genome,
That's exactly the problem. Who is to do what? Who is to decide whether a large group meeting or individual task forces is more appropriate? Who is to decide how many tasks forces are going to be set up? Who is to decide what qualification are required to join these tasks forces? What happens if there are disagreements between these "qualified" persons? Any deadline for their reports or conclusions? Will these "qualified" persons really be prepared to commit their time to these works without pay? Do we convene an EGM to seek approval of these "qualified' persons' reports or to resolve every disagreement arise between themselves. It won't work and that's why we have a Board running the school. If we are not happy with the Board, we should aim to have the Board removed and replaced. But what we can't do is to run the school ourselves nor can every decision be made by EGM. We have 1,300 students and twice as many parents. I can't imagine what's going to happen if this large number of parents are going to set up individual task forces and express their own views on the different issues. I am not saying that we can't make any contribution or express our views, but we must do it within the existing framework. I notice that there are committees or sub-committees working under the Board. For all those who like to make contribution, they must try to get into these committees. I have no idea if it is easy to get elected into these committees or not. But these are the rules and we must abide by them.
I have a little suggestion to make. As I see it, there are 3 main issues here. Firstly, parents are not convinced that MOS is the only option. It could be that either the Board is incompetent or it hasn't tried its best to secure a better site. Other than these 2 reasons, I can't think of any other why the Board should deliberately get itself into trouble by opting for MOS in favour of a nearby site. On this point, we can ask the Board to prove to us in detail at the EGM what efforts it has made in securing other sites. If we can come up with a list of possible sites, we can ask them to explain to us why these sites are not available or appropriate. Secondly, why will it take 4 years to do it? Is it a conservative or realistic estimate? Personally I think this is as big a stumbling block as MOS. They must shorten the period as much as possible. Thirdly, if the Board manages to convince the parents that MOS is indeed the only site available within the next few years, what impact will it have on the school if we decide to take a chance and wait for a better site? We want a realistic apprasial of the situation. I don't know if there are other issues that concern the parents, but we must identify all of them and tell the Board what we want them to prove to us at the EGM. All the questions will have to be communicated to the Board well in advance so that they can have the time to get the answers ready. Hopefully, it will narrow the differences between the 2 sides. I agree entirely that all parents should attend the EGM in March because it is a very important decision for the school. At the same time, it is equally important that parents should keep an open mind. If we go to the EGM with antagonising mindset, then we might not be able to consider the facts objectively and make the right decision.
