have a state-of-the-art John Marshall that will be the crown jewel of the students’ academic experience.”

A new John Marshall will not have an auditorium, underground running tracks, or a swimming pool. The renovated 83-year old John Hay High School, with an auditorium and a swimming pool, and a top academic rating is the School District’s crown jewel.

Please explain what you mean by “a state-of-the-art John Marshall”?
Response:

B15.
Question B15: At the December 6, 2011 NEC meeting, I (Satinder P. S. Puri) requested
that you (Councilman Sweeney) look into the City of Cleveland paying  for the renovation
of JMHS Recreation Center, with a swimming pool, as the community was using it.
Please explain what action you took regarding my request?
Response:

B16
At the January 12, 2012 CLC (Cleveland Landmarks Commission ) meeting, over 2,400 petitions were submitted. Petitioners want to preserve our heritage and renovate 80-year old landmarked John Marshall similar to the School District’s renovation of 83-year old landmarked John Hay and 80-year old landmarked Rhodes High Schools – to 21st century teaching and learning standards.

The renovation of John Hay High School was completed in 2006 and that of Rhodes High School in 2009. CEDA (Cleveland Educational Design Alliance) – the architects for the new JMHS were also the architects for the renovated Rhodes High School.

The option for a new JMHS was rejected by the community in three successive zero votes as described below:

FIRST VOTE: On September 6, 2011, for the first time in over three years, the School District presented three options on the John Marshall High School Construction Project at the Neighborhood Education Committee Meeting held in Room 147 (Lecture Hall) of
John Marshall High School, 3952 West 150th Street.

After a public discussion, extending over an hour, a straw poll was taken.

Here are the results:

Option 1: New School  – an option promoted by the School District for nearly 4 years, an option approved by the Board without any comparative analysis, an option embraced by Ward 18 Councilman Mr. Sweeney, and promoted by the Bellaire-Puritas Development Corporation in their public events and newsletters – the option for a new school received 0 votes.

Option 2: Partial Demolition, Renovation + New Construction -- 8 votes.

Option 3: Full Renovation: 28 votes

SECOND VOTE: On September 7, 2011, the Board of Trustees of the John Marshall High School Alumni Association, representing over 17, 000 graduates, unanimously approved a resolution to support the Renovation Option.
THIRD VOTE: Latest unanimous resolution: After a discussion lasting for nearly two hours, by Neighborhood Education Committee of Ward 18 at their monthly meeting held in the office of Bellare-Puritas Development Corporation at 14703 Puritas Avenue on
November 1, 2011:

“Tearing down John Marshall and building new is not an option as far as this group
(NEC) and community are concerned.”

Question B16: At the January 12, 2012 CLC meeting, according to the minutes, pertaining
to you (Council President Martin J. Sweeney) (Ward 18): “He said that the heart of the
community wanted a new school.”

a. Please provide data in support of your statement – names and addresses of residents of
Ward 18 (heart of the community) who support a new JMHS?

b. Also provide names and addresses of residents of Ward 18 (heart of the community)
who attended the September 6, 2011 NEC meeting and voted for a new JMHS. At this
meeting (September 6, 2011), the option for a new school received 0 votes.

c. Also, provide names and addresses of residents of Ward 18 (heart of the community)
who attended the November 1, 2011, NEC meeting and voted for a new JMHS. Again, at
this meeting (November 1, 2011), no one present opposed the unanimous resolution for
full renovation.

d. Did you (Councilman Sweeney) attend the September 6, 2011 NEC meeting?

e. Did you (Councilman Sweeney) attend the November 1, 2011 NEC meeting?
Response:
 

Question B17:  At the January 12, 2012 CLC meeting, the Chair (Jennifer Coleman) of
CLC refused to let me respond to inaccuracies in the financial numbers, on behalf of
petitioners, while the Cleveland Metropolitan School District (CMSD), their Architect,
and you (Councilman Sweeney) were free to get up and interject at any time.

Why did you (Councilman Sweeney, also Council President) very aware of protecting
basic rights of individuals, demonstrate no outrage when my basic right to speak about
inaccuracies and mathematical contradictions in the School District’s financial numbers
at the January 12, 2012 CLC meeting were denied?

Response:

C. QUESTIONS FOR CEO ERIC S. GORDON OF CMSD (CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN SCHOOL DISTRICT):

The Cleveland  Metropolitan School District (CMSD) that aspires to be the premier district in the United States and teaches our children ethics and fair play has not played fair  with the petitioners.

CMSD CEO Gordon provided the first response to request for information after 11 reminders spread over 8 months – a response which unfortunately does not address errors in the financial numbers – errors that were questioned by the Chair of CLC -- nor provide requested critical information: For example how the School District decided that renovation was the preferred alternative for both John Hay and Rhodes High Schools; why renovation in the case of John Hay and Rhodes took less time than building new schools; and a detailed schedule explaining why renovation (from project start to project finish) will take longer than building a new John Marshall. These issues cannot be resolved unless the School District decides to partner in good faith. Supplying part of the information after 11 reminders – is definitely not partnering in good faith. In addition, Mayor Jackson took no corrective action when the delay in supplying the information needed to SAVE JOHN MARSHALL was brought to his honor’s attention.

CEO Gordon, in his letter of November 30, 2011 – see page 49 -- addressed to me, stated:
“Please note due to the considerable volume of info which is being gathered by a team comprised of OSFC, the architects, the construction manager and Mr. Sautter’s department, we expect to forward that information by CD format as requested by the end of next week.” End of next week, according to the letter was Saturday, December 10, 2011.

While no information was received by the specified date –information that petitioners needed to SAVE JOHN MARSHALL HIGH SCHOOL – architects for the School District made a presentation before the CLC (Cleveland Landmarks Commission) on Thursday, December 8, 2011 – where Councilman Martin J. Sweeney’s (also City Council President) name was listed on the agenda (item 11) as advocating for demolition of John Marshall High School as follows:
11. John Marshall High School                                       Ward 18 - Sweeney
3952 West 140th Street
          Demolition

WHY WAS THE CEO OF CMSD, ON THE ONE HAND NOT PROVIDING INFORMATION THAT PETITIONERS NEEDED TO SAVE JOHN MARSHALL HIGH SCHOOL, WAS THEN STATING THAT THE SUBJECT INFORMATION WOULD BE FORWARDED BY A CERTAIN DATE (END OF NEXT WEEK), AND THEN THE INFORMATION WAS NEVER RECEIVED, AND MEANWHILE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HAD BEEN SIMULTANEOULY WORKING ON ADVOCATING FOR DEMOLITION OF OUR ARCHITECTURAL GEM – AND THEN OBTAINED A DEMOLITION PERMIT THROUGH A VOTE RIGGING PROCESS?

Note: While no information was received by the specified date -- the first response was received over five months later --- on May 14, 2012 -- a  response which unfortunately does not address errors in the financial numbers nor provide requested critical information. Meanwhile the School District is getting ready to demolish our architectural gem – having installed the infamous chain-link fence, around John Marshall  -- also known as “Jackson & Sweeney’s Folly”.

SCHOOL DISTRICT DID NOT PARTNER IN GOOD FAITH:
The School District did not partner, in good faith, with the petitioners to renovate 80-year old historic John Marshall High School (opened in 1932) into a first class institution of learning while also preserving our heritage – similar to what the School District has already done for the renovations of landmarked 83-year old John Hay High School (opened in 1928 and renovation completed in 2006) and 80-year old Rhodes High School (opened in 1932 and renovation completed in 2009). This renovation must include the renovation of the Auditorium, Underground Running Tracks, and Swimming Pool.

Eric Gordon, CEO, CMSD was requested via e-mail on September 9, 2011:
“The last Public Meeting was over 5 months ago. The time for presentations is over. It is time to sit down and work together on the Renovation Option.

We have to work with our landmark buildings. Demolishing landmarks should  
never be an option.

We are an enlightened community of problem solvers that would like to work with
Cleveland Metropolitan School District in renovating 80-year old landmarked
John Marshall High School into a first class institution of learning while also preserving our heritage.

Again, CEO Gordon was requested both, verbally and in writing, on behalf of petitioners at the September 27, 2011 CMSD Board of Education Meeting:

“We are an enlightened community of problem solvers that would like to work with Cleveland Metropolitan School District in renovating 80-year old landmarked John Marshall High School into a first class institution of learning while also preserving
our heritage – like what was done for the landmarked and renovated John Hay and Rhodes High Schools.”

THE CEO OF CMSD NEVER RESPONDED TO THE OFFER TO WORK TOGETHER WITH THE PETITIONERS.
 

However, CEO Gordon, in his letter of February 8, 2012 (see page 51) stated: “I do understand your commitment to protecting the current facility and, if you have solutions for the significant costs need [sic] to close the gap between a renovated and a new school, I encourage to [sic] you present them.”

HOW DID THE CEO OF CMSD EXPECT PETITIONERS TO PRESENT ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS TO SAVE JOHN MARSHALL BY RENOVATING IT WHEN HE DID NOT PROVIDE THE REQUESTED INFORMATION – PENDING– SINCE SEPTEMBER 6, 2011 – INFORMATION HE HAD STATED IN WRITING  IN HIS LETTER OF NOVEMBER 30, 2011 – THAT HE WOULD PROVIDE – BUT NEVER DID – AND MEANWHILE HE HAD OBTAINED THE PERMIT TO DEMOLISH OUR ARCHITECTURAL GEM THROUGH A VOTE RIGGING PROCESS ENGINEERED BY COUNCILMAN SWEENEY?

THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HAS ALREADY RENOVATED 83-YEAR OLD JOHN HAY AND 80-YEAR OLD RHODES HIGH SCHOOLS.

WHY BY FEBRUARY 2012 -- WAS THE CEO OF CMSD NOT PROVIDING THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON JOHN HAY AND RHODES HIGH SCHOOLS – TWO HISTORIC SCHOOLS THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HAS RENOVATED -- INFORMATION THAT WAS PENDING SINCE SEPTEMBER 6, 2011?

John Hay High School: Provide:

*Copies of contract drawings (on a CD) and I will order the prints.
* Cost estimates of all alternatives to show why Renovation was the preferred alternative with all supporting documentation.
* Final Construction Cost and Cost of LFI.
* Copy of final Assessment Report as requested by OSFC.
* What was done to bring John Hay’s classrooms (built in 1929) to 21st century standards?
* What was done to make John Hay comply with the prevailing requirements of the Ohio Building Code?

Rhodes High School: Provide:

*Copies of contract drawings (on a CD) and I will order the prints.
* Cost estimates of all alternatives to show why Renovation was the preferred alternative with all supporting documentation.
* Final Construction Cost and Cost of LFI.
* Copy of final Assessment Report as requested by OSFC.
* What was done to bring Rhodes’s classrooms (built in 1932) to 21st century standards?
* What was done to make Rhodes comply with the prevailing requirements of the Ohio Building Code?

WHY DID THE CEO OF CMSD NOT WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY TO PRESERVE HISTORIC JOHN MARSHALL – SIMILAR TO THE PRESERVATION OF JOHN HAY AND RHODES HIGH SCHOOLS -- WHEN THE OPTION FOR A NEW SCHOOL HAD ALREADY BEEN REJECTED BY THE COMMUNITY IN THREE SUCCESSIVE ZERO VOTES? (see page 44)

Question C1: Why did you (CEO Gordon) not provide the requested information by end of next week – meaning Saturday December 10, 2012) as stated in your letter to me of November 30, 2011? (For copy of letter, see page 49)
Response:

Question C2:  CEO Gordon stated, to a Channel 5 reporter (in the article: “Clevelanders say No to Tax Levy” by Stephanie Ramirez of newsnet5.com dated 08-18-12): "We can promise to the community better results, which is what we deserve.”

How trustworthy is your (CEO Gordon’s) verbal promise when a written promise (made to me to provide the requested information by end of next week -- means nothing?
Response:

Question C3: CEO Gordon, in his letter of February 8, 2012 (see page 51) stated: “I do understand your commitment to protecting the current facility and, if you have solutions for the significant costs need [sic] to close the gap between a renovated and a new school, I encourage to [sic] you present them.”

