posted by Mike Madison at 9:13 PM /
Frequent Blog-Lebo commenter David Franklin put together this account of last night's Mt. Lebanon Candidates Forum, which we offer as a Guest Post:
Last night as I was driving home from work, I remembered that the Candidates Forum was taking place at Jefferson School. I wasn't planning to attend after hearing that the last such event was a waste-of-time, no substance, lovefest. However, as I thought about it, I convinced myself that given the critical issues facing our community and the various battle lines that have been drawn, that this Forum would indeed be different. I've also subscribed to the theory that if you don't participate, then don't bitch. Since I complain a lot (publicly) on this site, I figured it was equally important for me to attend and hear this stuff firsthand and draw my own educated conclusions.
Unfortunately, I was disappointed on all counts. I don't want to be overly critical of the League of Women Voters who put this event together, but the questions that they selected from the audience left me asking "Where's the beef?" After the obligatory opening statements, the moderator tossed them a juicy softball about the foreign language program. Obviously, each school board candidate said foreign languages were important in an ever global economy, yadda, yadda, yadda. The next question asked each candidate to identify the greatest "challenges" that the Board faces in delivering quality education to our students and how he/she would address those challenges. "This ought to be good," I whispered to a friend sitting next to me.
Again, a let down. "Nothing to see here," said the officer. "Move along."
See, here's part of the problem, with 6 people vying for 4 spots and each candidate afforded the opportunity to respond to each question, by the time 3 or 4 speak there's really not much for the remaining 2 to add except, "Me too." So as I tried to stay tuned in to the same rhetoric for the 5th and 6th time, it dawned on me . . . when asked to identify the "biggest challenges in delivering quality education" not one candidate . . . not a one . . . mentioned anything about the high school project. Presumably, since we have already set off down the path to spending over $100 million on a new high school to replace one that (according to published reports) is in such dire need of demolition, then certainly ONE of these candidates would see this Project and its related debate, scheduling, costs, etc as one of the greatest challenges IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COMMUNITY, not to mention in the delivery of quality education during his/her. But alas, not a word. (In the interest of full disclosure, Mr. Gardner noted that it was important to maintain our facilities, but that was it.)
I had no intention of submitting a question when I arrived, but this got me squirming in my seat (either that, or it’s just hard for my 42 year old bones and wide frame to sit still in auditorium chair designed for 6th graders). So I jotted down the following and handed it to the proctor who was pacing the aisles collecting questions, "I'm amazed that when asked to identify the biggest challenges facing the delivery of education, not one of you discussed the $115 million high school project. Does that mean that we should be thinking about using that money for those challenges that you DID identify?" Sadly, my attempt at a GOTCHA never made it past Thelma and Louise, who were seated in the front of the auditorium screening the questions that were presented to the moderator.
To her credit, the moderator conceded the first two questions were softballs and we could no longer avoid the $115 million elephant in the room (my words, not hers) so here comes a question on the high school. She didn’t read any specific question from the audience, but instead in a somewhat stumbling fashion suggested that a lot of the questions that had been submitted revealed that people are concerned about the overall price tag, the taxes and the short and long term impact on their family finances. By any account, a promising lead in. But then, like the air being let out of an auditorium-size balloon, came the question . . . Can you tell us or estimate what level of increase we can expect in the millage? Huh? Seriously? We don’t even have a price – how can these people (even those that have been intimately involved) be expected (with no advance notice) to throw out an estimated change in the millage? As expected, everyone punted, and who could blame them. The incumbents said, “I have no idea just yet,” and the newbies wisely deferred to the decisions that have already been made by the Board or adopted “a time will tell” approach. It was the school board debate equivalent of asking Marc Andre Fleury what his goals against average will be NEXT YEAR. Okay, maybe not, but you see my point. Why not ask them if they support the current plan (whatever it is), why not ask them if they support the recently proposed community advisory board (although most said they did), why not ask them what their max spend is or might be, why not ask them how we are going to pay for it? This forum has been in the planning stages for weeks and THIS is the high school question we get?
