John Ellis (parent of 7^th and 8^th graders at LC in ELP)

These were originally hand-written as private notes during the meeting, which was probably attended by about 1000 people. They are certainly incomplete, and surely reflect my personal viewpoint. Others are welcome to add, subtract and correct them. I only have tried to capture the gist of what each speaker said, not to reproduce their words verbatim. I apologize in advance for all inaccuracies, misrepresentations and oversights.

Ron Forrest (chair of board) :

(After introducing the board members who were present : some were absent, including one of those from LC. The other LC representative was present, but did not speak.) The Foundation has been thought to need about 1000 extra places, to accommodate 160 students from LGB, 250 from LC, 150 from Mies, 260 from Pregny (now OK ?) and 200 expansion places. A foundation-wide solution is needed. The board has the land and an architects’ competition is underway, focussed on a 10-13 scheme. ‘Some of you then panicked’, but the decision is not yet made. It needs to be made rapidly if the new campus is to be ready for September 2003: the decision needs to be made by March 2001. Concluded by saying ‘The decision is yours’, (a remark he later retracted under pressure from the floor).

Susy Hafner (secretary of board) :

The challenge is now to find places for 218 from LGB (ideal 1550 vs 1768 at present), 375 from LC + Mies (ideal 850 vs 1225 at present), 194 from Pregny (ideal 150 vs 344 at present). Locations of families and stakeholders (employers, …) taken into account, ‘the Canton of Geneva would be more helpful’. Partners have been the Conseil d’Etat Genevois (not Vaudois), the Syndic de Founex and the Prefet de Nyon. Ten sites were seen in Vaud, including two near LC (across the highway, the Motel de Founex), but dropped because of problems with zoning changes, traffic, etc. Also a site at Le Reposoir in Bellevue fell through. The Grand Saconnex site is currently lent by the State for 3 years, they and the Commune de Grand Saconnex would agree to a permanent (60-year) lease, offerings savings of 20,000,000 Swiss Francs.

Ron Billingsley (incoming Director-General) :

For the 1-13 option : a school is a fragile thing, think of the children. A new 1-13 campus would be ‘fabulous’ for pedagogy (new models, mix of ages enabling all children to benefit from each other, bilingualism answering to features of our charter, specialized teachers, better pastoral care, keep present successful campuses). Administratively, it would be easier to contemplate who goes where, avoiding long commutes. The atmospheres of the present campuses have taken a long time to develop and they have loyal alumni. All of this would be undone if the 10-13 option were adopted, and there would still be pressure of student numbers in the early years.

John Boggs (board member) :

For the 6-13 option : middle and upper school, mainly English, French for anglophones. Opportunities for art, design and drama. It would be a flexible campus, able to expand and contract as demand varies. The higher LC grades would no longer need to expand with more and more parallel classes. Pregny would stay open and Mies would need to be retained. The 1-13 ELP and FLP at LGB would be kept. This solution would resolve the problems of the primary years, and does not address the ‘isolation’ of the FLP. We need to look forwqard and embrace change, not fear it.

Ron Billingsley (incoming Director-General) :

For 10-13 : opportunities for richness, specialist teachers, multiple options, state-of-the-art facilities, better for the FLP (which is now diluted across several campuses), harmony across the Foundation, improved sports. Administratively, it would mean reduced costs, at least if public transport is used. The atmosphere ‘would be a challenge’. It would ‘be a privilege’ for the students to have a campus of their own. It would require courage and boldness. The site is safe and central, and would be a short commute for most students. (I cannot resist commenting that these last points were contested by many speakers from the floor.)

Streuli (outgoing Director-General) :

The site has about 20,000 square metres, and good public transport (several bus lines, in the future a tram line between the UN and Ferney). In order to be ready in September 2003, we need to start construction in January 2002 at the latest, and so must ask authorization in April 2001, since approval could take 9 months. 12 architectural teams are currently making proposals for a 10-13 campus, in a 15-week competition. Their models will be displayed at the LC campus in March, but the final decision on the new campus must be made by March, before the models go on show. The final choice need not be 10-13.

CDG chairs :

LGB :

Have held consultative meeting, also with secondary staff. Main points : 1) outraged by the lack of consultation, 2) want more information, have many unanswered questions. ‘The board should improve its culture’. There is a strong voice to maintain 1-13 at LGB, and a strong commitment to the campus.

Wendy Powell (LC) :

Many meetings have been held, which have voted against the 10-13 proposal, as have meetings of teachers and the PTA. Reasons emphasized have included pedagogy : now young students get top teachers (we believe this is the reason for good exam results, as emphasized by several other speakers), a 1-13 campus encourages responsibility, role models are important for a sense of community, programmes such as CAS are very valuable. Oppose a 10-13 exam factory, do not want to split faculty, nor more moves for students and long commutes. Want to maintain diversity among the campuses, ‘do not want to destroy the sense of community at LC’.

Pregny (+ Rigot and Grand-Saconnex) :

In December 1999 we told the board we wanted to maintain the ethos (too many portakabins), we want to keep 1-6 together and maintain the level of infrastructure. A transition plan is needed. If the 10-13 plan is adopted, our children will need to change schools twice. A process of consultation with parents and staff is needed.

Ron Forrest :

Ongoing projects will be completed, the board will consider remarks, and thanks the staff.

LC students (a very professional powerpoint presentation – bravo !):

The LC student council (president Céline Hernandez) have conducted a survey of students’ opinions, and have found a 75% majority for keeping 1-13 at LC. One main reason is relationship with teachers. Do not want to change because of the calm campus, links between older and younger students, events organized by the older ones for the younger ones, CAS, etc. What would be done with the new media centre, which is being constructed for older students ? What a waste if its potential will be unused. Re logistics : 75% of our families live in Vaud, many (far) beyond the small map shown by Streuli, and many have chosen to live in a home near to LC.

LC PTA (6 grouped presentations) :

Djaferis (ELP parent):

What are the financial implications ? We have gathered hundreds of signatures for a petition opposed to the board’s proposal. We have not received more information , despite our requests and promises from the board.

Drahusak (FLP teacher):

Il faut ne pas casser la continuité, les enseignants vont perdre, le site est moins important que la qualité de l’éducation. Il y a carence de management.

Wingate (ELP teacher, staff observer on board) :

The LC teachers voted unanimously against the 10-13 proposal. The LC range of subjects is already comparable to that offered by the International School of Singapore, which has much larger final-year grades. All other IB schools have less than 100 students in a year. The 10-13 model would surely lead to larger teaching groups. Vertical harmonization within a 1-13 campus is important. The LC community has taken years to develop, ‘a stroke of a pen could destroy it’.

Gromadzki (bilingual parent):

LC has a strong sense of community, including both ELP and FLP. Many of our students have been uprooted, and the school fills a vital need for continuity. We have 25 programmes linking senior and young students. There is a general lack of aggression on campus, we do not need or want public transport, commuting is minimized.

Schmidt (FLP parent) :

Nous avons éprouvé de la consternation, nos intérêts ont été bafoués. L’esprit de famille de LC est important. Nous ne voulons pas un campus urbain. Nous voulons une école dans le canton de Vaud, pas dans le canton de Genève. Il faut renforcer le programme bilingue, et pas sacrifier le présent.

Schmoll (alumnus) :

There is no support for the 10-13 proposal among the alumni. We condemn the lack of transparency. The atmosphere of LC has been and should be maintained, with the same teachers.

Romig (ELP parent) :

Recalled the Charter of the Foundation, and presented to the board a petition with 755 signatures calling on the board to withdraw the 10-13 option, in a box with a big red ribbon. (Forrest said he would look at it over Christmas, and then corrected himself.)

Boggs :We do not know the financial implications. In general, expansion should be good. The 10-13 option would be the least costly, and easier to downsize, but all options are financially feasible.

Streuli :It would be possible to accommodate a 1-13 campus at Saconay with 2 play spaces.

Forrest :The board will work with the CDG chairs.

Determerman :

If there is a high school at Saconay, would it be a high-rise building ? What will be done for playing fields ?

De Porto (FLP parent @ LGB) :

J’ai un enfant à LGB, un autre au Lycée International de Ferney-Voltaire. Je veux une école secondaire francophone dans le système ECOLINT. Je dénonce l’émotion et la ‘frilosité’ des intervenants précédants, pour la plupart anglophones. (ndlr : parmi les intervenants proposés par la PTA de LC, il y a eu un enseignant FLP, un parent FLP, et un parent bilingue.)

Alumna:

Of 200 respondents to a questionnaire, 166 were against the 10-13 option, 7 votes were blank, and the rest in favour. The school should set up an endowment fund, and the board should enter into consultations. The chair of the board should work with the alumni.

Alumnus :

The operational aspect should be separated institutionally from governance. There should be a separate Board of Trustees. The mode of consultation needs to be changed.

Harris (LC parent from 1995 to 2014):

We chose LC in good faith : just try the long commute into town yourself, with all the rush-hour traffic !

Black :

We parents are paying constituents. You are proposing to rob me of my child, by depriving us of our evenings together.

 Bates :

Have you considered the problems of discipline on the proposed 10-13 campus ? Would there be floating entry to it ? Have you considered a K-9 option ? How will ‘we’ make the decision ?

Mercer :

There have been inadequacies in the IB and in management. Has the future expansion been taken sufficiently into account ? Have there been feasibility studies ? The board’s math does not add up. Isn’t there too little space at Saconay ? What sort of transport system would be needed ? What participation do you plan for the CDGs ?

Cooper :

I have strong emotional ties with the school, as an alumnus with many family members associated with the school. When will the board change its plans ? The board has heard that the community rejects the 10-13 proposal. Tell us frankly about your decision. Please, no more surprises.

Hafner :

We have heard strong opposition from LC (shouts of derision from the floor, ‘also LGB’, etc). We have taken unpopular decisions in the past, and were correct. We have had no discussion of substance abuse on the Saconay campus. We have a written policy, that should be enough.

Streuli :

Il y a une piscine communale à 150 mètres, et un stade communal à 1100 mètres. Les consignes donnés aux architectes peuvent être changés.

Lack :

Have been associated with the school for 36 + 30 years. The consultation has been inadequate. The process was wrong. The decision was wrong. We should have a board of trustees. The board should use the internet.

Ritson :

Feel like Marshall Blücher, coming along at the end to clean up. What is the reaction of the board ? Please tell us.

Stoyannis (board member) :

The board is not unanimous. I am a geneticist, and know that new organisms appear by evolution, not by decapitation. I have no personal agenda. I think we should not mix the different schools. I propose that the board meetings be open.

Billingsley :

A firm has been engaged to set up an official ECOLINT website. It should be ready within a few days.

 Gertler :

The board should improve transparency and consultation. Should board members serve as consultants ? Is there a conflict of interest ?

 Davidson :

The example of the International School of Lausanne may be instructive. They were not convinced by the size of the land they were originally offered. Eventually, they found a 27,000 square metre plot, and are constructing a new preK-13 campus.

Jaya (LGB parent):

We need competition between different secondary schools. There are investments on the existing campuses that should not be wasted.

Birt (FLP parent @ LC) :

Forrest leaves in March. The board is not working properly at present. Should be more professional. Several plans should be reviewed. Bring a full-time board chair in from outside. Have the architects give their views on the different possibilities.

Konikoff (ancien parent LGB):

Il me semble que la décision d’ouvrir un campus nouveau est une décision statutaire, qui, selon l’article 20, devrait être prise à une majorité de deux tiers. La bonne procédure n’a pas été suivie.

Henley (LC teacher and parent) :

The FLP should be kept. The sense of community and continuity at LC are very important.

Hails (ex-president of PTA at LC):

Bring in external consultants.

Birt (FLP parent @LC):

There has been a lack of transparency, and now there is lack of confidence in the board. When does its executive committee meet ? Are it minutes accurate ?

Board :

The Executive Committee meets two weeks before each board meeting, not more often. Its minutes are accurate.

Burkimsher (ELP parent @ LC):

Please make a vote by show of hands on the three different proposals, 1-13, 6-13 and 10-13.

Board :

Motion denied. ‘Too few people left in the audience’. (Still hundreds, according to me.)

Magalhaes :

When will you hold the next board meeting/CGA ?

Boggs :

The board meets next Tuesday.

Streuli :

J’agirai comme consultant pour n’importe quelle nouvelle construction, n’import où.

Nikravesh (ELP parent @ LC) :

My family came to Vaud and LC from New York for quietness. The needs of the children should come first. We are concerned about the sports facilities at Saconay, it seems there is not enough room. I am an engineer and architect, and think that 20,000 square metres is not enough space, barely enough for a soccer field.

Melnick :

Have any legal commitments been taken with regard to land ?

McGuirk :

Not all board meeting minutes have been made available. What is the financial interest of Streuli in the Saconay campus ? What is his compensation package ? I am an independent webmaster, and have no personal view on the option to be chosen. (editorial note : I think that the entire ECOLINT community should be very grateful for her highly professional informational efforts, and should support her.)

Forrest :

No contract has been signed. Details of Streuli’s compensation are not available.

Hai :

Pregny is being treated as a poor sister.

Ross (board member from Pregny) :

We need to follow the prescribed procedures in board meetings.

Latsis :

We are seeing a conflict between a community-based approach and a production-line philosophy.

(Editorial note : by now it was after midnight, and I had to get up the following morning at 6am to catch a train, so I left. If somebody wishes to complete this summary, including Forrest’s final remarks.)