posted by Mike Madison at 4:53 PM /
This blog isn't "all School Board, all the time," but this week it certainly seems that way.
Almost lost in the hubbub comes the news that Alan Silhol was elected this week to serve as the new President of the Board. Congrats to him! I think.
He, along with the rest of the members of the School Board, received the following letter this week. I've deleted the identities of the authors, who are Mt. Lebanon residents, but in every other respect there is nothing confidential or private about the text. It was forwarded to me by a current member of the Board who, like many (I assume, judging from recent traffic statistics), has been reading this week's posts with interest. I am posting it here for the single reason that it highlights the kind of ugliness, vituperation, narrow-mindedness, and unreason that should have absolutely no place in Mt. Lebanon -- at any level, let alone in communications with neighbors who serve the town as School Directors, Commissioners, or other board volunteers. Does anyone still think that Mt. Lebanon is a shining beacon of civic mindedness? We have our high points, to be sure. But we have the same lows that you see everywhere else, and this is one of them.
Before you read further, sit down and prepare yourself for some nasty language. The italics are my comments.
Unfortunately, this is not one of those endeavors.
We believe, however, that "full investigation" does not include investigation by anyone who disagrees with us.
Deleterious? Undesirable? Unacceptable? Irresponsible? Reprehensible? Go ahead and disagree with the proposal. But this is over the top. Put down the thesaurus (or learn how to use it wisely) and step away from the keyboard. You might hurt someone.
The only thing that Director Fraasch has done is seriously question the assumptions of the renovation/reconstruction project so far, which are based on the premise that the taxpayers of Mt. Lebanon can, in fact, afford a $100-$150 million (or more) capital project. Fail to face up "to the responsibilities he accepted when he was elected to the board"? What craziness is this? If I sense for a second that my elected representatives are not carefully scrutinizing their operating assumptions regarding how my tax money is being spent, then I'll vote in a heartbeat to toss them out of office -- thanks but no thanks for your "work" -- and hope that every one of my friends and neighbors joins me.
Other School Directors have been hard at work on the renovation/reconstruction project. All of us appreciate that. At last Summer's First Friday events, several of the Directors were there to talk about the project, and I, along with many other people, welcomed the opportunity to talk about it. But there is absolutely no reason for any member of the Board to go along just to get along, especially if, in his judgment, the work so far comes to a mistaken conclusion. For your reference, below I include a clip from the devastating presentation of Richard Feynman to the commission investing the Challenger disaster. Feynman's elegant deconstruction of the cause of that tragedy showed that it was a classic case of getting along to go along. This was not rocket science, understandable only by a Nobel laureate. Anyone paying attention in high school physics should have seen the problem. The Challenger disaster dwarfs our high school project at every level of significance. Is James Fraasch a Feynman? No. But this isn't rocket science. Given the financial stakes, why dismiss his position out of hand?
This is a straw man argument. Criticize the proposal for what it says. Don't criticize it for what it does not say. The proposal has to do with what lies within our means; it does not deny that the facility needs major work.
On that point the proposal is quite accurate. Mt. Lebanon has a significantly higher proportion of fixed and middle income residents than surrounding communities do. Our demographics are not the demographics of Upper St. Clair. Sure, a new high school might increase my property value -- but higher taxes would reduce it. Have you talked recently to young families trying to decide whether to buy a house here? I have. Yesterday, in fact. You know what they say? They're scared to death by the tax increase that they assume is coming with a major high school construction project.
This is the nuttiest point of all, but maybe (given my self-identified liberal leanings), its soak-the-rich attitude regarding taxation isn't such a bad thing. Just so long as I'm not one of the rich ones. This statement is the most pernicious and misleading thing in the letter, the assumption that Mt. Lebanon is just chock full of wealthy families who are more than happy to pay whatever it takes to keep-up-with-Upper-St.-Clair. For every wealthy family in town, there is a middle-income family. Would you like to meet some of them? The people who live in modest houses, struggle but still proudly pay Mt. Lebanon taxes, and prize the fact that they have access to the schools and community resources that the town and its citizens have created? I would be happy to introduce you to them; they're my neighbors, and in all likelihood, they are yours.
