It seemed like this fall the Whitewater Unified School District and the city of Whitewater had come to an accord regarding a six-year contract for the lease and operation of the community’s aquatic and fitness center.

Words like “our final offer,” and “we’re close” began surfacing as early as July.

But each time, there was a snafu, it was just one more thing: a change in who would take responsibility for which of the facility’s pools, or who might pay for which section of the roof, separate meters for electricity within different areas of the facility, and who would be responsible, found its way into the discussion, along with a shift in monetary obligations with one group offering to pay more in capital improvement costs and less in operational expenses, and there was even a full discussion about who would be responsible for plowing the center’s parking lot on a handful of days.

Each time, it was close. The groups declared that they were just waiting for the attorneys representing them to give the drafted document a once-over, and then a contract would be in place, and then, it was, invariably, one more thing.

December has proved to be no different.

Changes made to the most recent draft have recently led to a statement from the school district, declaring that the city has made changes to the draft which school board members were not expecting.

In October, the city voted to accept a contract as part of a final discussion made during a joint meeting of the two boards — the school district and the city. While city council members voted to approve the draft, school board members said the draft would just need to go before their attorney for a final perusal and the deal would be done.

And then, it happened: just one more thing …

The city’s attorney said the draft he received back from the school district had changes, “substantive changes” as he saw them. He recommended that the draft needed to go back to the council for further review.

During a recent telephone interview, Whitewater Unified School District Board of Education President Larry Kachel said that the district had made “minor” changes to the contract which had been approved by the city council in October, which, he said, was part of its process as school board members reviewed the document for the last time before referring it for final approval.

Following the city attorney’s recommendation, the council reviewed the changes as submitted by the school district and instructed the city manager to instruct the city attorney to negotiate with the school district with regard to the changes.

In their statement, school board members expressed their disappointment with the city’s direction.

The fact that changes were made by the district to the document is not in dispute. Whether those changes are minor or substantive is.

Protracted discussions between the two bodies — the school board and the city council — have led us to a new disagreement: it’s not about whether changes were made, but whether one board or another has the right to keep making them, based on the severity of the change.

This holiday season might just be the perfect time for these two bodies to bestow upon one another, and by extension, the community, a gift: the gift of arbitration. 

As always,

Thanks for reading,

and happy holidays.

Kim McDarison

Editor