Who represents saveCRS (17 replies and 14 comments)
I dare say that JC speaks for many more alumni than the
BOD cares to acknowledge.
Based on the idea that the money will go to camp under the condition that RH stays open and that the supposed costs are '500k' and the gift is '750k' over three years....I see little loss in accepting the money, but a substantial change in camp by declining the money. As a camp alumni, I fully support JC's views and would urge the BOD to accept the very generous offer.
Thank you Nate for your thoughtful and succinct comment
I'm in favor of keeping Redhook and nixing co-location if at all possible. The whole spirit of Camp would be lost without the magical conditions which Freddie created.
Franny Chen '44-'46
Hi Patrick,
We have not met, I was a camper in 1989 and 1990. I am wholeheartedly, 100% supportive of this group's effort to keep our camp intact and at its current location in Red Hook. I am also, sadly, not completely trusting of what the current BOD says right now about wanting to work out a solution to keep CRS Red Hook open in the future since it seems the New Dawn plan was in the works for a long time without the alumni community at-large knowing about it. I strongly believe we must do all we can to keep Freddie's vision and legacy intact.
Thank you,
Alex Garcia-Osuna
Patrick your efforts to marginalized our efforts by calling out and targeting JC smack of weakness. You know that the universe of alumni that want Red Hook reopened is quite high and alumni are wholly unconvinced of your false and misleading statements about what bad shape Red Hook is in, must less the unproven and ridiculous numbers that you have thrown out carelessly that will solve the "Red Hook problem"
And Patrick who do YOU represent, and what is your alumni support to not cooperate on restoring Red Hook?
Hi Pat,
As I read J.C.'s email, he was responding to an email your sent to him asking him to solicit $1.5 million from the SaveCRS community. Your claim was that if SaveCRS raised a total of $2.25 million you would be willing to re-open RH. I support J.C.'s decision not to solicit that money on your behalf and to instead call on you to get an objective third party to inspect the RH property. I would also really like to know where that $2.25 million came from. Did you vet that number with anyone before sending it out? Did anyone review your offer to re-open RH if J.C. took the bait and somehow got SaveCRS to pony up the $2.25 million?
If anyone's been spewing, Pat, it's been you. On Facebook you claimed that it would take more than $500,000 to make RH safe enough to re-open in 2016. You clearly implied that number came from the yet to be published B&G report, but we soon discovered that this wasn't the case.
I took a look a the inspectors' reports that it took J.C. filing a Freedom of Information Act claim to get access to, and it shows that there was no a single safety violation of any kind in cited 2014. What happened to RH since that inspection report that it's going to take more than $500,000 to fix?
If you're so certain that RH is unsafe (remember, you even went so far as to admit to having acted irresponsibly in running a 2014 camp season on RH), then I don't see any reason to reject J.C.'s suggestion that you bring in an inspector to detail what it is that's making RH so unsafe. f you are so sure you're right about this, why not just let an inspector take a look and corroborate the claims you're making?
People keep saying that SaveCRS should wait for the new B&G report, but let's not forget the BOD already received a B&G Committee report that detailed the work needed before RH could be re-opened and that committee was called incompetent and disbanded,. The BOD instead cited plans drawn up years ago to remodel RH and make it a year round facility to support a claim that RH would need millions of dollars in renovations and announced a plan to put RH up for sale "immediately." It took an enormous effort on the part of J.C. and others to prevent that sale. You subsequently admitted that the BOD made a mistake in how it announced the New Dawn, but you've never admitted nor seem to have backed off from your claim that RH is not a suitable location to host CRS going forward. And, indeed, you went ahead with your plant to shutter RH, shorten the camp seasons, and co-locate them at Clinton. I unfortunately see no reason not to believe you fully intend to co-locate the boys and girl camp at Clinton next summer regardless of what is written in the B&G Committee report or the hastily put together Strategic Planning Committee's report.
It wasn't realistic to think that J.C. could raise $1.5 million from SaveCRS within the time frame you were giving him. I'm sure you knew that and I suspect it was your intention to set a bar high enough that it would be virtually impossible to raise the amount necessary to get you to forego your plan to co-locate the boys and girls camp on the Clinton property in 2016.