HOW DID CEO GORDON EXPECT PETITIONERS TO PRESENT ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS TO SAVE JOHN MARSHALL BY RENOVATING IT WHEN HE (CEO GORDON) DID NOT PROVIDE THE REQUESTED INFORMATION – PENDING– SINCE SEPTEMBER 6, 2011 – INFORMATION HE HAD STATED IN WRITING  IN HIS LETTER OF NOVEMBER 30, 2011 – THAT HE WOULD PROVIDE – BUT NEVER DID – AND MEANWHILE HE HAD OBTAINED THE PERMIT TO DEMOLISH OUR ARCHITECTURAL GEM THROUGH A VOTE RIGGING PROCESS ENGINEERED BY COUNCILMAN SWEENEY?
Response:

Question C4: CEO Gordon provided the first response (on May 14, 2012) to request for information after 11 reminders spread over 8 months – a response which unfortunately does not address errors in the financial numbers nor provide requested critical information. How many reminders does CEO Gordon require before his accountability kicks in?
Response:

Question C5: WHY BY FEBRUARY 2012 -- WAS CEO GORDON NOT PROVIDING THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON JOHN HAY AND RHODES HIGH SCHOOLS – TWO HISTORIC SCHOOLS THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HAS RENOVATED -- INFORMATION THAT WAS PENDING SINCE SEPTEMBER 6, 2011?

John Hay High School: Provide:

*Copies of contract drawings (on a CD) and I will order the prints.
* Cost estimates of all alternatives to show why Renovation was the preferred alternative with all supporting documentation.
* Final Construction Cost and Cost of LFI.
* Copy of final Assessment Report as requested by OSFC.
* What was done to bring John Hay’s classrooms (built in 1929) to 21st century standards?
* What was done to make John Hay comply with the prevailing requirements of the Ohio Building Code?
Rhodes High School: Provide:

*Copies of contract drawings (on a CD) and I will order the prints.
* Cost estimates of all alternatives to show why Renovation was the preferred alternative with all supporting documentation.
* Final Construction Cost and Cost of LFI.
* Copy of final Assessment Report as requested by OSFC.
* What was done to bring Rhodes’s classrooms (built in 1932) to 21st century standards?
* What was done to make Rhodes comply with the prevailing requirements of the Ohio Building Code?

Response to Question C5:

Question C6: While the community has rejected the option for a new school with three successive zero votes and wants the existing school to be renovated -- the Board of Education contravened the democratic process by still remaining committed to a new school -- see letter from CEO Eric Gordon dated October 5, 2011 – see page 47.

FIRST VOTE: On September 6, 2011, for the first time in over three years, the School District presented three options on the John Marshall High School Construction Project at the Neighborhood Education Committee Meeting held in Room 147 (Lecture Hall) of John Marshall High School, 3952 West 150th Street.

After a public discussion, extending over an hour, a straw poll was taken.

Here are the results:
Option 1: New School  – an option promoted by the School District for nearly 4 years, an option approved by the Board without any comparative analysis, an option embraced by Ward 18 Councilman Mr. Sweeney, and promoted by the Bellaire-Puritas Development Corporation in their public events and newsletters – the option for a new school received 0 votes.

Option 2: Partial Demolition, Renovation + New Construction -- 8 votes.

Option 3: Full Renovation: 28 votes

SECOND VOTE: On September 7, 2011, the Board of Trustees of the John Marshall High School Alumni Association, representing over 17, 000 graduates, unanimously approved a resolution to support the Renovation Option.

THIRD VOTE: Latest unanimous resolution: After a discussion lasting for nearly two hours, by Neighborhood Education Committee of Ward 18 at their monthly meeting held in the office of Bellare-Puritas Development Corporation at 14703 Puritas Avenue on November 1, 2011:

 “Tearing down John Marshall and building new is not an option as far as this group (NEC) and community are concerned.”
 
WHY DID YOU (CEO GORDON) NOT WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY TO PRESERVE HISTORIC JOHN MARSHALL – SIMILAR TO THE PRESERVATION OF JOHN HAY AND RHODES HIGH SCHOOLS -- WHEN THE OPTION FOR A NEW SCHOOL HAD ALREADY BEEN REJECTED BY THE COMMUNITY IN THREE SUCCESSIVE ZERO VOTES?
Response to Question C6:

Question C7: Please refer to bottom of page 46 which shows a copy of slide No. 26 presented by CEDA -- architects for the new JMHS and also architects for the renovation of Rhodes High School which was completed in 2009.

a. Does Rhodes High School (renovated in 2009) provide a great educational environment or just a good educational environment?
b. Will Rhodes High School (renovated in 2009) be educationally viable in 20 years?