Interestingly, almost as if they knew that we were all longing for something more, the DAD Team took the opportunity to throw out 2 critical morsels. First, Mr. Remely announced that the Board has been successful in negotiating a drastic reduction in the architect’s previously quoted cost for attending the anticipated advisory board meetings. Notably, he suggested that those costs have been reduced from any amount in excess of $200,000 to something well below $20,000. Mr. Silhol then took his allotted time to defer a prediction on the millage, and instead offer up that the DAD team is committed to reducing the overall cost of the Project by 10-15%. (He reiterated this position in his closing statement by suggesting that the DADs promise to reduce the overall cost down to around $95 million.) Gutsy call, particularly in a time when the price of most things is staying the same or going up, and when there’s certainly no way to predict what lies ahead during the 3 or 4 year life of this Project.
And then, as quickly as it started, it ended. While most in attendance no doubt came in search of some heated debate or at least more information about the largest project in our town’s lifetime, we got that ONE impossible-to-answer question. As my one buddy suggested to me, “The entire hour should have been spent on the high school issue . . . period.” Sure there are other big issues on the table, but when you invite the community to a candidates’ forum THIS YEAR, you have to go there! And stay there! No such luck. The last 2 questions focused on how to deal with a recent loss of funding in drug and alcohol awareness programs and whether we should move to a full year school calendar. You’ve got to be freaking kidding me? Is there really someone in Mt. Lebanon who is lying awake at night fretting over whether we need to go to a year long school system?!?! And if there is, how did that question ever make it past the question gatekeepers?
On this point, my friend had a great idea. The League should have reached out to someone like Jon Delano to moderate this event. We pay a whole lot of lip service to how sophisticated and educated we are here in Mt. Lebanon, but we handle what could have been a great debate or exchange of ideals like a 7th grade History report. These people are going to control the overall well being of this community’s finances and oversee the education of our youth for a long time to come and I’m supposed to be concerned about their views on Spanish for 4th graders and a 365 day school year? I guarantee you that every single person on that stage walked off and breathed a collective SIGH of relief . . . “That was easy,” they all must have thought. Another lovefest. Yep, you all dodged a bullet.
Unless you want to cast your vote based on the DAD’s promise of chopping 10-15% off the high school price tag, you couldn’t have left last night’s forum with any thing to really sink your teeth into. In fact, I was trying to recall if these 6 disagreed on ANYTHING. There were only a few. Mr. Ostergaard suggested that to be truly responsible and accountable the Board must project its needs not just on a 1 or 3 year basis, but also on a longer term basis. After Mr. Ostergaard’s allotted time, Ms. Posti followed by proclaiming that the projections that are used in running a business (and suggested by Mr. Ostergaard), do not work in the world of education. Sadly though, there was no opportunity to follow up on what I found to be one of the truly intriguing moments of the night. Yep, that was the highlight. A final nugget (or crumb) came during the closing remarks, when Mr. Silhol suggested that for the upcoming teacher negotiations we will need independent advocates, and as a result the DADs have not and will not accept any campaign contributions from those who have a dog in that fight or an axe to grind. Obviously, these remarks imply that others on the ballot have or will accept such money . . . . but on this night there would be no opportunity for further discussion. Harrumph!!! Where’s Jon Delano??
A number of people left after the School Board portion of the program, but a larger number stayed for the forum between the Ward 2 and 4 Commission candidates. That was nice to see. As an aside, I guess-timated a paid attendance of about 110; but when you take out the League volunteers, other elected officials who came to observe, and the family members of the 10 candidates, the actual gate was probably about 75. That number makes a statement all by itself. Much like the atrocious numbers that accompanied the primary election in May, last night’s community participation revealed a level of apathy that troubles me greatly. I’ve been at Traffic Board meetings where 100 people showed up to scream about a single stop sign or a speed hump, but when the folks who will control this once-in-a-lifetime period in our community’s history are gathered for open Q & A, we rustled up a mere smattering. About .002% of us to be more precise.
In the end, I suppose we’ll get what we deserve.
Last night as I was driving home from work, I remembered that the Candidates Forum was taking place at Jefferson School. I wasn't planning to attend after hearing that the last such event was a waste-of-time, no substance, lovefest. However, as I thought about it, I convinced myself that given the critical issues facing our community and the various battle lines that have been drawn, that this Forum would indeed be different. I've also subscribed to the theory that if you don't participate, then don't bitch. Since I complain a lot (publicly) on this site, I figured it was equally important for me to attend and hear this stuff firsthand and draw my own educated conclusions.
