Rebutting the MCC Rebuttal on $34 Million Project – Part 2

Below is Part 2 of the rebuttal from Lakewood bond analyst Steve Willson’s critique (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) to the “Corrections” paper about the critique issued by anonymous McHenry County College officials:

Rebuttal to MCC’s “Corrections in Response to McHenry County Blog Claims”

Enrollment is likely to remain flat or decline.

I argued was that enrollment was likely to remain flat or decline.

I first noted that the sole source of information presented by Demonica Kemper for a projected increase in enrollment was thoroughly discredited projections by the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, CMAP.

I then showed the following contrary evidence:

(a) the flattening of enrollment at MCC since 2010;

(b) the decline in McHenry County population documented by the U.S. Census Bureau;

(c) the projections for low national population growth by the U.S. Census Bureau;

(d) the projections for low Illinois population growth by the State of Illinois;

(e) the trend in enrollment in McHenry County schools; and

(d) the declining level of enrollment in each grade in McHenry County schools.

This last factor especially absolutely guarantees a smaller number of high school seniors for the next twelve years absent in­migration.

The “Corrections” document spends nearly two pages addressing future enrollment and never explicitly addresses much less refutes one single piece of evidence presented above.

They are not even mentioned.

Instead, the “Corrections” document says “many other sources of data were also discussed”.

But it never says what these sources are or gives us the data.

The document goes on to say

“It is short­sighted to extract a few years out the 40+ year history of MCC that has shown overall growth and say that this trend will continue into the future.”

This is a true statement.

It’s also a non sequitur; that is, it doesn’t rebut my conclusion.

What is short sighted is to extrapolate a 40 year trend when there is strong evidence that the trend has changed.

One might as well conclude every 60 year will live to be 120 because they’ve lived 60 years already.

If they wish to claim that demand is likely to increase, then they must do two things.

First, they must show that all of the data that I presented does NOT lead to my conclusion.

They didn’t do this.

Second, they must show evidence that the trend of the last few years is likely to reverse.

They didn’t do this, either.

Then the document claims the project isn’t based on projected increases in enrollment.

I’m sorry, but they can’t have it both ways.

If enrollment is likely to stabilize at best and more likely continue to decline, then the need for more facilities must diminish.

Demonica Kemper shaded their recommendations.

I quoted extensively from the documents and presentations that Demonica Kemper made to the board in public meetings to show that the evidence of future growth that they presented was falsified by subsequent facts (the CMAP projections) and that there was substantial contrary evidence not presented to the board (the Census Bureau data and projections, the Illinois population projections, and local school enrollments).

The “Corrections” document says, and I quote, “DKA is a very reputable firm with an impeccable record, and has worked with numerous community colleges. The accusations that DKA has “purposely shaded the facts” is both rash and false.”

That statement is what’s called an “assertion”, meaning a claim without evidence.

I don’t care what Demonica Kemper’s reputation is; if they presented false evidence for one side of the issue and ignored all contrary evidence in presentations to the board,

that’s “shading”.

The $34 million capital project is not based on need.

MCC Lab - Lab and Student space now and proposedI quoted explicitly from Demonica Kemper dcuments that Demonica Kemper’s recommendations were not based on either the quality of existing capital assets or demand for such assets.

There is no other evidence in the documents they presented to the board that speaks to “need” with the exception of the lab utilization data, which I address later.

In examining the need for labs, there are two factors to consider: classroom utilization and student station utilization.

Classroom utilization means how many class hours per week the labs are used.

Student station utilization means how many of the “stations” in each lab are used during each class.

For example, you could have a lab that is used 50 hours a week, but only half of the stations are ever used. This would be like running a factory two shifts a day, but only using half the machinery in the factory during each shift.

I quoted Demonica Kemper’s that they showed “guidelines” for usage, not maxima proving negative consequences beyond the “guidelines”.

Ask yourself, what evidence was presented that bad thing happen if MCC goes a little over the “guidelines”?

Is MCC claiming that current students are short­changed or not learning?

I noted Demonica Kemper’s own guideline for hours used per week was 24 to 28 hours per week and that MCC’s labs are used 27 hours per week on average, which is WITHIN that “guideline”.

I quoted Demonica Kemper’s that the “guideline” for station utilization was 76% to 80% while their own numbers to show that “station utilization” only averages 62% at MCC.

I posted one of Demonica Kemper’s own graphics that show that, on average, only 35% and 39% of the stations are used in MCC’s two nursing labs when class is in session.

That’s less than HALF of the “guideline”.

In fact only ONE of the labs at MCC exceeded the guideline: Biology Lab A222 has 83% of its stations used, so it is all of three percentage points above the “guideline.”

The “Corrections” document states

“The reason that the utilization is low is because the available stations are actually overstated. If one were to actually go into these labs and see the condition they are in.”

I agree.

I have said all along that everyone agrees the labs are obsolete and need to be refurbished.

But this does NOT justify a huge expansion, it only justifies modernizing existing labs.

= = = = =


Comments

Rebutting the MCC Rebuttal on $34 Million Project – Part 2 — 2 Comments

  1. Why don’t they clean up the liars that work there.

    Abandoned puppy in the pillowcase, anyone?

    Why would I want to support anything coming out of this festering mess?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *