Board's 4-2-1 revote sends cell tower up
by Jon Gillooly
jgillooly@mdjonline.com
October 23, 2009 01:00 AM | 1749 views | 29 29 comments | 51 51 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Dr. Ricky Welkis, right, was among three plaintiffs who filed suit against the Cobb school board and obtained a restraining order on the cell tower planned for Eastvalley Elementary. ‘We’ve figured this might be the case — we thought there might be a chance that maybe they had some conscience and common sense,’ Welkis said after the board’s revote to approve the cell tower. ‘But we were prepared for this.’ He says they will move forward with litigation. <br>Photo by Samantha Wilson
view slideshow (2 images)
MARIETTA - So much for listening to your constituents - once again.

At the Cobb school board's Thursday meeting, about 80 residents of the Eastvalley Elementary School neighborhood turned out carrying signs in protest of a proposal to build a 150-foot cell tower at the school.

Yet Cobb school board member Dr. John Crooks, who represents the area, made the motion, seconded by Holli Cash, to approve the tower.

The board voted 4-2-1, with Crooks, Cash, Lynnda Crowder-Eagle and board Chairman Dr. John Abraham in favor; David Morgan and Alison Bartlett voting against; and David Banks abstaining.

The vote re-approves the board's initial July 23 unanimous vote for the tower. After that vote, three residents who live near the school, located off Lower Roswell Road in east Cobb, filed suit with Cobb Superior Court. Plaintiffs claimed the school board violated state Open Meetings Law on July 23 by voting to approve the tower the same day Crooks slipped the matter on the agenda without giving proper notice in advance because, as he previously told the Journal, he was afraid such proper notice would cause a "circus." The court echoed plaintiffs' claim and slapped the board with a temporary restraining order on Sept. 21.

Eastvalley Elementary School father Dr. Ricky Welkis, one of the neighbors who filed the lawsuit, was unsurprised by the board's vote after the meeting.

"We've figured this might be the case - we thought there might be a chance that maybe they had some conscience and common sense. But we were prepared for this," he said.

Welkis said he intends to move forward with litigation, seeking a permanent injunction.

"SACS is coming, and you know what happened in Clayton County. If this board thinks they're above that, they're mistaken," he said.

Welkis said he thought about running for the board, but he doesn't want to sit up there with the current members.

"This is a slap in the face for the whole community. The community's been wronged and we have to do it for the community - or else everything is for nothing," he said.

Another soon-to-be Eastvalley father who is part of the lawsuit, Jonathan Young, confirmed that the litigation would continue.

"They have made a false statement about following policy - 100 percent false - and we're going to prove that. Our attorney will call the judge tomorrow, find out when the next hearing is," Young said.

During the public comment part of the meeting, Charlie Parks, who lives off Lower Roswell Road next door to the school, noted his wife bought their home in 1955.

"I'm here to speak to the conscience of you board members and also to Mr. Crooks because I feel that Dr. Crooks got you in this mess of voting again. I want to speak to your conscience. Do you feel that you are more obligated to Dr. Crooks than you are to the community? I think you know that the community does not want it. We're all saying no. Now you know that and now is the time for your conscience to come forward and vote different because you know that the people are who you're representing," he said.

Abraham said after the meeting he voted in favor of the tower after asking Associate Superintendent Dr. Gordon Pritz if the correct process was followed, to which Pritz said yes it was.

"It's an unfortunate incident and I think we need to take a look back and review our policies. We'll take a look at our polices to see if we can do a better job," Abraham said.

As for whether he was concerned about the legal ramifications of his vote, Abraham said, "We'll just have to address it as it comes."

Banks said he abstained because, "That's what I felt like I should do to send a message to the community - that we do care. Eastvalley is still a fantastic school, the community is still fantastic, I have friends on the opposite sides. I'm just sorry that it got to this point where neighbor was against neighbor."

Morgan said he voted against the cell tower because it was clear to him most residents didn't want it.

"The people in that community seemed to be overwhelmingly opposed to it. They showed up at the meeting, they made their concerns heard, and the proof was in the pudding," Morgan said.

Crooks remained silent during the meeting, but when a Journal reporter approached him after the meeting to obtain a comment as to why he voted the way he did, Crooks, a minister at Roswell Street Baptist Church, began yelling angrily at the reporter, issuing a stream of derogatory comments, before warning the reporter to "watch out" in the future.

And board Vice Chairwoman Lynnda Crowder-Eagle, during a break in the meeting, refused to comment after saying that she was very upset about a comment she made that was published in the Journal's Thursday paper, referring to how she was too nice for the job of board member.

