Tuesday, July 19, 2016


In response to the revelation that Paul Roesler supports closing Hoover earlier than the 2019 date set by the district, his campaign has claimed that it is untrue, stating, “At this point in time, he does not support any substantial deviations from the FMP.”  Rather than let his supporters speak for him, we will let him speak for himself.  The e-mail at the bottom is from last fall and addressed to the school board; it was received through a public records request.  The e-mail above it was sent to his supporters just nine days ago. The recipients' names have been removed for their own privacy.

From: Paul Roesler [proesler@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2016 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: Question

This is a rather complex story but take the time to listen and it makes sense.

There is a Hoover transition team that consists of parents, teachers and administrators (I am not part of that team) that have been meeting to prepare for the opening of Hoover as well as the use of new Hoover until 2019. My friend Adam Loria, a teacher at Hoover, had mentioned that the transition team had discussed a different idea for transition then what is currently in place.

The current plan has Longfellow going to New Hoover in 2017, then back to Longfellow. 2018 bring Lincoln and Mann to New Hoover so their schools can be renovated and then back to their schools. In 2019 new Hoover would open and old Hoover retired.

A couple of issues come into play in that scenario. In order to do the renovations to Lincoln the district needs to acquire land. If the land can't be acquired the only renovations there that can happen are more of the cosmetic kind which means students might not need to be moved out of the school.

The transition team thought that Old Hoover, due to its design might be better suited to host two schools in one year. The current Hoover building is divided by the gym and library (i think) and Lincoln and Mann could continue to operate as two schools. It would also cut down the distance traveled for those students. In fact some Mann students would be able to still walk to school if desired.

By doing that you would also be able to keep the Longfellow kids that will eventually end up at new Hoover at new Hoover instead of going back to Longfellow and then back to Hoover. Eliminating three moves in three years.

This would move the "retiring" of Hoover up one year as its own school (it would still be used for Lincoln/Mann). Now that we know where students will go after the closing of Hoover you could see that students that would end up at Mann would meet their new classmates at old Hoover in 2018. Old Lucas and Lemme students would move into New Hoover with their Longfellow classmates that are already there thus freeing up space for the remaining Hoover population at Lucas, Lemme and Longfellow.

I see the sense that this plan makes. It has not gained any traction or really been talked about outside some side conversations. I would support this plan or the current plan they both make sense [emphasis added].

Hopefully that answers that question.

Paul Roesler

From: Paul Roesler [proesler@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 8:21 AM To: Board; Stephen  Murley
Subject: 2017 Hoover Suggestion

After the meeting was over last  night_I  talked with a member of the Hoover teaching staff who is also a member of the transition team and the question was brought up from them, why can't we use old Hoover as the transitional space instead of new Hoover? From the conversation s that we had it sounded like this was something that would be made possible with a little work and creative thinking. It also sounded as if members of the current Hoover community were in support of this as well.

There has been an  unfortunate divide within the Hoover school already. You're either on the side of Saving Hoover or you aren't. The longer we drag this out  the more  divide there is, not only at Hoover but in the district as well.

The thought behind this is that we could open new Hoover as the Hoover in 2017. Retire the old Hoover have the closing ceremony etc. at the end of 2016. New Hoover would open with the population of students that would be attending it, most likely from Lucas, Lemme and Longfellow, and current Hoover students would attend their new schools based on the rezoned attendance areas . Longfellow students would go to old Hoover while their school is renovated, once done those students would move back to Longfellow. Hoover would be much closer for Longfellow students, allowing some to continue to walk, some of the old Hoover students would also continue to be able to walk to school.  Old Hoover would then be used for Mann and Lincoln the following year. The old Hoover would be in walking distance for some Mann families eliminating the need for some busing and would be closer for Lincoln families as well. Old Hoover is much better set up to house two schools at once then new Hoover is    . You can basically divide that school in half and operate as two schools which apparently is the preferred plan even if the kids went to New Hoover. New Hoover's design and layout would make this more challenging.

Closing the school in 2017 allows us to move forward. If we are concerned that a school closing is going to be a reason the bond is passed or not, why not have that school closed so that it isn't an issue in the 2017 vote [emphasis added].  If  I  understand the board members correctly none of you want the bond to fail, so why not come together and look at how we can work to get the support that is needed? If old Hoover is kept open and renovations were done there we would also have to ask for more money on the bond to accomplish that. Chris Liebig mentioned last night that the only thing you would have to add to Hoover is the multipurpose room. I   disagree, you would also have to make the school ADA compliant. There is also a need for more storage and hallway space, student instruments, bags and coats in the hallway due to lack of space is unfortunate. That is just a couple  of things that come to mind off the top of  my head.

Please look into the suggestion, but if  you are going to consider this decisions  will have to move a lot more quickly.

Thank you

Paul Roesler


  1. Looks like a few people weren't exactly telling the truth.


    "On July 19, I will vote for Paul Roesler. Paul supports the May 2015 plan that moves the district forward. Our community cannot afford to reinvent the FMP every time we elect new board members. Paul will hit the ground running so that our children can reap the FMP’s benefits."

  2. "Paul is in full support of the 10 year Facilities Master Plan."


  3. I’m a Hoover parent. On the day of the election, I saw two emails floating around, both of which were written by one of Paul’s campaign coordinators. Both emails were about how Roesler doesn’t support any changes to the master plan, including changing the Hoover closure date. I wish I would’ve seen these emails earlier. Either these people didn’t know about the email (since we don’t know who the latest one was addressed to), or they did know and tried to cover it up. Although I hope it’s the first, neither of these scenarios reflects very well on what happened. I can’t help but feel a little bit tricked.


The simplest way to comment is to choose "Name/URL" in the drop-down box, then just type in your name. You can leave the URL field blank. Comments are moderated to prevent spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.