Could J.C. have gone out and started yet another drive to collect signatures on a document you'd likely ignore? Yes. But, time is not on CRS's time at this point and SaveCRS can't wait for another October surprise.
Seth has made you a very reasonable and generous offer, Pat. If your claim that Seth's pledge isn't enough to allow RH to be re-opened safely, then you need to support that claim with facts not with made up numbers and personal invective.
Noel
I fully trust JC
I am a member of SaveCRS and I fully support and echo any and all statements issued by J.C. Calderon to this date.
"I am a member of SaveCRS and I fully support and echo any and all statements issued by J.C. Calderon to this date."
I agree with Tonya.
I also agree substantially with Noel's comments above.
I believe at this point that we clearly have a BOD that cares nothing about the viewpoints of alums. It is absolutely pathetic and strains credulity and credibility that they still don't get it - SaveCRS is a viable and growing and interested and SIGNIFICANT portion of CRS alumni and friends.
That any member of the BOD would question the sincerity and accuracy of J.C. Calderon's communication in such an insouciant manner is inexcusable.
I believe that we who have signed the petition and declaration speak with one voice, and I daresay that any one of us could write a letter to the BOD that represented the viewpoint of SaveCRS. J.C. Calderon is doing a good job of it, as are all the others who have written lengthy statements here and in other places that I have seen them online.
Thanks, Paul.
You have got me thinking. Pat has been speaking as if he is the voice of LAJF. ,Anne it's time we started to ask about the fidelity of his communications.
Pat, can you verify that you're actually speaking for anyone other than yourself when you post here and on Facebook?
Was it the BOD or you that was proposing that if SaveCRS raised $2.25 million RH would be re-opened?
Who is it you speak for, Pat?
Pat-JC not only represents me and the other SaveCRS alums, as to inviting an
inspection by the Red Hook building inspector, he stands for common sense...
We need to work together to reopen the boys camp and save our program as soon as possible. With years as a councilor, I know that co-location will undermine same sex relationships and community. Simply getting a campers full attention will be lost, much less "penetrating thinking". Pouring money into this doomed experiment, as our real program slips away will not gain confidence and inspire donation. Instead, announce the intention to reopen and a fund drive to make it the best campsite seen in years... let alums surprise you with our intensity
Sincerely Stephen Bang
Stephen Bang's comments reflect my feelings as well.
The only fair and legal measure is review the Red Hook building code and ensure that our facility is safe. IF IT IS SAFE, then why don't we have a boys camp there in 2015?
I have know John Calderon for 35 years and have found him to be of good character. SaveCRS is not a self-aggrandizing excercise by him. He really cares about the good of the organization and is echoing a settiment felt by many older alum: The organization has marginalized the Alumni body. It is time to be heard and take our rightful place as participants in the Foundation.
John Tumino
I have experience the SaveCRS group (JC in particular) go to great lengths to solicit views and input from a broad CRS community. Although it is a fair question to ask, I can honestly say that SaveCRS is far more than any one person's view. To the extent possible we are engaged and able to present our different viewpoints.
I am not an expert on DOH life safety issues, but at a nominal cost (and in the interests of full disclosure and transparency) I can't see any downside to having an independent entity provide an assessment of the facilities.
I continue to support the work of SaveCRS. JC represents my perspectives and direction. I appreciate JC's common sense leadership, inclusivity and desire for transparency.
I fully support the goals & intentions of Save CRS, as voiced by JC Calderon. With such a strong leader, I don't feel the need to add my individual voice to the discussion as much these days; I feel my views are adequately expressed by the petition & JC's communications. But I am glad to speak up if & when I need to.
Folks,
An email was sent out on behalf of "saveCRS" by JC but its not clear who represents the broader saveCRS cohort. Is this just JC spewing JC? Or is it a message that was vetted with all who identify with the saveCRS community? Its hard to tell. The email was projecting that it was representing >600 alums, but is that true? Its odd that the message was not even posted here. Trying to get clarity on the fidelity of the saveCRS communications.
Best,
Pat