T-Mobile will pay the Cobb School District $150,000 in rent to build the cell-phone tower at Eastvalley, according to the contract district leaders signed with the company on Sept. 9. The term of the lease is five years, and the lease will also automatically renew for another five-year term at the same rent unless written notice is given. The tower will be able to accommodate at least three wireless communication providers, and if T-Mobile sublets any part, the school district would get at least $800 per month under that deal, according to the contract. The five-year rent works out to about $30,000 per year. T-Mobile will pay a $5,000 "contract consideration fee" to Eastvalley's Parent Teacher Association upon execution of the deal, according to the contract, and there were a half dozen or so Eastvalley PTA members in the audience in support of the tower.
comments (29)
« Voice of Reason wrote on Tuesday, Oct 27 at 09:40 AM »
Okay, EastCobbEddie, please listen. This cell tower is strongly opposed for a variety of reasons, only 1 of which is health concerns. Nevermind that there is a specific BOE policy that asks for a survey of Community Support on cell tower lease proposals, or they are done. Nevermind that the principal was supposed to do this, not the Board Member. Nevermind that our Board member says he polled un-named people at QT and Little Ceasars Pizza (Which are not in the attendance zone). Nevermind that Eastvalley ES is the 2nd smallest school in the whole county (7.8 acres). Nevermind that the school is already getting $4.2 million in school improvements by 2011 alone. Nevermind that the cell tower brings in only $18K for 15 years. Nevermind that the principal and Board Member have changed their stories in court documents. Nevermind that there are over 90 homes within 1000 feet of the cell tower structure. Nevermind that supporters of this tower do not care to know these facts. This is not the same scenario as a tower out by the football stadium on a 40 acre tract of land (a-la Allatoona HS). This is a SCAM. The question is..who is actually benefitting from this?
« East Cobb Mom wrote on Monday, Oct 26 at 11:10 AM »
Can I just say that, once again, Alison Bartlett seems to be doing the smart and right thing. I wish she represented me. Or that we could clone her. I don't agree with every single vote she's ever cast (like, say, the new report cards), but even when she's voting in a way I disagree with, she always articulates a decent reason for why she's doing it. In other words, I can understand why she has voted the way she has, even if I don't agree with her. That's way more than I can say for most of the clowns on this board, including Dr. Crooks, my own representative. I mean, he ought to at least be able to explain why he made the tough decision the way he did! And, it ought to make some sense.
« teecee wrote on Saturday, Oct 24 at 10:50 AM »
I never said I was for the tower. I was just trying to determine specific reasons why the residents opposed it. Cursory research I did (American Cancer Society, not Cell Phone Tower, Inc) shows there haven't been specific human studies. Additionally they say that the nature of the towers and they type of waves they emit pose very little threat to humans. (Actually, being in a government school is more harmful to a child than being near a cell tower.) So to answer questions posed, yes, I would be fine if my child went to a school with a cell tower nearby.

All that said, I am in full agreement with the outrage of the residents at the way all of this was handled and would encourage action taken to remove the offending members. It is an ironic shame that the board member most at fault with this replaced a board member who was equally out of touch with her constituents.
« EastCobbEddie wrote on Friday, Oct 23 at 10:01 PM »
Few things - to the person that stated that one tower fell two years ago in NY, you were told; okay that does it for me. Out of the thousands built in the US, you "heard" of one falling and no one getting hurt. An airplane crahses and kills 200, lets stop having plans fly over our homes and schools;

Property values - Yeah, everywhere I see a tower I see delipidated buildings and for sale signs - c'mon take a look next time and see for yourself don't just repeat what you heard or you read on the almighty internet. Think goodness we have the power lines in place or I would be typing by candle light tonight.

I saw a comment that the Europeans understand the effects because of their studies. Yeah I really trust their reports. Have you ever been to Europe? They are on their cell phone constantly. You know that for that cell phone to work there has to be an antenna nearby somewhere. Also have ever wondered about the radio waves in your car - do you play your radio - scary thought. Is their a microwave oven in your house? Is your child playing Playstation? Ever notice that FCC label on that Playstation on that computer monitor. Radio waves are all around. No need to be paranoid. Lets shut down the wireless industry - are you ready to get rid of your phone?

« Heck yah! wrote on Friday, Oct 23 at 04:45 PM »
I'll add my name to the recall list!
« Suspicious wrote on Friday, Oct 23 at 04:19 PM »
Why was there no budget report last night? The cell tower must be the tip of the iceberg of the mismanagement of tax payers money! As voters, we should be hearing a budget report at every meeting. Isn't that what boards are to do? Oversee budgets? What is CCSD trying to hide?
« recall guy wrote on Friday, Oct 23 at 04:17 PM »
To Enough is Enough,

14,000 signatures is not so many if its well organized. You get their signature pledge and address up front online then apply for the 45 day recall, then send them information where to meet publicly to sign. you must meet publicly to steer clear of the weirdos.

We might ask the CCSD for some meeting space to gather signatures since they created the Crooks problem in the first place.

« anonymous wrote on Friday, Oct 23 at 03:45 PM »
You don't get it Marco - it isn't the few dollars the CCSD is going to collect from this tower. It is so much more, otherwise why would these people commit political suicide. There is something so much more going on.... think smart about it!!