Response:

Request C1: Please refer to page 48 which is a copy of a CMSD supplied public document and provide a copy of the minutes of Wednesday, November 23, 2011 meeting.
Response:

Request C2: Please refer to page 48 which is a copy of a CMSD supplied public document and provide minutes of meeting between Gary Sautter and Councilman Sweeney regarding timeline and process for de-landmarking John Marshall as described in item 1.
Response:

Question C8: Please refer to your office records and provide the date on which 
(Councilman Sweeney) requested CMSD (Cleveland Metropolitan School District) or its
architects to be ready for a presentation at the December 8, 2011 CLC meeting where
demolition of JMHS was on the agenda.
Response:

Question C9: Please refer to page 50 which is a copy of a CMSD supplied public document. Did CMSD inform Melissa Miller of BPDC (Bellaire Puritas Development Corporation) that she (Ms. Miller) had to make a presentation at the December 8, 2011 CLC (Cleveland Landmarks Commission) meeting?
Response:

Question C10: Please refer to page 50 which is a copy of a CMSD supplied public document. Did CMSD provide any help to Melissa Miller of BPDC (Bellaire Puritas Development Corporation) with the presentation Ms. Miller made at the December 8, 2011 CLC (Cleveland Landmarks Commission) meeting?
Response:

Question C11: CMSD (Cleveland Metropolitan School District) that aspires to be the premier district in the United States and teaches our children ethics and fair play has not played fair  with over 2,400 petitioners in the $50 million John Marshall High School (JMHS) Construction Project.

a. When you (CEO Gordon) did not provide the requested information by end of next week – meaning Saturday December 10, 2011 as stated in your letter to me of November 30, 2011 -- for copy of letter see page 49 -- did CMSD play fair with the petitioners?

b. When your staff (Gary Sautter) provided the first response to requested information after 8 months and 11 reminders, did CMSD play fair with the petitioners?
Response:

Question C12:
You (CEO Gordon) have said that you want students, parents, and teachers to be responsible and accountable – and they should be. What example are you setting with your lack of responsibility and accountability on the $50 million JMHS Construction Project?
Response:

Question C13: What is the CMSD policy of time frame in responding to public requests for documents? According to Dr. Sanders, former CEO, CMSD – it was 10 business days.
However, your staff (Gary Sautter) provided the first response to requested information after 8 months and 11 reminders.
Response:

SLIDE 26
(Presented at the January 12, 2012 CLC (Cleveland Landmarks Commission) meeting by CEDA (Cleveland Educational Design Alliance) – architects of the new JMHS and also architects for the renovation of Rhodes High School which was completed in 2009.)

John Marshall High School

Final Thoughts

Do we want to provide a great educational environment with a new building or, at a greater cost, provide just a good educational environment in a renovated one?
   
Which building will be more educationally viable in 20 years?

D. QUESTION FOR DENISE W. LINK, CHAIR, CMSD BOARD OF EDUCATION:

 The SAVE JOHN MARSHALL campaign has made 14 appearances (as of 10-23-12) at the monthly Board of Education meetings and requested that in an over $50 million project, the written comments should be included as part of their minutes. The Board has not complied with the request and has reported the multi-page comments as two/three line summaries, which are incorrect reflections of the comments.

Fourteen appearances at Board of Education meetings were on: August 23, 2011, September 27, 2011, October 25, 2011, November 22, 2011, January 24, 2012, February 28, 2012, March 27, 2012, April 17, 2012, May 22, 2012, June 26, 2912, July 31, 2012, August 21, 2012, September 25, 2012, and October 23, 2012.  A copy of written comments was submitted at each meeting for the record for inclusion in the Board’s minutes.

Question D1: Why are the written comments pertaining to the $50 million John Marshall High School Construction Project, submitted on behalf of over 2,400 petitioners, not included in the Board’s minutes – especially when a request is made everytime that they be included?
Response:

E. QUESTIONS FOR JENNIFER COLEMAN, CHAIR OF CLC (CLEVELAND LANDMARKS COMMISSION) PERTAINING TO THE JANUARY 12, 2012 MEETING UNLESS NOTED:

Councilman Sweeney (also City Council President) rigged the 5 to 4 vote to demolish landmarked historic 80-year old John Marshall at the January 12, 2012 CLC (Cleveland Landmarks Commission) meeting. The Chief Architect of the City of Cleveland (with the title of Manager of Architecture) who should be preserving and protecting our landmarks -- voted to demolish our architectural gem.

Mayor Jackson took no action when the vote rigging and other irregularities were brought to his honor’s attention.

For example, at the January 12, 2012 Cleveland Landmarks Commission meeting, despite repeated requests, the Chair refused to let me respond to inaccuracies in the financial numbers, on behalf of petitioners, while the School District, their Architect, and Councilman Sweeney were free to get up and interject at any time. Additional irregularities are discussed below.

Also, City Hall has not submitted any requested public documents pertaining to vote rigging and irregularities.

E1.
A member (Allan Dryer) was absent at the subject meeting.. While quorum was still satisfied, Councilman Sweeney nevertheless brought in Councilwoman Phyllis Cleveland as a one-day replacement  -- not clear under what rules of the Commission -- and she also voted for demolition. City Hall has not submitted any document citing the CLC rule to justify temporary replacement of CLC member Allan Dryer by Councilwoman Phyllis Cleveland at the January 12, 2012 CLC meeting even when quorum did not require a replacement.

Question E1: Please quote the specific CLC rule under which Councilwoman Phyllis Cleveland was brought in as as a one-day replacement even when quorum was satisfied?
Response::

E2.
Question E2: Please specify the dates of all other CLC meetings during your (Jennifer Coleman’s) tenure as Chair – when a CLC member was absent – and quorum was satisfied – yet a temporary replacement was brought in?
Response:

E3.
According to the CLC’s website: The mission statement of the CLC is listed as follows: “To encourage the preservation of historically and architecturally significant buildings and historic districts within the City of Cleveland.” In addition, the website lists the following statement: “The Landmarks Commission is an eleven-member board of preservation-minded individuals consisting of architects, historians, property owners, attorneys, Cleveland City Council representatives, the Director of City Planning, and the Commissioner of Architecture.”

At the CLC meeting, Councilwoman Cleveland stated that she liked new things and was not a preservationist. City Hall has not submitted any document confirming whether the Councilwoman met the requirements for membership in the CLC.

Question E3: Did Councilwoman Cleveland meet the requirements for membership in the CLC as a preservation minded individual?
Response:

E4.
City Hall has not submitted any document confirming whether Councilwoman Phyliss Cleveland toured the 80-year old historic JMHS facility before the January 12, 2012 CLC meeting.

Question E4: Did Councilwoman Phyliss Cleveland tour the 80-year old historic JMHS facility before the January 12, 2012 CLC meeting?
If yes, please provide the date and time of the tour.
Response:

E5.
According to the minutes of the January 12, 2012 CLC meeting -- Councilwoman Cleveland approved the minutes of the previous CLC meeting held on December 8, 2011 – a meeting which Ms. Cleveland did not attend.

Question E5: Why did you (Jennifer Coleman) as Chair of CLC accept approval of minutes of the December 8, 2011 CLC meeting from Councilwoman Phyliss Cleveland – knowing fully well that Ms. Cleveland had not attended the subject meeting?
Response:

E6.
Despite requests, the Chair (Jennifer Coleman) of CLC refused to let me respond to inaccuracies in the financial numbers, on behalf of petitioners, while the Cleveland Metropolitan School District (CMSD), their Architect, and Councilman Sweeney were free to get up and interject at any time. Councilman Sweeney, also Council President, very aware of protecting basic rights of individuals, demonstrated no outrage when my right to speak in City Hall was denied.

Question E6: a. Why did you (Jennifer Coleman) deny me (Satinder P. S. Puri), on behalf
of over 2,400 petitioners, my basic right to speak about inaccuracies and mathematical
contradictions in the School District’s financial numbers at the January 12, 2012 CLC
meeting?
b. Why do the minutes of the subject meeting make no mention of the denial of my
requests to speak about inaccuracies and mathematical contradictions in the School
District’s financial numbers?
Response:

E7.
The Chair was aware “there were lots of questions about the financial numbers.”
In the January 19, 2012 article by Ken Prendergast posted on Cleveland.Com:
“Cleveland Landmarks Commission clears way for John Marshall High school demolition”, Jennifer Coleman, Chair of CLC stated:
“It’s important to have a connection to the past,” she added. “I understand the (school) district’s economic argument, but I think there were lots of questions about the financial numbers. In 20 or 30 years, we’re going to look back and realize how much we’ve lost. The question is, how can we go forward?” 

