Revote on cell tower set tonight
by Jon Gillooly
jgillooly@mdjonline.com
October 22, 2009 01:00 AM | 949 views | 12 12 comments | 4 4 recommendations | email to a friend | print
MARIETTA - Members of the Cobb school board will revote on a 150-foot cell tower it already approved for Eastvalley Elementary School.

The board is revoting on the tower after being hit with a temporary restraining order in Cobb Superior Court for failing to give proper notice about its original vote.

Three residents who live near the school, on Lower Roswell Road, won a 30-day restraining order on Sept. 21 to halt work on the tower. They believe the school board violated state Open Meetings Law on July 23 by voting to approve the tower the same day Rev. Dr. John Crooks placed it on the agenda.

Chairman Dr. John Abraham and Superintendent Fred Sanderson, who set the agenda, placed it near the bottom of tonight's agenda on "consent" as opposed to "discussion," below such items as the board's legislative priorities and future agenda requests.

Crooks said the item was placed on the agenda to give the public advance notice of the vote and to "reaffirm the decision made before."

"I think we need to settle the issue as quickly as possible," Crooks said.

Eastvalley mom Carrie Welkis said it would be better if the board voted on the item at the beginning of the 7 p.m. meeting since a number of parents have to bring their children and would not be able to stay late.

"It would be nice if they did it first off so we could get on with the rest of our lives. I don't know how to interpret why it's at the end of the agenda," Welkis said.

Crooks said he favored moving tonight's vote to the beginning of the meeting so as not to make his constituents wait around, but that is Abraham's call. Board Vice Chairwoman Lynnda Crowder-Eagle said there is nothing wrong with having the vote near the end of the meeting. If parents want to speed up tonight's meeting, she said, they can forgo public comment.

"We have to sit through the meeting, that's the procedure," she said.

While she wouldn't outright say how she will vote tonight, she did say, "It was voted on (previously). I believe we're under contract with them (T-Mobile)."

Board member David Morgan said he may vote against the cell tower, though there is the matter of the signed contract, and school board attorney Glenn Brock has still not told him whether it can be canceled.

"More important to me is that I think these people have assembled themselves, shown persistence and gone to great lengths to say they don't like it," Morgan said. The few who support the tower are in the minority, he said.

Crowder-Eagle said she is not pleased with the entire situation.

"I hate how this has happened. I hate the controversy this has caused the neighborhood," she said, adding: "I'm too nice for this job. I should be out helping flood victims."

Board member Alison Bartlett said she is praying for wisdom in how to vote.

"I don't know what the answer is anymore. It's a bitter taste no matter what happens. We've divided a community, and that is not what a school system is supposed to do," Bartlett said. "This has been mishandled from the start."

In his Sept. 21 affidavit, Crooks testified how he polled people at such places as the QT gas station, Kroger, Little Caesars Pizza and Rite Aid Pharmacy.

"No one during these discussions voiced opposition to the cell tower," he said at the time.

T-Mobile will pay the Cobb School District $150,000 for a five-year lease to build a 150-foot cell-phone tower at Eastvalley Elementary School, according to the contract district leaders signed with the company on Sept. 9.

The lease will automatically renew for another five-year term at the same rent unless written notice is given. The tower will be able to accommodate at least three wireless communication providers, and if T-Mobile sublets any part, the school district would get at least $800 per month under that deal, according to the contract.

The five-year rent of $150,000 works out to about $30,000 per year, though the rent would be paid upfront in one lump sum. T-Mobile will also give $5,000 to Eastvalley's Parent Teacher Association upon execution of the deal, according to the contract.

