posted by Joe Polk at 7:39 PM /
Mt. Lebanon school officials deleted portions of a heated exchange between residents and school board members from a videotape of this week's meeting before airing it on cable television.
Residents now are questioning the integrity of the school district broadcasts.
Link: www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/southwest/s_513969.html
Residents now are questioning the integrity of the school district broadcasts.
Link: www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/southwest/s_513969.html
Labels: school board, school district
17 Comments:
My first experience with censorship of school board television was over 10 years ago when Bill Lewis and I had our comments deleted from a public hearing promoting the middle schools.
I offered the documentation of my comments to an editor of one of America’s newspapers; he walked away.
I asked Dr. Smartschan what authority he had to delete our comments. He responded Carol Walton approved it. I asked him what Carol Walton had to do with approving the deletion. Glenn replied, “She is the Chair of the Community Relations Committee.”
John Ewing
John Ewing is absolutely correct. The meeting he refers to occured circa 1995 , in the H.S.auditorium.A presentation by hired consultant Ken Brooks. I challenged some of his conclusions and he became quiet upset . That segment -- my remarks and his heated response --were entirely deleted.
Tuesday takes
From the PGH Tribune Review
Tuesday June 26, 2007
Cut-cut, snip-snip: When the Mt. Lebanon School Board didn't like something said in a public comment session last week, it edited it from the community-access TV broadcast. School director Carol Walton says the board is "not obligated to rebroadcast it verbatim." Ah, more arrogance from our "public servants."
The tape being broadcast on Channel 19 has not simply been censored or edited -- it has been doctored. But only people who were actually at the meeting can tell that it has been doctored.
If Mt. Lebanon wants to air a censored or edited board meeting, they ought to be responsible enough to allow the viewer to perceive where the edits have occurred. For example, when I was censored at a discussion meeting in March 2004 (during Dr. Sable's superintendency), the visual was left intact while the censored words were silenced. Viewers could tell that only a few phrases were left out in three separate places.
No, I wasn't being abusive, obscene, or disruptive at the March 2004 School Board discussion meeting! I was representing a group of concerned Elementary parents who were asking the District to allow a second opinion regarding alleged inadequate sampling of soon-to-be-impacted materials previously assumed to contain asbestos. In advance of beginning demolition and renovation work before school let out, the Administration was falsely claiming that "all areas included in this early work have already been abated." That hoped-for second opinion and any additional sampling would have been entirely paid for by our group. The request was denied. Censored out of the broadcast tape were: (1) the name of the District's hired asbestos consulting firm and the words "violated their contract" in conjunction with them failing to perform all of their services in full compliance with all regulations (e.g., illegally substituting "Modified AHERA" for all of the required AHERA air clearance tests for the summer 2003 asbestos abatements); (2) words stating that the District and the District's hired asbestos consulting firm had cheated; and (3) words citing the asbestos consulting firm's documentation provided to the District as being the evidence showing that the District and its asbestos consulting firm were not in full compliance with the law. The District Solicitor had stated that I had not provided any evidence.
I agree with the editing of the school board meeting. It seems as if a few folks are playing the politics of personal destruction. All they have is rumor, conjecture and gossip.
They seem to hope that the rumors "stick" so the AD can get rid of certain coaches that they don't like.
The censored tape of the June 2007 school board business meeting made it clear the Athletic Director cannot keep a parent’s confidence.
An unnamed college senior adult male was swimming in the pool with a 14 year old Mt. Lebanon high school freshman. A parent questioned the individual’s clearance to work with children. The AD could/should have asked the personnel director for this information and kept this information confidential as the parents requested. If necessary the personnel director could/should have asked the swim coach about the clearance and the parent idenity information would have been confidential.
In spite of this lack of confidentiality Campbell, Garson, Posti, Rose and Walton voted the AD a three year contract.
Mr. Ewing's comment is confusing to say the least. He says that a college senior was swimming in the same pool as a 14 year old freshman. So what? Do you need clearances to swim in a pool with a minor?
And just what did the parents want to remain confidential? The fact that they asked about a clearance? What statute gives them the right to confidentiality re: asking for clearances? To whom did the parents ask, the AD or the personnel director? And for this reason the AD should not have been retained?
To anonymous at 7:00 p.m.....It is a wise practice that anyone working with minors, paid or volunteer, have Act 33 and Act 34 clearances. Although these are not guarantees that someone has not been a perpetrator of a crime, it is currently the verification system our state uses. As far as the confidentiality issue, the parents may have had concerns to which we are not privvy.
At the time of the first reported incident the male swimmer did not need clearances - he had no official capacity with the school.
Of course that also meant he had no business being in the pool.
Gina,
Mr. Ewing never said that the college student was working with the 14 year old, just that they were swimming in the same pool.
And just because someone demands confidentiality for whatever reason does not mean that they deserve it. From what I understand from Mr. Ewing's statement is his belief that the AD should lose his job because he reported that the parents wanted to know about clearances.
If he had no official capacity in the school, how is this the AD's fault?
I thought I heard Dr. Wilson say (at the last school board meeting) that the boy was no longer allowed on school grounds after his status became known to the district.
Why was he in the pool?
What are the safety concerns for students?
Ditto!
I do believe that residents are allowed to use the pool. I don't know if this young man was a resident or not. If he was not a coach he did not need clearances. If he did not need clearances then the complaint to the AD wasn't a valid one.
Either school rules or PIAA rules prohibit community use during practice. And, the gentleman was not a resident.
PIAA Rules of Eligibility say:
“Your athletic eligibility extends only until you have reached the end of your fourth consecutive year beyond the eighth grade. Therefore, if you repeat a grade after eighth, you will be ineligible as a senior.”
So why was a college senior in the pool?
http://www.piaa.org/schools/eligibility/default.aspx
Post a Comment
<< Home