City Hall has not submitted any document confirming the CLC rule under which the
Chair of CLC permitted a vote (at the January 12, 2012 CLC meeting) on whether
landmarked 80-year old JMHS should be demolished when the Chair was aware that
“there were lots of questions about the financial numbers.”

Question E7: Why did you (Jennifer Coleman) as Chair of CLC permit a vote (at the
January 12, 2012 CLC meeting) on whether landmarked 80-year old JMHS should be
demolished when you were aware that “there were lots of questions about the financial
numbers.”
Response:

E8.
At the CLC meeting, the Chair (Jennifer Coleman) stated that speakers in public sessions were limited to 2 minutes. I spoke, within the allotted time on behalf of over 2,400 petitioners. However, Councilman Sweeney was allowed to speak for 18 minutes without any objection from the Chair. City Hall has not submitted any document confirming exception to the 2-minute rule and why Councilman Sweeney was allowed to speak for 18 minutes without any objection from the Chair.
Question E8: Why did you (Jennifer Coleman) as Chair of CLC permit Councilman 
Sweeeney to speak for 18 minutes, without any objection, when the stipulated rule,
according to the Chair, was 2 minutes?
Response:

E9.
Question E9: Why were the concerns of over 2,400 petitioners who want JMHS to be
renovated ignored during the discussions at the January 12, 2012 CLC meeting?
Response:

E10.
Question E10: Why were the concerns of the community who had rejected the new school
in three successive zero votes ignored during the discussions at the January 12, 2012
CLC meeting?
Note: For a description of the three successive zero votes please see page 44. This
information was included in the e-mail of January 8, 2012 sent to Mayor Jackson on
which you were copied.
Response:

E11.
Question E11: At the January 12, 2012 CLC meeting, I read a portion of my prepared
comments. A copy of the prepared comments was included in the box left with CLC.
Why were the prepared comments not acknowledged in the minutes of the January 12,
2012 CLC meeting?
Response:

E12.
At the CLC meeting, a box (weighing 7 pounds) was handed over to CLC. The box contained the following:

* Copy of 2,421 petitions: The petitions were collected on the SAVE JOHN MARSHALL 
   Facebook Group Petition Site; by hand; via e-mails, and again by hand. The three sets 
   total: 122, 1,157, and 1,142 petitions respectively.  
* Copy of Comments made at January 12, 2012 Cleveland Landmarks Commission
   Meeting (8 pages)
* Copy of January 8, 2012 document (nearly 200-pages)
* 12 copies of SAVE JOHN MARSHALL CAMPAIGN
   January/February 2012 Newsletter
* 12 copies of Plain Press article, August 2011
* 12 copies of Sun News article, October 2011
The CLC minutes of the January 12, 2012 meeting make no mention of the box or their contents.
Question E12: Why were the contents of the box not acknowledged in the minutes of the
January 12, 2012 CLC meeting?
Response:

E13.
Question E13: Please refer to your office records and provide the date on which  Councilman Sweeney requested CLC (Cleveland Landmarks Commission) to add his  name in the agenda of the December 8, 2011 CLC meeting (see page 37) as advocating for demolition of John Marshall High School?
Response:

E14.
Question E14: Please refer to your office records and provide the date on which
CMSD (Cleveland Metropolitan School District) or their architects provided the slides
(see page 38) on the existing John Marshall High School which are listed along with the
agenda for the December 8, 2011 CLC meeting.
Response:

Request E1: Please provide copies of letters from Ken Tischler and Anthony Rizer
submitted to CLC at the January 12, 2012 CLC meeting. Both letters supported
demolition of John Marshall High School.
Response:

Request E2: Please provide a Copy of Certificate of Appropriateness pertaining to John Marshall High School issued by the CLC.
Response:

F. QUESTIONS FOR ROBERT VILKAS, MANAGER OF ARCHITECTURE, CITY OF CLEVELAND:
The Chief Architect (Robert Vilkas) of the City of Cleveland (with the title of Manager of Architecture) who should be preserving and protecting our landmarks -- voted to demolish our architectural gem at the January 12, 2012 CLC (Cleveland Landmarks Commission) meeting. Mr. Vilkas is a member of the CLC and at the January 12, 2012 . meeting, Mr. Vilkas did not provide any explanation for demolishing the landmark.