Unfortunately, I was disappointed on all counts. I don't want to be overly critical of the League of Women Voters who put this event together, but the questions that they selected from the audience left me asking "Where's the beef?" After the obligatory opening statements, the moderator tossed them a juicy softball about the foreign language program. Obviously, each school board candidate said foreign languages were important in an ever global economy, yadda, yadda, yadda. The next question asked each candidate to identify the greatest "challenges" that the Board faces in delivering quality education to our students and how he/she would address those challenges. "This ought to be good," I whispered to a friend sitting next to me.
Again, a let down. "Nothing to see here," said the officer. "Move along."
See, here's part of the problem, with 6 people vying for 4 spots and each candidate afforded the opportunity to respond to each question, by the time 3 or 4 speak there's really not much for the remaining 2 to add except, "Me too." So as I tried to stay tuned in to the same rhetoric for the 5th and 6th time, it dawned on me . . . when asked to identify the "biggest challenges in delivering quality education" not one candidate . . . not a one . . . mentioned anything about the high school project. Presumably, since we have already set off down the path to spending over $100 million on a new high school to replace one that (according to published reports) is in such dire need of demolition, then certainly ONE of these candidates would see this Project and its related debate, scheduling, costs, etc as one of the greatest challenges IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COMMUNITY, not to mention in the delivery of quality education during his/her. But alas, not a word. (In the interest of full disclosure, Mr. Gardner noted that it was important to maintain our facilities, but that was it.)
I had no intention of submitting a question when I arrived, but this got me squirming in my seat (either that, or it’s just hard for my 42 year old bones and wide frame to sit still in auditorium chair designed for 6th graders). So I jotted down the following and handed it to the proctor who was pacing the aisles collecting questions, "I'm amazed that when asked to identify the biggest challenges facing the delivery of education, not one of you discussed the $115 million high school project. Does that mean that we should be thinking about using that money for those challenges that you DID identify?" Sadly, my attempt at a GOTCHA never made it past Thelma and Louise, who were seated in the front of the auditorium screening the questions that were presented to the moderator.
To her credit, the moderator conceded the first two questions were softballs and we could no longer avoid the $115 million elephant in the room (my words, not hers) so here comes a question on the high school. She didn’t read any specific question from the audience, but instead in a somewhat stumbling fashion suggested that a lot of the questions that had been submitted revealed that people are concerned about the overall price tag, the taxes and the short and long term impact on their family finances. By any account, a promising lead in. But then, like the air being let out of an auditorium-size balloon, came the question . . . Can you tell us or estimate what level of increase we can expect in the millage? Huh? Seriously? We don’t even have a price – how can these people (even those that have been intimately involved) be expected (with no advance notice) to throw out an estimated change in the millage? As expected, everyone punted, and who could blame them. The incumbents said, “I have no idea just yet,” and the newbies wisely deferred to the decisions that have already been made by the Board or adopted “a time will tell” approach. It was the school board debate equivalent of asking Marc Andre Fleury what his goals against average will be NEXT YEAR. Okay, maybe not, but you see my point. Why not ask them if they support the current plan (whatever it is), why not ask them if they support the recently proposed community advisory board (although most said they did), why not ask them what their max spend is or might be, why not ask them how we are going to pay for it? This forum has been in the planning stages for weeks and THIS is the high school question we get?
Interestingly, almost as if they knew that we were all longing for something more, the DAD Team took the opportunity to throw out 2 critical morsels. First, Mr. Remely announced that the Board has been successful in negotiating a drastic reduction in the architect’s previously quoted cost for attending the anticipated advisory board meetings. Notably, he suggested that those costs have been reduced from any amount in excess of $200,000 to something well below $20,000. Mr. Silhol then took his allotted time to defer a prediction on the millage, and instead offer up that the DAD team is committed to reducing the overall cost of the Project by 10-15%. (He reiterated this position in his closing statement by suggesting that the DADs promise to reduce the overall cost down to around $95 million.) Gutsy call, particularly in a time when the price of most things is staying the same or going up, and when there’s certainly no way to predict what lies ahead during the 3 or 4 year life of this Project.
And then, as quickly as it started, it ended. While most in attendance no doubt came in search of some heated debate or at least more information about the largest project in our town’s lifetime, we got that ONE impossible-to-answer question. As my one buddy suggested to me, “The entire hour should have been spent on the high school issue . . . period.” Sure there are other big issues on the table, but when you invite the community to a candidates’ forum THIS YEAR, you have to go there! And stay there! No such luck. The last 2 questions focused on how to deal with a recent loss of funding in drug and alcohol awareness programs and whether we should move to a full year school calendar. You’ve got to be freaking kidding me? Is there really someone in Mt. Lebanon who is lying awake at night fretting over whether we need to go to a year long school system?!?! And if there is, how did that question ever make it past the question gatekeepers?
On this point, my friend had a great idea. The League should have reached out to someone like Jon Delano to moderate this event. We pay a whole lot of lip service to how sophisticated and educated we are here in Mt. Lebanon, but we handle what could have been a great debate or exchange of ideals like a 7th grade History report. These people are going to control the overall well being of this community’s finances and oversee the education of our youth for a long time to come and I’m supposed to be concerned about their views on Spanish for 4th graders and a 365 day school year? I guarantee you that every single person on that stage walked off and breathed a collective SIGH of relief . . . “That was easy,” they all must have thought. Another lovefest. Yep, you all dodged a bullet.
Unless you want to cast your vote based on the DAD’s promise of chopping 10-15% off the high school price tag, you couldn’t have left last night’s forum with any thing to really sink your teeth into. In fact, I was trying to recall if these 6 disagreed on ANYTHING. There were only a few. Mr. Ostergaard suggested that to be truly responsible and accountable the Board must project its needs not just on a 1 or 3 year basis, but also on a longer term basis. After Mr. Ostergaard’s allotted time, Ms. Posti followed by proclaiming that the projections that are used in running a business (and suggested by Mr. Ostergaard), do not work in the world of education. Sadly though, there was no opportunity to follow up on what I found to be one of the truly intriguing moments of the night. Yep, that was the highlight. A final nugget (or crumb) came during the closing remarks, when Mr. Silhol suggested that for the upcoming teacher negotiations we will need independent advocates, and as a result the DADs have not and will not accept any campaign contributions from those who have a dog in that fight or an axe to grind. Obviously, these remarks imply that others on the ballot have or will accept such money . . . . but on this night there would be no opportunity for further discussion. Harrumph!!! Where’s Jon Delano??
A number of people left after the School Board portion of the program, but a larger number stayed for the forum between the Ward 2 and 4 Commission candidates. That was nice to see. As an aside, I guess-timated a paid attendance of about 110; but when you take out the League volunteers, other elected officials who came to observe, and the family members of the 10 candidates, the actual gate was probably about 75. That number makes a statement all by itself. Much like the atrocious numbers that accompanied the primary election in May, last night’s community participation revealed a level of apathy that troubles me greatly. I’ve been at Traffic Board meetings where 100 people showed up to scream about a single stop sign or a speed hump, but when the folks who will control this once-in-a-lifetime period in our community’s history are gathered for open Q & A, we rustled up a mere smattering. About .002% of us to be more precise.
In the end, I suppose we’ll get what we deserve.
Labels: high school renovation, mt. lebanon high school, mt. lebanon school board
19 Comments:
"Obviously, these remarks imply that others on the ballot have or will accept such money"
It is my understanding that the Posti/Gardner team has accepted funds from the Mt. Lebanon teacher's union.
Joe Wertheim
Mr Wertheim
Let me assure you that neither I nor Ms Posti have taken any money from the teacher's union. Have we received small individual donations from a few teachers? Yes we have. Proudly. Teachers, just like lawyers and business owners and vice presidents and plumbers and housewives and engineers and doctors who have also given to our campaign, know what leadership looks like. Who can blame them for supporting us when they've been so disappointed by the current board leadership?
-Rob Gardner
The Mt. Lebanon Education Association (MLEA) has not provided funds to the Posti/Gardner team.
Drew Haberberger - President, MLEA
I have my own opinion about accepting donations from union members, and I'm not sure a debate is even worth the effort. After all, campaign contributions from unions and their members are as Pittsburgh as black n' gold and Primanti's, n'at. It's the cross we bear.
However, I think Mr. Gardner's comments raise an even more compelling point - is there a high level of disappointment or dissatisfaction among our teachers which stems from the Board and its policies/leadership? If so, I'd like to hear about it. And if so, for heavens sake Mr. Gardner, why couldn't you have thrown us this red meat at Tuesday's sing along?
After all, a third of the current Board was on that stage with you . . .
Very good post Dave!
Rob, I don't know anything about contributions to any specific candidates by any specific groups.
There is a difference though in the groups in your reply though.
School board members don't have direct oversight over lawyers, business owners, engineers, VPs, etc.
There possibly could be the appearence of a conflict as spelled out in Item #4 under Board member code of ethics and it probably would've been wise to avoid that appearence.
Would please though fill us in on your last comment... "who can blame them for supporting us when they've been so disappointed by the current board leadership?"
I find that very interesting!
Dean Spahr
"It is my understanding that the Posti/Gardner team has accepted funds from the Mt. Lebanon teacher's union. Joe Wertheim"
Disappointed. When did it become the policy of blog-lebo to post unsubstantiated,inflamatory rumors? This only spirals down into the kind of dribble you used to claim you wanted to avoid and thats why you moderate the blog.
A. Kleinbart
Bower Hill Rd.
I approved Joe Wertheim's comment. I didn't read the comment as promoting an "unsubstantiated, inflammatory rumor." I read it as reflecting a good faith belief on Joe's part.
I realize that some people read something evil into an association (even a nonexistent association) between a union and a candidate for public office. In other words, the idea that the MLEA might have donated money to Jo Posti and Rob Gardner is presumed to be evidence of something bad about the candidates (that's the "inflammatory" part), because the reader presumes something bad about the union.
I don't make that assumption, so I didn't read Joe's comment as necessarily inflammatory. (I do know Joe's political affiliation, of course.)
I'm not a reflexive supporter of all unions or of all positions taken by unions, but I also don't think that there is anything inherently bad about them generally or about teachers' unions specifically.
For many years in Mt. Lebanon, I have heard a great deal of hostility expressed toward the MLEA. That has always surprised me. I would assume that in a town that prides itself on the quality of the education provided by its school district, attracting and retaining high quality teachers would be the highest priority of the School Board and all of the taxpayers.
Mike:
Your right on target... attracting and retaining the best teachers... and supplying them with the tools to do the job should be the highest priority!
Its Rob's comment about their disappointment with the current board that I find curious, are the teachers unhappy?
Has the board been so focused on the HS project for so long that the teachers feel ignored?
Are there curriculum, workload, or leadership problems?
Supply problems?
To many superintendent changes?
Or was Rob's comment just campaign posturing?
If the people that have the most impact on our kids education are unhappy, we should know why before the election!
Dean Spahr
Mr. Gardner, since you stepped into this conversation and raised the issue of teacher dissatisfaction (which was not even touched at the forum), can you please elaborate. Thanks.
Donations to political campaigns are a matter of public record in Pennsylvania. The facts are verifiable and the statement “…the Posti/Gardner team has accepted funds from the Mt. Lebanon teacher's union” is not correct. I hope the poster will inform the source of this misinformation of this error.
I would also like to express my appreciation to the moderators of Blog Lebo for providing this forum for discussion and debate. I would not waste my time reading it if I found only things I agree with or only things I disagree with – the give and take from all points of view is something I find valuable and see nowhere else.
Press coverage of local government issues continues to wane and institutions like Candidates Forum have not kept up with the times. Decisions on how hundreds of millions of dollars will be spent, with impact that will last for generations, rest in the decisions that will be made by the voters on Tuesday. The dismal turnout seen in the Primary Election portends that the outcome will be decided by a small minority of those are eligible to participate. Let’s hope this doesn’t happen!
My vote in the school board race based will go to the candidates I feel are most able to provide for the continuing quality education of the children of this community. I think history shows that our school system has been the centerpiece of Mt. Lebanon. It’s virtues have transcended our less than ideal location, smaller than desirable lot size, the increasing age of the housing stock, the constricting lack of parking, etc. and continues to be a beacon to newcomers. Expensive – yes. In fact - ouch! We have a responsibility to insist that our elected officials see to it that our tax money is spent wisely not only on election day but every day after. In the end, I have never doubted the simple wisdom of a bumper sticker I saw years ago which said “If you think education is expensive - try ignorance”.
Geoff Hurd
I apologize for the incorrect information in my earlier post. Mr. Gardner and Mr. Haberberger have pointed out my error. "The MLEA has not provided funds to the Posti/Gardner team." Mr. Gardner did state that the Posti/Gardner team has received "small individual donations from a few teachers", and I would also like to point out that Mr. Haberberger, the president of the MLEA has, according to county records contributed to the Posti/Gardner team. Individuals have a right to contribute to candidates of their choice, however if Ms. Posti is re-elected, and if Mr. Gardner is elected, neither of them should participate in the contract negotiations which will probably begin next year, thus avoiding even the appearance of any bias.
Joe Wertheim
Late on Wednesday night, I responded to a post on Blog Lebo because I felt an inaccuracy needed to be swiftly addressed. I did so reluctantly, as I do not think Blog Lebo is the proper forum for me to try to advance my candidacy. Nor do I think it's an appropriate forum for board members to express their views only when it's convenient to do so (as was done during the primary season).
Having said that, I would, as requested, like to clarify my statement regarding disappointment with the board leadership. If, after this, anyone would like to learn more about me , my position on issues, or would like to contact me directly, please go through our website (www.thiswayforward.com).
To clarify, I did not mean in my statement that teachers, solely, were disappointed by the board leadership. I meant to convey that disappointment was shared by all the groups I cited, and that teachers were among those disappointed.
I stand by my statement yesterday on the Trib's website that we have very capable board members, but our processes are weak. I place responsibility for this weakness, this failure of leadership, at the feet of the board president. He controls the agenda and discussion. And far too often we see a lack of control.
As evidence I point to the recent chaos regarding the creation of a high school review body (which stretched over 3 weeks. And why are we just coming up with a plan now?), the confusion and general befudlement over the bond issue, the way in which residents are treated and/or ignored during public comment, and the simple fact that we only sit down with the MLEA when we're about to negotiate a contract. That's bad process. It once was that the board met with the MLEA twice a year to discuss priorities and concerns. No longer. So when both parties sit down in January, time will be wasted taking the measure of each other when that could have been done over the course of the year(s). All of these are examples of bad process and poor leadership.
Curiously, although Tuesday night's event was very brief and he had 4 years of service he could presumably highlight, the board president decided to spend his time casting unfounded aspersions regarding campaign contributions.
I've knocked on hundreds of doors over the past several months and met people at many events (including a bipartisan event held in Bird Park) The people I speak with don't always agree with me, but when we agree on nothing else we almost always agree on this one thing: it's time to put the corrosive, petty politics away to get big things done, together. The reckless accusation leveled by the board president Tuesday night flies in the face of this desire, and underscores the need for new leadership.
Please remember to vote on November 3.
Rob Gardner
This comment has been removed by the author.
I feel somewhat compelled to chime in here because I started this whole thing.
Mr Gardner, you state that "The reckless accusation leveled by the board president Tuesday night flies in the face of the desire [to put the corrosive, petty politics away], and underscores the need for new leadership."
First, Mr. Silhol did not make any accusations on Tuesday. He stated that his campaign has not and will not accept campaign contributions from teachers or the union. He said absolutely NOTHING about you, let alone anything that would rise to the level of an "accusation".
As noted in my original Post, we were then left to ponder for ourselves if others have accepted such contributions. You volunteered to us on Wednesday that you have. In fact you went further and noted that you "proudly" accepted such contributions. If you accepted them proudly, then why the fuss? You made your point about them and I respected your response. However, you now equate Mr. Silhol's mere mention of such contributions (without attaching your name to them) as an accusation that is corrosive and petty. If I'm proud of something Mr. Gardner, I can't imagine ever considering the mention of it an accusation? Nor would I think it to be corrosive and petty.
And I might add Mr. Gardner, you too had a full hour to raise the concerns voiced in this comment and your earlier comment regarding the Board's lack of leadership and teacher frustration. We heard nothing from you. Why so shy in a truly public forum? How can I vote for someone who won't express his true concerns and frustrations in a formal candidate's forum, but instead chooses to throw barbs at other candidates on a blog?
As president of the League of Women Voters of Greater Pittsburgh, I’d like to respond to the remarks of Mr. David Franklin on this blog with respect to the Candidate Forum for candidates for Mt. Lebanon School Director. There are many ways to fulfill one’s responsibility as a citizen, and one of them is to speak out on one’s concerns. Most citizens don’t do that, and Mr. Franklin has taken the time to do so. His remarks deserve consideration.
Let me start with the function of the question editors (preferably without the “Thelma and Louise” reference). Their job is to look over the questions, sort them by general area of concern, try to determine where more than one person is asking essentially the same question, and sometimes to combine similar questions into one (although sometimes they do not have time to do that and the moderator does so if possible). Those questions that the editors have near the beginning of the program usually get to the moderator first, and sometimes, but not always, are more likely to be asked. The moderator and the question editors working together try to cover a broad range of issues and to be sure that those submitted by several people are addressed.