Sign-in for public comment begins at 6:30 p.m. with the meeting slated to begin at 7 p.m. in the boardroom at 514 Glover Street in Marietta.
comments (12)
« TIRED OF INCOMPETENC wrote on Thursday, Oct 22 at 05:16 PM »
Are you kidding me? Asking Mr. Brock for a legal opinion on getting out of the contract after he has ineptly advised the Board on this issue as well as in the Bynum case is a joke. When is the Board going to sue Brock Clay to recover OUR tax dollars that have been paid to them for their negligent acts/malpractice? Does the Board have guts to do it or do they need to be accountable for throwing good money after bad time and again with Mr. Brock's inability to give competent legal advice?
« AlanF wrote on Thursday, Oct 22 at 04:27 PM »
If nothing else, this whole episode just goes to prove that you can't trust Crooks.
« Wanna bet wrote on Thursday, Oct 22 at 03:38 PM »
Brock and Clay's legal fees for this fiasco are more that what Eastvalley will recieve for the tower. Our tax dollars at work! The school system is a lousy to Eastvalley. Fire Brock & Clay, stop doing illegal things and give the money to Eastvalley.
« Carrie Welkis wrote on Thursday, Oct 22 at 03:20 PM »
Correction Ms. Murray: The majority of the parents AND the majority of the neighbors are NOT in support of this tower. In fact, if the supporters didn't have the PTA and Foundation leaders, spouses and family members, there would 40% less support by the "parents". Another interesting tidbit, the supporters live, on average 2.5 miles from the school. We know all their names and addresses. So once their kids are out of EVES, the community is still left to live with the "tower of money" on a daily basis... so why should they care?

One also needs to remember, the "parents" do not own the neighborhood. There are 115 residences in opposition within 1500 feet of the school vs. four in support. The numbers don't lie. If John Crooks did what he said he would do, none of this would have happened. Why sneak a vote, if you there is overwhelming support?

Good communities make good schools, not vice versa. The real question is, once the Board sees the facts, can they each make their own OBJECTIVE decision and stop this "courtesy vote" nonsense. John Crooks has failed this community and any vote in support of this tower translates to support for John Crook's failure to his constituents.
« John H wrote on Thursday, Oct 22 at 02:04 PM »
The Board can break the contract with T-Mobile without fear of lawsuit or financial penalty. The simply need to notify T-Mobile that they will not do any future business with them if the company invoke penalty clauses. Additionally, the Board can tell them they will not renew any existing tower when its 5-year lease is up if they persist in penalty claims.
« Carol Murray wrote on Thursday, Oct 22 at 01:28 PM »
The majority of parents are in favor of the cell tower, Mr. Morgan. You and the board already voted on it and signed a contract. Remember?!
« More attorneys fees wrote on Thursday, Oct 22 at 12:35 PM »
You can't expect Brock to know whether the contract can be canceled when his firm only gets $2 million. He needs to charge a lot extra and then just flip a coin since his board doesn't care whether the legal advice they get from those clowns is either correct or legal.
« anonymous wrote on Thursday, Oct 22 at 11:33 AM »
Who is going to pay for the lawsuit this board is creating?

YOU and ME!

« lawpatrol wrote on Thursday, Oct 22 at 11:24 AM »
Elected Officials are supposed to vote for and uphold the WILL of the PEOPLE who elected them. According to the News articles on this subject matter, this does not seem to be the case of the WILL of the People.
« anonymous wrote on Thursday, Oct 22 at 10:18 AM »
My goodness. The school gets money for this. Your time would be best spent watching the school administration to be sure it gets spent properly and not on some stupid project.
« heidi Toombs wrote on Thursday, Oct 22 at 07:57 AM »
Bottom Line: I don't believe Crooks polled anyone.

This board is sneaky and thinks it is better than anyone else.

SHAME SHAME SHAME
« Carrie Welkis wrote on Thursday, Oct 22 at 07:30 AM »
Again, excuses, excuses, excuses. Can the public ever expect a fair shake from this Board? Regarding the contract execution, this Board was given fair notice, on many occasions to not sign the contract until the proper community "survey" was conducted. In fact, the Board received a DEMAND LETTER on 8/31/09 requesting they abstain until all proper forums, survey's have been conducted. Short memory span, it appears.

In summary, again the Board is punishing us twice... voting "illegally" on 7/23, and now saying (in so many words) they are powerless to change this vote since a contract has already been signed... so tough luck to the massess in opposition. What a cop-out.

It also appears this Board thinks we are ignorant of the facts. They seem to also forget SACS makes an appearance in less than a month... maybe then this item will become controversial enough to merit a discussion item.