James Fraasch is willing do what much of Mt. Lebanon does only in private, to think about what is in the best interests of all of Mt. Lebanon, not just one athletic team, or one municipal service, or one profession, one neighborhood, or one child. Ranting about that effort and calling the proposal "reprehensible" turns our world upside down. We're supposed to be selfish in private and generous in public. (Actually, we're supposed to be generous all the time, but we usually concede that it's OK to be selfish in our own lives.) Decrying his failure to protect what a few rich souls deem unassailable is the antithesis of the mythical Mt. Lebanon community spirit. Attacking him personally, using the tone and the language displayed in this letter, is a form of assault. No one will be prosecuted or sued over it, but in a metaphorical sense that omission is a shame.
The text of the letter ends there.
In a sense I regret spending so much time here and in the comments defending the proposition that public debate should be civil and respectful, because doing so takes time and energy away from talking about the merits of the alternatives, including but not limited to James Fraasch's proposal.
But it is important to defend what has been called "the public sphere" against threats to its integrity, and to try to understand where those threats come from so that they can be deflected in the future.
Here, I think that the threat is based on fear.
The letter above is full of anger, and I suspect but cannot prove that its anger stems from from anxiety that James Fraasch may actually be right: Mt. Lebanon *cannot* afford a massive borrowing right now. I'll speculate a little bit: The anger reflects a specific fear, that our sense of municipal prestige is at risk if we are not able to spend money as freely as we have in the past. If you look at the high school project primarily in terms of your property value, then a new building is a status symbol, not a temple for education. There is no simple solution to this problem, except to point out again and again that the issue before us is the substance of our educational program and value for our investment. Mt. Lebanon does not need the best of everything.
Almost lost in the hubbub comes the news that Alan Silhol was elected this week to serve as the new President of the Board. Congrats to him! I think.
He, along with the rest of the members of the School Board, received the following letter this week. I've deleted the identities of the authors, who are Mt. Lebanon residents, but in every other respect there is nothing confidential or private about the text. It was forwarded to me by a current member of the Board who, like many (I assume, judging from recent traffic statistics), has been reading this week's posts with interest. I am posting it here for the single reason that it highlights the kind of ugliness, vituperation, narrow-mindedness, and unreason that should have absolutely no place in Mt. Lebanon -- at any level, let alone in communications with neighbors who serve the town as School Directors, Commissioners, or other board volunteers. Does anyone still think that Mt. Lebanon is a shining beacon of civic mindedness? We have our high points, to be sure. But we have the same lows that you see everywhere else, and this is one of them.
Before you read further, sit down and prepare yourself for some nasty language. The italics are my comments.
To the Mt. Lebanon School Board:
In any endeavor of community life, discussion and exchange of ideas is a beneficial and worthwhile effort.
Unfortunately, this is not one of those endeavors.
Thus, we consider useful and advantageous the continuing School Board discussions on and investigation into the question of whether to build a new high school or do extensive renovations on the present one. Full investigation will produce a valuable and genuine answer to the problem and continued commitment to top-quality education.
We believe, however, that "full investigation" does not include investigation by anyone who disagrees with us.
We also consider deleterious anything less than one of the two solutions being sought. Patchwork would be not only undesirable and unacceptable, it would be irresponsible and reprehensible. And patchwork – indeed, not even well-thought-out patchwork – is what is being advocated by School Director James Fraasch.
Deleterious? Undesirable? Unacceptable? Irresponsible? Reprehensible? Go ahead and disagree with the proposal. But this is over the top. Put down the thesaurus (or learn how to use it wisely) and step away from the keyboard. You might hurt someone.
Mr. Fraasch advocates a $10 million to $15 million plunge into the depths of dubious cost-benefit recklessness, apparently preferring to take the easy way out instead of facing up to the responsibilities he accepted when he was elected to the board. His window-dressing contentions that Mt. Lebanon taxpayers can’t afford a significant tax increase to pay for continued excellence in education are dubious. He would spend $10 million to $15 million now, then step back and watch as other systems fail in an old building which has served its purpose but is now beyond senior citizen status.
The only thing that Director Fraasch has done is seriously question the assumptions of the renovation/reconstruction project so far, which are based on the premise that the taxpayers of Mt. Lebanon can, in fact, afford a $100-$150 million (or more) capital project. Fail to face up "to the responsibilities he accepted when he was elected to the board"? What craziness is this? If I sense for a second that my elected representatives are not carefully scrutinizing their operating assumptions regarding how my tax money is being spent, then I'll vote in a heartbeat to toss them out of office -- thanks but no thanks for your "work" -- and hope that every one of my friends and neighbors joins me.
