The Sarasota Architectural Foundation has sharply criticized Sarasota County School District COO Scott Lempe over his handling of the rehabilitation of the Paul Rudolph-designed buildings at Sarasota High School.
"The bully can still win in Sarasota's schoolyards," said the SAF in a memorandum sent to the school board today.
The SAF said Lempe has attempted to stall the rehabilitation project until it is too late to save the original character of Building 4's interior. "Mr. Lempe's key management strategy for SHS is a simple one, just 'run the clock.' ... Keep information from the stakeholders for as long as possible ... provide information at the last minute ... listen to input but finally decree that it is took late to incorporate the input, but 'thank you very much.' "
The letter charged that school staff, under Lempe's direction, has "carefully filtered" information about the project. The SAF also noted that the district's attempt to save design fees by doing preliminary site planning in-house was "ill-conceived" and that the effort wasted "untold dollars and precious time ... in an effort that was poorly directed and clearly beyond the professional capabilities of the staff."
The letter also said that the school district did not consult preservation architects until six months after the project commenced. And then, "their input was widely disregarded."
The SAF decried what is calls "a history of denial and misinformation" by Lempe. The district's first plan called for demolition of the Rudolph-designed gym and locker rooms. "Scott Lempe and his team obscured the fact that the locker room building and the gym were all part of the Rudolph addition." This was, says the SAF in the letter, "misleading to the board, stakeholders and the state, and wasted time and taxpayers' dollars."
The SAF letter said that the charrette held last summer about the SHS issue was a site-plan charrette, not a design charrette, as referred to by Lempe. "An attempt to once again twist the truth," charges the SAF. Because a design charrette was not held, the SAF said, it issued a document titled "Recommendations for Effective Rehabilitation" to cover design issues not covered at the public "site-planning charrette."
The architecture group is highly critical of the school design team for minimizing the role of local preservation architect Jonathan Parks in the process. The SAF called Parks "a puppet on a tight string. ... Parks was simply being used by Harvard Jolly (the school district's architect for the project) and Lempe to give the appearance that an independent architect with specific preservation experience would be the watchdog over this project. It turns out that Parks' scope of work was strictly limited to the 'skin' of building 4."
"Simply painting a pretty face on Building 4 makes a cynical joke of the board's agreement to 'appropriately rehabilitate' the addition. If this plan proceeds, Sarasota will once again be known worldwide for the destruction of a priceless asset," the memorandum reads.
It concludes: "You still have the time, means and support of a very determined group of taxpaying citizens to put the project on an honest track. Direct Harvard Jolly to use their resources and a portion of their $1.4 million in taxpayer funds to redesign Building 4. It is finally time to do the right thing."
The text of the memorandum:
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
February 18, 2013
FROM:
Debra A. Gordon Dart, Elliott Himelfarb, Michael Kalman, M.D., Lamis Hamdi Kanaan, Janet Minker, Dan Snyder, Christopher Wilson
TO:
Sarasota County School Board
RE:
Sarasota High School Renovation Progress Report, Presentation Date: February 19, 2013
We have read the above-referenced report and are stunned by its many inaccuracies, distortions and partial-truths. The assertion on page 8 , that the district has acted in "good faith" to honor the promises made at the June Charrette is the precise opposite of what has occurred. The report is voluminous, properly designed and numbered, and by virtue of these attributes, would appear to be accurate and complete. It is, unfortunately, neither.
We have been unable to meet with most of you, and the information you have received on this topic has been carefully filtered by your staff. It is therefore important to now correct the record. Objective facts will present a more complete picture of the sad neglect of the iconic Paul Rudolph Addition and the irreversible plans for its future.
1. The meaning of "appropriately rehabilitate"
The School Board’s COO, Scott Lempe, on the stipulation in the "CONCURRENT SITE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL," June 12, 2007, dismisses it as the result of a "courtesy discussion," and on many occasions has stated that the phrase "appropriately rehabilitate" is open to wide interpretations.
In reality, Lempe and David Baber, then director of the History Center, met at least five times on this topic, with Baber carefully and in great detail describing to Scott that the term is clearly defined by the U. S. Department of the Interior, in the Secretary’s Standards for Rehabilitation. For Scott or any Board Member to state that the definition is unknown or lacking in specificity is simple not true. And to refer to numerous meetings between Scott and Baber as a "courtesy discussion," is intentionally misleading and also not true.
2. The Board’s Construction Department’s waste of taxpayer dollars
In an ill-conceived attempt to reduce design fees, the Board’s in-house construction department started the site planning and programming for the SHS campus in the spring of 2011. They labored on this assignment until the spring of 2012—wasting untold dollars and precious time—in an effort that was poorly directed and clearly beyond the professional capabilities of the staff.
Three important facts regarding this exercise—
-- Preservation architects were not retained by the School Board in this exploration, even though the Rudolph Addition was obviously an important and key element to be explored.
-- When local architects and preservationists were finally consulted six months AFTER the project commenced, their input was widely disregarded.
-- The in-house plan for the SHS campus was unanimously rejected by the community at the site planning charrette…including the ridiculous and expensive, proposed redundant new entrance to the campus.
3. A history of denial and misinformation
For many months, Scott Lempe and his team obscured the fact that the locker room building and the gym were all part of the Rudolph addition, were all designed by Rudolph and constructed at the same time.
Here are two of many examples of this disinformation…
-- At the initial public meeting on the Board’s plan for SHS, the then Chair was unaware that the gym (part of Building 5) was going to be demolished or that the gym was indeed part of the Addition designed by Rudolph. It was obvious at this time that the Board was ill informed.
-- In a February 17, 2012 letter from the Board’s Director of Long Range Planning, Ken Marsh, to John Olson, Florida Office of Educational Facilities (Spot Survey), Marsh, in a very misleading manner, describes the Rudolph Gym as simply "a 1958 gym of 15,000 s.f.", clearly not including it in the following section that refers to Building 4. "The enclosed 1960 photo provides a clue of the historic beauty of this building. It is an important contribution of the Sarasota School of Architecture (SSA) and the district is committed to reestablishing this building to its prior prominence… Not acknowledging the gym as an integral element of the Rudolph Addition was not only misleading to the Board, stakeholders and the State; it wasted time and taxpayers’ dollars.
4. When you have something to hide, "run the clock"
Mr. Lempe’s key management strategy for SHS is a simple one, just "run the clock." The first tactic is to keep information from the stakeholders for as long as possible (this includes the School Board). Second, provide the information at the last minute, under the guise of an open process. Third, listen to input but finally decree that is it too late to incorporate the input…but thank you very much.
Once again there are many examples of these tactics. Here are a few:
The report issued to competing architectural firms entitled "Sarasota High School- 2012, A model for the Adaptive Reuse of an Historic School Campus" contained a number of inaccurate facts and inappropriate demands, but Lempe stated it was simply too late to address SAF’s concerns regarding these conflicting statements.
-- This report does not correctly identify the gym as part of the Rudolph Addition, in fact it demands of the architects, "Demolish the west gym…
-- Interestingly, it does make the following statement, "The Paul Rudolph designed addition at Sarasota High School represents one of the most unique design challenges the department and the selected team will be tasked to solve. The expectation of the presenting design teams is to demonstrate solutions that meets (sic) two objective (sic) at odds with each other; restore the characteristics emblematic of Paul Rudolph’s 20th-(century) design; and transform the campus into a model for 21st (century) learning. When accomplished the school named for our great community will again be the symbol of our community."
-- It also emphatically stated that, "Enclosing the breezeways is essential to achieving the project objectives, it is also the most controversial element of the project in the watchful eyes of the historic preservation community."
SAF requested that the School Board ask the competing firms, in their responses, to consider options that did not demolish the gym and enclose the breezeway, but alas, it was too late.
In the summer of 2012, SAF issued a report entitled "Recommendations for Effective Rehabilitation" and at that time requested a meeting with Mr. Lempe to offer the assistance of our preservation experts. Mr. Lempe stated that his design team needed time to work and put off a number of attempts to arrange a meeting. The first date he could see us was December 7, 2012, six months after the charrette. It was obvious at that time that the process was well beyond schematic phase for Building 4, and nothing was even said the status of the gym.
Since that time, more delays and promises while the clock continues to run. So now the Lempe refrain is that SAF is too late in the process, it will cost too much to thoughtfully consider viable options, delays of 12 to 16 months. If there are any real or imagined delays or cost increases, look to Scott Lempe and his strategy of obfuscation, not to SAF.
5. Contrary to Lempe’s statements, no design charrette was ever held
In an attempt to once again twist the truth, Lempe frequently refers to the June Charrette as a "design charrette", and does it again in the Progress Report. Let’s be very clear here, it was NOT a design charrette. No design charrette was ever held. On the agenda for the June sessions, it clearing states that it is a "Site Planning Charrette." This is the same charrette that School Board Members were asked to NOT attend. Those who did were asked to leave, consequently denying them from experiencing first hand the community’s rejection of the staff’s recommendations.
Because a design charrette was never held by the Board, we issued the before-mentioned "Recommendations for Effective Rehabilitation" to cover design issues not discussed at the site planning charrette.
It is interesting to note that with community input, Harvard Jolly and the preservation architect came to solutions, overnight
that eluded the School Board’s construction Department throughout their nine month effort.
6. Preservation Architect: puppet on a tight string
When it was announced that a preservation architect would be a member of the architectural team for SHS, SAF assumed that local architect Jonathan Parks would be involved in all aspects of the Rudolph Addition. Once again, we were misled. We now know that Parks was simply being "used" by Harvard Jolly and Lempe to give the appearance that an independent architect with specific preservation experience would be the watchdog over this project. It turns out that Parks’ scope of work was strictly limited to the "skin" of Building 4. He was excluded from involvement in the rehabilitation of the other critical parts of that structure, the locker room building and the gymnasium.
How a can the elected School Board defend this negligent action? Here are the facts:
-- The Rudolph Addition is on the National Register—it is one of the most important mid-century buildings in the world
-- The Board agreed to "appropriately rehabilitate" the Rudolph Addition
-- The contracted architectural team included a preservation architect, but his scope of work was limited to the skin of one building
Simply painting a pretty face on Building 4 makes a cynical joke of the Board’s agreement to "appropriately rehabilitate" the Addition. If this plan proceeds, Sarasota will once again be known worldwide for the destruction of a priceless asset that will bring dishonor to the entire community…a community we have all be working so hard to grow and nourish.
7. "The district has acted in good faith…
If distortions, deception, misinformation, disregard for agreements and process, arrogance, and closed minds are examples of acting in good faith, then the district has indeed succeeded. If this charade continues, it will once again demonstrate to our students and the world that the bully can still win in Sarasota’s schoolyards.
You still have the time, means and support of a very determined group of taxpaying citizens to put the project on an honest track. Direct Harvard Jolly to use their resources and a portion of their $1.4 million in taxpayer funds to redesign Building 4. It is finally time to do the right thing.