Question F1: Why did you (Rober Vilkas), as Manager of Architecture of the City of
Cleveland, vote to demolish landmarked historic 80-year old John Marshall High School
at the January 12, 2012 CLC (Cleveland Landmarks Commission) meeting?
Response:

Question F2: According to the CLC’s website: The mission statement of the CLC is listed as follows: “To encourage the preservation of historically and architecturally significant buildings and historic districts within the City of Cleveland.”

In voting to demolish landmarked historic 80-year old John Marshall High School
at the January 12, 2012 CLC (Cleveland Landmarks Commission) meeting, how
did you (Rober Vilkas), as Manager of Architecture of the City of Cleveland, “Encourage
the preservation of historically and architecturally significant buildings within the City of
Cleveland.”
Response:

G. QUESTION FOR COUNCILMAN ANTHONY BRANCATELLI:
(also member of the CLC)

At the January 12, 2012 CLC (Cleveland Landmarks Commission.) meeting, CLC member, Councilman Brancatelli, who also voted for demolition of landmarked historic 80-year old John Marshall High School, stated that renovation is more expensive than new construction.

On the contrary, for John Marshall High School, the renovation cost is nearly $150 per square foot and the cost of new construction is nearly $220 per square foot.

For both 83-year old John Hay High School (renovation completed in 2006) and 80-year old Rhodes High School (renovation completed in 2009) – renovation was cheaper than new construction.

City Hall has not submitted any actual data confirming Councilman Brancatelli’s statement.

Question G1: Please provide data to support your statement, that for CMSD schools,
renovation is more expensive than new construction.
Response:

H. QUESTIONS FOR COUNCILWOMAN PHYLLIS E. CLEVELAND:

At the January 12, 2012 CLC (Cleveland Landmarks Commission) meeting, a CLC member (Allan Dryer) was absent. While quorum was still satisfied, Councilman Sweeney nevertheless brought in Councilwoman Phyllis E. Cleveland as a one-day replacement  -- not clear under what rules of the Commission -- and she also voted for demolition. City Hall has not submitted any document citing the CLC rule to justify temporary replacement of CLC member Allan Dryer by Councilwoman Phyllis Cleveland at the January 12, 2012 CLC meeting even when quorum did not require a replacement.

According to the CLC’s website: The mission statement of the CLC is listed as follows: “To encourage the preservation of historically and architecturally significant buildings and historic districts within the City of Cleveland.” In addition, the website lists the following statement: “The Landmarks Commission is an eleven-member board of preservation-minded individuals consisting of architects, historians, property owners, attorneys, Cleveland City Council representatives, the Director of City Planning, and the Commissioner of Architecture.”

At the CLC meeting, Councilwoman Cleveland stated that she liked new things and was not a preservationist. City Hall has not submitted any document confirming whether the Councilwoman met the requirements for membership in the CLC.

City Hall has not submitted any document confirming whether Councilwoman Phyliss Cleveland toured the 80-year old historic JMHS facility before the January 12, 2012 CLC meeting,

According to the minutes of the January 12, 2012 CLC meeting -- Councilwoman Cleveland approved the minutes of the previous CLC meeting held on December 8, 2011 – a meeting which Ms. Cleveland did not attend.

Question H1: Please explain how you were qualified to substitute as a member of the CLC
and vote on the demolition of landmarked historic 80-year old JMHS (John Marshall
High School)?
Response

Question H2: Did you tour the 80-year old historic JMHS facility before the January 12, 2012 CLC meeting? If yes, provide the date of your tour?
Response

Question H3: Why did you (Councilwoman Cleveland) approve the minutes of the previous CLC meeting held on December 8, 2011 – a meeting which you (Ms. Cleveland) did not attend?
Response: