posted by Mike Madison at 5:44 PM /
An Anonymous commenter earlier today (Tues. 6/19) wrote:
Is this true? Is any part of it true? (Perhaps the school board meeting wasn't broadcast, but it was a call by the board as a whole, not by the president of the board.) If so -- if any part of it is true -- that's outrageous. The board meetings are broadcast so that the citizens of the munipality (and the folks who pay the taxes that support that schools) can see just a little bit of how the schools are run. And that opportunity gets taken away?
UPDATED 6/21 10:45 am: An anonymous commenter reports that the meeting in question was broadcast this morning on Channel 19.
The school board meeting wasn't shown today because Joe Rodella refused to broadcast negative comment about personnel. Now television is a cheerleading event instead of showing what happened.
Is this true? Is any part of it true? (Perhaps the school board meeting wasn't broadcast, but it was a call by the board as a whole, not by the president of the board.) If so -- if any part of it is true -- that's outrageous. The board meetings are broadcast so that the citizens of the munipality (and the folks who pay the taxes that support that schools) can see just a little bit of how the schools are run. And that opportunity gets taken away?
UPDATED 6/21 10:45 am: An anonymous commenter reports that the meeting in question was broadcast this morning on Channel 19.
Labels: school board, school district
24 Comments:
Mike: I agree with you 100%. I tried to catch the meeting today and was surprised when I couldn't find it. Any person who speaks at a School Board meeting is aware that the meeting is videotaped and should be prepared to have their comments heard publicly. If the School Board or School District decided to censor the meeting, that is outrageous. I recall reading an article in the PG a year or two ago about comments being censored regarding a parent criticizing a teacher. (I am not sure if I think that is a good thing or not.) Comments regarding an Athletic Director and an Assistant Superintendent should be heard by all taxpayers. These positions carry a great deal of power and are rewarded with a large salary.
Why does the School Board continue to believe that Mt. Lebanon residents need information filtered and censored? (Does this remind anyone of Sablegate?) Maybe the Board did the right thing with regards to the 2 positions, but I would like to hear all the criticism or praise of an individual that receives a three year contract at my expense. The lack of access to this meeting denies me the rights I am entitled to as a taxpayer. If the School Board met privately and decided that this meeting should not be aired, then they held a private meeting which violates the Sunshine Law. Any thoughts?
It would appear the school board by refusing to broadcast the recorded tape of the regular board meeting may be violating the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act regarding open meetings. If they regularly record and broadcast the meetings it would seem they would have established an obligation on their part to broadcast the meeting in its entirety based on past practice and by not doing so would be in violation with the stated goal of the Sunshine Act that finds the public has a right to witness deliberations of a state agency. Unless of course the tape happened to contain the inappropriate and profane language and rantings of a school board member acting like a middle school student(actually I retract that as an insult to middle school students), in which case I suppose FCC indecency regulations protecting the innocent ears of our children from profane language would probably trump the broadcasting of the tape of the meeting. I think if the tape was made by the district it still probably must make the tape available to taxpaying individuals under Pennsylvania's Right to Know Law. One would think that being videotaped would force someone to behave, but apparently for some elected officials that is far too much to ask.
Rodella made the ruling to delete negative public comment during the discussion of a personnel contract that was strongly opposed by parents, the public and three board members. No board member objected.
The motion to accept the contract was made by Garson, seconded by Walton.
The board minutes will reflect five yes votes:
Yes Votes: Campbell, Garson, Posti, Rose, Walton
No Votes: Hart, Remely, Silhol
Abstain: Rodella
Mr. Hart said the contract will cost $300,000.
Is any part of this meeting going to be televised? Isn't Mr. Rodella creating more of a controversy and more interest by not airing this meeting? Will the written minutes be censored as well? How can one get a copy of minutes?
I heard it was Dan Remely who did it.
Mark must be using "new math."
I attended the meeting . Rodella objected repeatedly to critical public comments naming the district employee who was named on the agenda action item and also named by the board member reading the agenda resolution concerning the named individuals employment contract extension.Rodella stated that board policy does not permit negative comments on named district employees or something to that effect -- it's difficult to follow his nonlinear logic.
Several parents offered documentable evidence of what I will term to be classic district "stonewalling" of valid parental complaints of district employee behavior, conduct , retaliation , retribution and disrespect of students and parents alike. The parents claimed they had sought resolution of their grievances through the proscribed procedural steps for such "complaints" and had and had shared and were willing to further share documentary evidence associated with their grievances.
Mr. Rodella , seemingly speaking for the board as he usually does unabatedly, claimed, in essence, that all complaints by these parents had been thoroughly reviewed, considered by the board (IN EXECUTIVE SESSIONS -- therefore,who's to know?)and the board agreed with the administrations investigations of the "complaints" and were satisfied that the matters were settled satisfactorily-- I'm paraphrasing here, but its the gist of what he said . If the tape was shown , we'd have his official, authentic rendition.
And that,folks, just might be the real reason why the tape is not being shown -- the district has claimed that the "complaints" have, to their total and complete satisfaction, been appropriately delt with . The parents believe otherwise and may have evidence to prove otherwise.Another un-named employee was included in the parental "complaints"and referred to only by title, in spite of which Mr. Rodella attempted to silence complainants repeatedly by exclaiming,"you cannot criticize or complain about employees by name".Very evident on the tape, I'm sure.If only we could see it.
I seem to recall it may have been Carol Walton, when she was president of the board, who stated that filming board meetings was a privilege extended to the public and not a right, or a requirement of the "Sunshine Act".Further, the board and district reserved the right to edit the tapes and that the tapes were not a legal record of the meeting. So there,one can conclude !?
What is interesting in this particular case is that the entire meeting has been edited out ,not just that portion dealing with "complaints". In addition to the parents speaking out, there were several other regular public attendees who expressed displeasure with the employees and the districts' mishandling of matters brought before the board. They spoke both in the early agenda permitting public comment on action items, as well as at the conclusive stage of the agenda allowing general public comment .
A highlight of the meeting were the prepared remarks made by board member Mark Hart. For those interested and who care, email Mark and ask him to send you a copy. THEY'RE PRICELESS !
p.s. The employee got his contact extended for 3 years on a 5-for,3-against,1-abstention(possibily the appearance of a conflict of interest)
William F. Lewis
Regarding Mr. Lewis's comments...How do you know that the parent's complaints were not reviewed and dealt with? Why do you assume the parents are right and the board is wrong?
I know two of these parents and their concerns are about a coach they dislike and they want removed. The majority of the other parents on the team do not agree with their opinion of the coach. Some of their "facts" are at the very least questionable.
We know that Mark Hart feels parents should be able to get rid of a coach.
Athletics can certainly erupt emotional triggers with many parents.
A good AD needs to see the difference between a parent's dissappointment and dangerous or unprofessional coaching.
Our coaches take a great deal of parent abuse.
There have been coaches removed by our AD.
My experience with the AD has shown that he has made thoughtful and difficult but fair decisions.
The trashing of the AD by Mark Hart is inexcusable. He's just having a temper tantrum because he didn't get what he wanted. His pushing of personal agenda issues infuriate me as a citizen and taxpayer.
With the level of dysfunction this board exhibits, how is it so many incumbents are virtually already re-elected based on their winning both tickets in May??? Is anyone paying attention aside from the few people on this blog?
j.s.
I mentioned this under a different topic but how much of this has to do with Mr. Rodella not wanting the public to see just how glib he was towards the people making the comments. Rodella was in absolute rare form during the meeting and it was suggested to him that he go home and watch this tape to see just how many times he put someone down or cut someone off. When people would finish their comments he would say, "Thank you for that dissertation, Mrs. x" or "Thank you for that essay, Mr. Y". These comments were inappropriate under any circumstances and are especially inappropriate given the seriousness of the issues that were brought before the Board.
Conveniently for Mr. Rodella, he wont be able to evalauate himself by looking in the mirror.
Anyone know if there will at least be a transript of the meeting made available? It seems that it should be public information. At least in the transcript they can black out specific names.
I will say again, kudos to the three men on the Board that actually wanted to table the issue for now. And especially, to the parents that spoke up during the meeting and voiced their concerns regarding the AD, remember that all three Board members running for re-election voted for the contract. Also remember that we have a new Super coming into town. Perhaps you will be able to grab his ear better than that of Dr. Wilson's. Somebody has got to take those charges seriously.
For the record, Rodella, during the discussion of the issue, said that he would vote for the contract for the AD. He only abstained after he knew that five people had already voted for it thereby making his vote unnecessary.
Classy, Joe. Real classy.
*CitizenA*
If anyone is interested, our AD has been voted as the best in Western PA by his peers; he continues to bring in "Positive Coaching" seminars and speakers; he holds his coaches to the highest standards; he has partnered with the Mt. Lebanon Police Department's education officer to promote proper behavior by our student athletes; and he attends and works at a myriad of sporting events both at home games/meets, as well as away.
When Mr. Hart asked how the Board knew about Mr. Grogan's reviews, he was told that the Board received that information and went over it at a meeting. Perhaps Mr. Hart missed that meeting.
I am curious to find out what possible reason the citizens have for speaking against the contract for Mr. Grogan. Apart from the student athletes' parents who spoke, do any of these individuals have any knowledge of Mr. Grogan? Have they had any experience with him themselves? Or do they simply believe the skewed opinions of a board member, whose own personal agenda dictates his votes? Is that what is best for this community and district?
I agree that this community needs to wake up and pay attention in November. And when you vote, remember how the press followed the USC board, as well as the firing of the CV coach by a board member with a personal vendetta (later reinstated because of public outcry). Do we want to be front page news every week? I always thought (or hoped) that we had more class around here.
Mr. Allison:
Run, run, as fast as you can - or at the very least buy a house in Upper St. Clair! They only have a small IB scandal and half their board will be voted out soon. USC also has a beautiful new high school and doesn't try to appeal new homeowners like good old Lebo!
Anon 10:31. You ask what we know about Mr Grogan. He could in fact be a great AD. But that doesnt mean that gives him the right to breach the trust of the parents that his coaches coach. The parents on two occasions presented pretty clear evidence that this breach of trust occurred. You say they may just have a personal vendetta against the AD. Fine, that may in fact be the case. I do doubt very seriously that parents who were emotionally distraught by having to bring their case in front of the public would do this unless they felt strongly that they were in the right. Perhaps they were just good actors.
But that is not the reason I am against the contract. I would not vote against the contract based on that evidence alone. The fact is that this very Board told the public that they would try not to saddle the new superintendent with long term contracts of employees that were not approved by him specifically. So what happens? It appears that they want to cherry-pick the contracts of the people that they want to keep and throw away.
Someone else here noted that the Board went ahead and approved this contract based on the recommendation of the person that oversees the position. I wonder if the person that gave the recommendation is now the principal at Bethel Park. Actually, I dont think I have to wonder.
The issue, and I will go back to it again, is that the Board went against what it said it was going to do and right at the outset, Mr Allison is going to have to deal with an AD that he may or may not like. He will have no choice for another three years.
The parents that spoke at the meeting and accused the AD of breechinng their anonymity should not have bad mouthed the swim coach and made serious accusations to MANY PEOPLE if they really wanted to remain anonymous. They breeched that themselves loudly and frequently.
I do wonder, though, why a swim coach noted as one of the best in the country would leave a Division I program in the South to come to, gulp, Mt. Lebanon? Has anyone ever answered this question honestly?
Did Mr. Addy, the Human Resource Director leave because he saw all of this coming?
Rumor has it that the "off the record" conversation between Joe Rodella and Paula Bongiorno is being televised by pay-for-view TV.
Bill Addy is a known psychic,so the answer to the above is probably yes.
“On May 20, 2005, Mr. Addy asked me how my end-of-year conference went. I countered with a question. I asked him if he thought I would be evaluated fairly. Mr. Addy replied, “Off the record, no.”
Excerpt from Evaluation Appeal to Dr. George Wilson from Dr. Pamela Pulkowski dated August 10, 2005
I must remain anonymous because of retaliation, but there are scores of District employees including principals, teachers, secretaries, supervisors and central office people who know the truth about how Dr. Pulkowski has been treated since Wilson took over. People are afraid to say anything because they would be next. The Board knows what's been going on and most turn a blind eye or are part of it. Just watch the last board meeting.
I'm convinced that the folks who follow this blog and always assume the worst from our School District, also believe that the moon landing was a farse and there were 3 grassy knoll gunmen in Dallas.
As a former Mt. Lebanon student-athlete, coach and now a parent, I can assure you that the folks who complain publicly about a coach are generally in the minority when it comes to their opinions about the coach. If a team's coach is truly a bad apple, you will have complaints from a majority of the students and their parents and not just a few. Moreover, there is a direct correlation between the parents who complain and the amount of playing time that their kids receive. Lastly, any parent of a high school student who confronts a coach before encouraging their kid to speak to the coach first, does a great dis-service to the kid. High school aged kids need to learn to deal with these issues themselves. It is part of the learning and maturing process.
Speaking from experience, most kids do not approve of their parents going straight to a coach to address issues of playing time, unfair treatment, etc. In fact, when I was coach at the high school and recieved a call or a visit from a parent I ALWAYS asked two questions: (1) does your son know you are calling me, and (2) do you have problem if we meet and discuss these issues with your son? In most cases, the kids did NOT know that their parents were calling me (and did not ask them to), and more often than not they were unwilling to meet as a group.
I know it is dangerous to paint with such a broad brush, but in my experience parents who complain to or about coaches are trying to micro-manage the lives of their children. Understand this first, high school athletics are not fair. Just like the college application process, the job search process, and the job promotion process are not always fair. Should our teachers give A's and B's to everyone? No. And our coaches cannot ensure equal playing time and overall satisfaction from every student athlete. I can promise you that if your son or daughter truly deserves to play, he or she will play. Coaches don't bench good players, unless the kid has an attitude problem, disrupts practice or otherwise undermnines the authority of the coach and the program. Unfortunately, most parents are quick to believe that there is no way that their son or daughter would ever act up or be disruptive. After all, parents don't attend practices!