Other School Directors have been hard at work on the renovation/reconstruction project. All of us appreciate that. At last Summer's First Friday events, several of the Directors were there to talk about the project, and I, along with many other people, welcomed the opportunity to talk about it. But there is absolutely no reason for any member of the Board to go along just to get along, especially if, in his judgment, the work so far comes to a mistaken conclusion. For your reference, below I include a clip from the devastating presentation of Richard Feynman to the commission investing the Challenger disaster. Feynman's elegant deconstruction of the cause of that tragedy showed that it was a classic case of getting along to go along. This was not rocket science, understandable only by a Nobel laureate. Anyone paying attention in high school physics should have seen the problem. The Challenger disaster dwarfs our high school project at every level of significance. Is James Fraasch a Feynman? No. But this isn't rocket science. Given the financial stakes, why dismiss his position out of hand?
Just what will convince Mr. Fraasch that full replacement or extensive and all-encompassing renovations are needed? Will it be the collapse of a ceiling on a room full of students? Will it be the destructive and interruptive failure of a swimming pool that is more than 50 years old? Or will it be, finally, the eventual and inevitable realization that construction delayed is construction that will cost future generations even more than present calculations?
This is a straw man argument. Criticize the proposal for what it says. Don't criticize it for what it does not say. The proposal has to do with what lies within our means; it does not deny that the facility needs major work.
His further argument, that 75 percent of Mt. Lebanon residents have no children in school and thus should not bear increased school district taxes, is disingenuous. Even accepting that figure, one must recognize it is not unique to Mt. Lebanon. And one must also recognize that better community property – a new high school, for instance – increases the value of each property owner’s land and home.
On that point the proposal is quite accurate. Mt. Lebanon has a significantly higher proportion of fixed and middle income residents than surrounding communities do. Our demographics are not the demographics of Upper St. Clair. Sure, a new high school might increase my property value -- but higher taxes would reduce it. Have you talked recently to young families trying to decide whether to buy a house here? I have. Yesterday, in fact. You know what they say? They're scared to death by the tax increase that they assume is coming with a major high school construction project.
Finally, one must recognize, most of all, that the important thing about debt – public or private – is revenue/debt ratio. A family with a large income can carry more debt than a low-income family. Similarly, a school district such as Mt. Lebanon can afford to carry much more debt than other districts with lower revenue.
This is the nuttiest point of all, but maybe (given my self-identified liberal leanings), its soak-the-rich attitude regarding taxation isn't such a bad thing. Just so long as I'm not one of the rich ones. This statement is the most pernicious and misleading thing in the letter, the assumption that Mt. Lebanon is just chock full of wealthy families who are more than happy to pay whatever it takes to keep-up-with-Upper-St.-Clair. For every wealthy family in town, there is a middle-income family. Would you like to meet some of them? The people who live in modest houses, struggle but still proudly pay Mt. Lebanon taxes, and prize the fact that they have access to the schools and community resources that the town and its citizens have created? I would be happy to introduce you to them; they're my neighbors, and in all likelihood, they are yours.
James Fraasch is willing do what much of Mt. Lebanon does only in private, to think about what is in the best interests of all of Mt. Lebanon, not just one athletic team, or one municipal service, or one profession, one neighborhood, or one child. Ranting about that effort and calling the proposal "reprehensible" turns our world upside down. We're supposed to be selfish in private and generous in public. (Actually, we're supposed to be generous all the time, but we usually concede that it's OK to be selfish in our own lives.) Decrying his failure to protect what a few rich souls deem unassailable is the antithesis of the mythical Mt. Lebanon community spirit. Attacking him personally, using the tone and the language displayed in this letter, is a form of assault. No one will be prosecuted or sued over it, but in a metaphorical sense that omission is a shame.
We urge the School Board to reject Mr. Fraasch’s patchwork fantasy and get on with the realistic work of providing a first-rate education in a first-rate facility.
The text of the letter ends there.
In a sense I regret spending so much time here and in the comments defending the proposition that public debate should be civil and respectful, because doing so takes time and energy away from talking about the merits of the alternatives, including but not limited to James Fraasch's proposal.
But it is important to defend what has been called "the public sphere" against threats to its integrity, and to try to understand where those threats come from so that they can be deflected in the future.
Here, I think that the threat is based on fear.