Let us know if you come up with the answer.
« Enough is Enough? wrote on Friday, Oct 23 at 03:34 PM »
Can everyone say RECALL John Crooks?

It will take 14,000 signatures in 45 days. Is anyone up for the challenge?
« love my view wrote on Friday, Oct 23 at 03:05 PM »
I don't know about you teecee but I certainly would not want to be looking at a cell tower out my back window. Because I enjoy the view out my windows, I bought the house.

Bottom line, these homeowners will loose more money than T-moble is giving to the CCSD
« afraid of it wrote on Friday, Oct 23 at 01:19 PM »
It was asked what is the reason so many are opposed? Even if chairman Aberham with his great wisdom and self-proclaimed experience in RF matters at the CDC, who swears there will never be any health problems with the tower can't say the tower won't fall on a kid!

One fell 2 years ago in NY i was told and fortunately no one was hurt.

The Board is reckless to allow this think in the fall zone of our Kids!

I bet if the thing does fall and hurt a kid, heaven forbid, they parent will be hunting a few board members down.
« MARC0 wrote on Friday, Oct 23 at 01:06 PM »
If the nearby residents are so against this cell tower, why don't they simply offer to offset the money lost by the ccsd should they not allow it to be constructed. If there are 80 concerned citizens, it seems that about $2,000 each should offset the loss. I still haven't heard a good, substantiated reason against it... btw to concerned republican -- we are not and have never been a democracy -- a democracy is mob rule. We live in a republic -- one where you elect representatives based on their character and confidence that they will make wise decisions -- if they don't, you have the opportunity to replace them when their term is up.
« Omar the Begger wrote on Friday, Oct 23 at 11:38 AM »
Cell Tower , this seems to be of great concern to some of the people in the county but if I remember I warn all of you citizens to keep a close eye on the board; so now it comes to this , you can either live with it or do something about it and I do not mean getting out there with signs; I am talking about the real power in the county and that is you the people of the county getting out there and using the power of your vote; you have that power so USE IT!!
« CCSD parent wrote on Friday, Oct 23 at 11:34 AM »
These board members must really want to be replaced the next election. THANK GOD my son is a senior and will be out of this mess of a public school system. However my taxes dollars will continue to be wasted for years and years I affraid!
« Think about it wrote on Friday, Oct 23 at 11:31 AM »
Regarding the comment posted by teecee: "So outside of the manner in which the board handled this (which I agree was underhanded and unresponsive to the community), what is the reason to oppose the tower?" Isn't that in itself enough for any decent, morally grounded citizen? Character does matter.
« What was that? wrote on Friday, Oct 23 at 11:28 AM »
teecee, you can't be serious. No research to show them harmful? How about just looking? There is plenty. Even if it is suspected, why put a child in the environment? I imagine you have no children in such areas, truth be known. And the research in America is done by or funded by...guess who...the companies that are making the actual cell phones. Get it? Get real, please. At least the European research is non-partisan.
« concerned republican wrote on Friday, Oct 23 at 11:26 AM »
Are we not in a democracy anymore? Is this Crooks character for real? I have always voted straight across ballot republican at every election, but this guy and most of his board cronies have given and continue to give the party a bad name. i cant believe they had a slim chance at redemption and blew it bigtime!

I am going to change my policies and start looking at the candidate from now on. How can the party even endorse such incompetence, we need to reevaluate our platform and cleanse ourselves of these ninnies. If we continue with this school board and it's embarrassing 2 million a year lawyer, we're going to loose big-time in other important posts to be filled next election.

oh, and by the way, Crooks and Abraham are christian, no way! Saying is not doing!

« Enough of this wrote on Friday, Oct 23 at 11:21 AM »
ENOUGH! Not only do these 4 need to be voted out of office, we need to see what can be done to have them removed from office now. Do any of these fine council people have kids going to one of these schools? Regardless, you were elected to represent your constituents instead of special interest groups that car about one thing...money. Quit wasting our money and you will not have to find unacceptable ways to get some and do it on a covert and deceiving fashion. Enough. Vote! What can be done to remove these 4 from office now and investigate all involved for violation of the law?
« Ray Ray wrote on Friday, Oct 23 at 11:06 AM »
Here's the test: Scientific evidence that cell towers are medical hazards? Yes. Community support for tower being built near

Eastvalley Elementary School? None. Economic benefit for District to approve tower? Minimal. Cell tower contribution to improve student achievement? Zero. Based on these facts, vote should have been NO. Evidently, some Board members have more stock in cellphone company than interest in education/safety of students. Survey board to see how many will allow the erection of cell towers in their subdivision. As for Banks, why does he feel he can play it safe by sitting on the fence on this major community issue?
« more attorneys fees wrote on Friday, Oct 23 at 10:55 AM »
Yes, sir! Mr. Abraham will address the legal ramifications of this vote as they come. In the meantime, keep addressing those big checks to Brock & Clay and get into as many lawsuits as possible.