backup is here
Foley: conversation we need to have if we believe in the concept of putting advertising on our buses or not
item before us nine or ten years ago and elected not to
some have put on and since taken off
Allen: primarily for economic reasons
chance for WEDF to work with us on revenue sources, work to find alternative ways of revenue generation would be perhaps a better alternative
"school bus are large and yellow and black intentionally" for safety
"any distraction to the purpose of loading students safely on school buses...whatever the revenue isn't worth the price"
Hennessey: serious concerns about compromising safety with advertising
most dangerous area is in immediate area around the school bus
advertising by its nature is designed to call your attention to something
impossible to pay attention to both the advertising and the school bus
"all it takes is a moment's distraction"
Foley: general impression that districts weren't generating very many dollars
"increased commercialization factor"
Ramirez: if the goal is to raise more dollars for teachers and students, that's a discussion I'd like to hear, rather than this
agree that they shouldn't be commercialized
Novick: agree on commericialization, more distracting than dialing a cell phone
Foley: don't own the buses
Allen: just approved the five year contract with Durham, wasn't in contract
Foley: just takes one mistake, hate to see our advertising cause that
motion to work with WEDF for alternative options and report back to F&O
roll call on ads on buses: roll call three opposed
roll call on alternative: roll call three in favor
No comments:
Post a Comment