It disturbs me greatly that nearly everyone on this blog immediately presumes the accuracy of the parent's accounts (although they represent a small portion of the overall team members), and instantly discredits the repuation of a well-respected, successful AD.
If I show up at a Board meeting and complain that a teacher, coach or administrator is off the wall, should I automatically be deemed to be speaking the truth? Of course not. My point is simply this, don't assume that everyone who speaks at a School Board meeting is well-intentioned and without an agenda.
There are many personnel and student-relations issues that are not (and should not be) the topic of public school board meetings. In fact, as you all know, the large majority of personnel issues are not addressed at public meetings. I don't know all of the facts, but perhaps Mr. Rodella's decision to "censor" the comments at the meeting was based upon his belief that doing so would protect the district (and the taxpayers) from greater harm. And perhaps this decision was based on an understanding of the ALL OF THE FACTS from both sides, rather than mere conjecture and conspiracy theories. In other words, if the parent's comments were unjustified rants with little or no basis in fact, there is no reason why this staff member or any other should be subject to this type of abuse and reptational harm.
I agree generally with The Anonymous Coach (Anon 8:56 am) that parent criticism of HS athletics is often difficult to assess; parents are usually thinking of their conception of the best interests of their child and not the best of interests of the team or the school. (The *actual* best interests of the child may differ from the *parents'* conception, and in each case, the child's interest may conflict with the team's or the school's interest. That won't always be the case, but it's true often enough that generalizing in support of parental complaints is problematic.) I made a similar point in this comment on a different post.
However, if the School District has made a commitment to broadcast its public board meetings on local cable TV, then those board meetings should be broadcast in full, warts and unpleasant comments and all. I'm not aware of any legal requirement that the meetings be broadcast in the first place, but it is the height of arrogance for the board to decide to broadcast some (the ones where nothing unpleasant happens?) and to omit others (to protect the public from itself?).
If the Board felt that the AD's reputation was attacked unfairly, it had and still has an easy remedy that doesn't offend the public. Make a record, immediately and publicly, of the success and support that the AD enjoys in the athletic community and in Mt. Lebanon in general. If the truth really favors the AD, then this approach is a no-brainer.
Or, as a second-best solution, the Board could have deleted the conversation about the AD, with a public explanation, and broadcast the remainder of the meeting. My understanding is that MLHS has some sophisticated video editing equipment; perhaps this could have been put to use.
The meeting was shown this morning on Channel 19. I videotaped the meeting so I could watch it when my children are asleep. Given the comments on this blog, I didn't want my children to hear an adult discussion over breakfast. I will reserve my comments until I watch the meeting. Hopefully others can watch or tape the meeting today!
Tuesday I was told by a district employee the Solicitor was reviewing the meeting before broadcast. This must be the reason the broadcast was on Wednesday and not on Tuesday as usual. The meeting I attended Monday evening was censored and not broadcast if full. Watch the meeting broadcast for “blinks.” to pick up the edit(s).
John Ewing
First-time blogger here...
I've been reading this blog for some time...Finally figured out how to get on to participate...
Always interesting, sometimes informative and sometimes helpful...and I keep using "sometimes" because bloglebo would be much more credible if more people signed their posts...
It was informative for me, today, to hear about the Monday night vote on the AD contract. I had to make a number of telephone calls to find out what really happened.
This blog mentions three families complaining about the AD and a high school coach...My family has had direct dealings with both men and they are fine, upstanding gentlemen -- who are always "reachable" for parents and taxpayers who have questions and concerns. Our experience has been positive with both men.
No, I was not at the Monday school board meeting -- but I wish I had been, for I "hear" that the "three families" were making horrible statements and allegations about a coach and the AD....unsubstantiated statments.
So while I am a HUGE fan of the First Amendment, I say kudos to the school board president for editing out those hateful, hurtful and false comments.
The parents of students athletes are given the opportunity to fill out anonymous questionaires about their child's coach. We gave "our" coach the highest possible evaluations. So did every other parent that I talked to. I personally would love to see the results of those evaluations become public.
Please don't be "swayed" by the people who are consistently negative -- please see what some of "Us" think about some of these issues.
I will sign my name on this post and on any future posts.
Linda Wilson Fuoco
Censorship is wrong.
If the comments were slanderous, let those responsible for uttering them be held responsible.
If the comments are potentially misleading to viewers of the broadcast, then run a disclaimer: comments made by citizens are not the opinions or beliefs of the board or the district.
But outright censorship is wrong.
Post a Comment
<< Home