The letter above is full of anger, and I suspect but cannot prove that its anger stems from from anxiety that James Fraasch may actually be right: Mt. Lebanon *cannot* afford a massive borrowing right now. I'll speculate a little bit: The anger reflects a specific fear, that our sense of municipal prestige is at risk if we are not able to spend money as freely as we have in the past. If you look at the high school project primarily in terms of your property value, then a new building is a status symbol, not a temple for education. There is no simple solution to this problem, except to point out again and again that the issue before us is the substance of our educational program and value for our investment. Mt. Lebanon does not need the best of everything.
Labels: high school renovation, mt lebanon school district, mt. lebanon school board
10 Comments:
Holy cow.
This letter initially made me chuckle with its Scrabble-like use of words, each one bigger and nastier than the next. I mean come on - who uses "dubious" TWICE in the same paragraph?
Then the scare tactics. The vision of the roof collapsing on a classroom full of English students is rich indeed. Ironically, I'd bet that the folks who wrote this letter live in homes with walls and ceilings as old as if not older than the high school.
But as I read the letter a second time, the humor was gone. It was replaced with a deep concern that there is a group of folks who think that Mt. Lebanon still shops at Saks instead of Target.
I don't know enough about the construction budget, tax consequences and debt structure to comment more specifically or take a position on the proposal. However, I would encourage the authors of this letter to watch a replay of the Big 3 bailout hearings and gain an appreciation for the dangerous effects of spending beyond everyone's means and taking on monster sized debt.
You mean there is someone else in Mt. Lebanon that recognizes that the Emperor has no clothes? I am amazed that you would acknowledge their presence, much less publicize it. You continue to advocate high quality educational standards, yet you suggest that this can be accomplished in any atmosphere. Should we assume that you would be willing to teach your classes in a room where the ceiling is falling down in chunks, where the temperature is so erratic that one is either about to faint from the heat or freeze, where the noise level makes it impossible to hear anyone beyond the second row? You commented that "I think that the assumption that a new or renovated high school would put an end to today's maintenance and repair bills is a myth". Do you honestly feel that a new facility will have the same repair bills of our present facility? What do you base this on? I suppose pointing out these inconsistencies is "irresponsible". So be it. 2 and 2 still does not add up to 5.
Here's the fun part for me. Do you think city schools are complaining about the age of their INDOOR SWIMING POOL? You think they're complaining that their $83,000 / year gym teacher can't find a room at exactly 70 degrees in the whole building?
I've said it before and I'll say it again. There will always be people with no kids who think schools cost too much and there will always be parents who think that every perceived advantage should be given to their kids, no matter how irrational. The trick is to find a rational balance where kids get the best advantages that can be afforded, put another way, where the school board budget is used efficiently. To do that one has to ignore that bethel park and usc have new schools and focus on what matters, Lebo. Is the best use of $150 million for our kids a new building? Or is it lower taxes (to help their parents pay for college or other things), a renovation, new computers and a bump in SOME teachers salaries?
I don't pretend to know the answer, and I don't vote in Lebo anymore so I don't have to. I'm just suggesting that some readers of this blog and writers of letters spend more time answering that question and less time thinking, in isolation, about how nice it would be to have a pretty new building.
Mike and Joe and Blog Lebo,
You can credit that last comment to my real name, Jonathan Cavell, if you like. I had a momentary lapse of memory about the whole anonymity policy.
There is an Emperor with no clothes in Mt. Lebanon, Jim, but it's not James Fraasch.
It is amazing to me that having asked directly and bluntly that we put an end to the name-calling, you persist in slinging mud. I publicize the righteous and nasty indignation in the letter above only to point out how damaging and disrespectful it is. Yet you celebrate it.
Would a new building bring the same maintenance costs as the existing building? In the near time, probably not, but those near-term maintenance costs would be far from zero. In the middle- and longer-term, yes, actually, I believe the maintenance costs would continue to be substantial. Has there ever been a new building that did *not* need to be maintained? Sure, we can borrow all of the money for a new building, defer all principal payments for years, and claim that the project saves money because maintenance costs decline substantially in years 1 through 5.
But if the School District is borrowing $100-$150 million, it should not be budgeting only for years 1 through 5. That is precisely the point of Director Fraasch's proposal. Of course, the cost of maintaining the building is far from the only cost associated with borrowing $100-$150 million.
As for my own teaching, actually I have taught in seriously substandard facilities. As a student, I took classes for years in buildings so damp, broken, and sometimes flimsy that they would frighten even the sunniest cheerleader.
And you know what? I received, and as a teacher I delivered, a first-rate education.
Would I and my teachers have been happier and dryer and sometimes safer in better buildings? Absolutely.
In the best all worlds, we would build a palace of a high school in Mt. Lebanon, the teachers would all quote Aristotle, and the students would all win Westinghouse scholarships and study at the Sorbonne after leaving Pittsburgh. The citizens of Western Pennsylvania would weep with awe at our local studium generale.
We don't live in that world. At least I don't, and most of Mt. Lebanon doesn't. We live in a world where we have to make tradeoffs. In a world where collapsing financial markets means that the Commonwealth of PA just decided to hold off borrowing half of an authorized $600mm bond issue and where job losses have reached historic levels and are still rising. In that world, sensible people receive a new, critical perspective on a major policy decision with respect, rather than as an affront.
Dave Franklin mentioned that people here no longer shop at Saks; they shop at Target. I for one am absolutely thankful that the Dollar Store on Cochran Road is still open for business.
Wow to the post Mike, one of your best on here, IMO.
When I think about the school project I have mixed feelings...and I doubt that I'm alone. We do not have kids, but on the one hand investing in a new high school makes sense since the school is one of the main reasons people move here and stay here.
Then I think about what a fellow blog lebo reader and commenter told me ther other day, that for every $20 or $25 million in borrowing our school property taxes will go up by 1 mill. That means if your home is assessed at $200k a new school will cost you anywhere from $800 to $1200 more in taxes PER YEAR! Unless my source or my math is wrong this is just ludicrous.
Then I read things that former Mt Lebanite and blogger Burgher Jon has said, and I think about just how good Mt Lebanon kids have it compared to students in the inner city schools. Do Mt Lebanon residents really need the newest and best high school, pool, athletic fields, etc, etc? I recall how the high school I attended in Western NY had its share of issues (I don't think I turned out too bad!), and as Mike said in a previous post what should matter most is the quality of the education, not whether or not the structure is as good as the school in USC or another neighboring town.
I've also talked to some current students about the state of the high school. They have told me about flooding, about the ridiculousness of the heating and cooling system - some classrooms need the windows open during the winter time, while others require that everyone wear his or her coat during class time. The fact that they have to worry about staying warm when they should be focused on learning is just absurd.
Now, we know the school is old and needs a lot of work, but do we really need a brand new school? As much as I think it would be not only cool but beneficial in both health and economic terms for Mt Lebanon and its students to have a new LEED certified or "green" high school (which would mean electric bills much lower than the $800k annually), I sincerely appreciate the fact that there are school board members who want to take their time on this decision.
It seems like there is consensus that there things that to be replaced/renovated in order for the students to have an environment that is more suitable for learning. So, there is one thing both sides can agree on. The board needs to use that as a starting point and see how much we really need to spend instead of telling us that building a new school is the only feasible alternative.
P.S. Make an effort to support our local businesses this holiday season! If you are looking to by jewelry for your loved one's X-mas present make sure to check out one of our Washington Rd shops. This includes Planet Art, which has some fantastic custom made necklaces and earrings, much nicer and much more authentic than anything you can get at the malls.
Our policy of not posting anonymous comments means that I cannot post a jewel of a comment. But I also cannot resist commenting on it!
Our anonymous commenter critiques my post for fear-mongering among the poor of Mt. Lebanon, yet (simultaneously) caring not at all for the welfare of the community's children. More to the point, the comment argues that I have adopted the tactics of Karl Rove, fomenting class divisions in Mt. Lebanon -- where there are none.
In other contexts on the blog (the infamous "secret steps" episode of 2007), I have been accused of being a communist. This newest charge -- that I am channelling Karl Rove, the oracle of the right wing -- therefore represents a particular triumph. Here at Blog-Lebo, we try to transcend ideology, and now, it seems that we have succeeded!
I am reminded of the following quotation from Clint Eastwood, of all people: "Extremism is so easy. You've got your position, and that's it. It doesn't take much thought. And when you go far enough to the right you meet the same idiots coming around from the left."
Mike - a great Pittsburgh blogger, or former blogger, used the Eastwood quote as his email signature. He goes by the acronym TWM.
Chris -- How else would I have known about the wisdom of Clint? ;-) Mike
For the purposes of clarification, let it be known that the James Cannon who has been posting regarding the school board is Cannon Sr.--not me. I am Cannon Jr., the one currently serving on the community relations board and the veterans memorial committee. As yet, I have not weighed in on the high school issue.
Post a Comment
<< Home