Mr. Franklin mentions a previous forum, which I assume was the one held last April. It was an hour and a half long, and an entire half hour was devoted to the high school project. Perhaps that covered the subject for many people, perhaps not. Apparently in the current forum no candidate wanted to cite the high school project as among the district’s greatest challenges.
At the point that the moderator asked about the millage, she had in front of her the fact that the high school project had been extensively discussed in the spring, one question about it that had arrived after several others, and several cards asking some version of the question that she posed. I’m not surprised at the decision she made with respect to the question to ask. Possibly it could have been more specifically directed to the cost of the project rather than more generally to the millage, but it summarized several questions that came from the audience – which is always the source of forum questions. What is on those cards is the only indication we have of what the audience is “longing for.”
I understand Mr. Franklin’s frustration. One of the responsibilities of good citizenship is to take a real and often passionate interest in the actions of our various levels of government. Mr. Franklin has taken this responsibility seriously. However, often a person finds that the majority of any community is not as concerned about the issue that he or she believes to be the overriding one. I know. I’ve been there. Several times (over 40 years).
A word about our choice of moderator. Jon Delano has occasionally moderated forums for us and he does an excellent job. However, the League has a policy that a candidate forum moderator will not live in that district to avoid any appearance of bias, which I believe would have made Mr. Delano ineligible in this case. Beyond that, a main goal of the League is citizen participation, giving as many ordinary citizens (and media personalities are not ordinary) as possible experience in participatory roles in the democratic process -- particularly our members whose membership in the League expresses their interest in that process. We find that the roles of moderators, question editors, timers and other functions are handled well by League members, and we have generally found that audiences agree. I suspect that many audience members did so in this case, as well.
I am running out of allowed characters. I will try to post the rest in another comment.
Suzanne Broughton
From the president of the League of Women Voters of Greater Pittsburgh, a few more words on the candidate forum:
On one point, I want to enthusiastically agree with Mr. Franklin. His last paragraph bemoans the small attendance (not paid, no one is for these events) at the forum and the general lack of interest in local elections. His word “atrocious” is absolutely appropriate.
However, Mt. Lebanon citizens who are interested do have an opportunity to review the candidate forum for themselves. The forum was taped and is being broadcast on cable: Channel 7 (Comcast) and Channel 35 (Verizon). As I write this comment, the times of the remaining broadcasts are:
Friday, Oct. 30 8pm
Saturday, Oct. 31 10 am & 8pm
Sunday, Nov. 1 10 am & 8pm
Monday, Nov. 2 10 am & 8pm
Also, this year for the first time in a local election, the League is offering Smart Voter, an online web site at www.smartvoter.org that provides candidates an opportunity to post information about their candidacy. How much depth there is in that information is up to the candidate. Five of the six candidates for Mt. Lebanon School Director have posted information, although only one has taken advantage of the opportunity a post position paper. There is only an occasional mention of the high school project by any of them. Nevertheless, voters may find their information this site in general interesting. There is also considerable information posted by judicial candidates, which is found nowhere else. A voter can enter a street address and zip code and get a listing of all the candidates appearing on that precinct’s ballot, with those who have posted information appearing in blue type, underlined: a link to that information.
Suzanne Broughton
How thoughtful of David Franklin and others to suggest that I should have moderated the League of Women Voters Mt. Lebanon School Board Candidates Forum!
It has been my great honor over the years to moderate, co-moderate, and question candidates in numerous debates from U.S. Senate (Santorum & Casey, most recently), Governor (Rendell & Swann, most recently), Pittsburgh Mayor (Ravenstahl, Acklin, & Harris, most recently), and many other state Senate and state House races.
But I don't think I have ever moderated a debate exclusively limited to Mt. Lebanon candidates because, as my good friend Sue Broughton from the LWV noted, I live (and grew up) in Mt. Lebanon. While I think I could be scrupulously fair and equally provocative with the candidates, the only way I would ever consider doing this is if every single candidate agreed.
I was not present at the Mt. Lebanon school board debate so I cannot comment on format or content. When Ken Rice (another Mt. Lebanon resident) and I prepared for the recent Pittsburgh mayoralty debate, we felt it was important to keep things moving quickly (45 second candidate answers) so as to allow many questions (we got in over 20 in sixty minutes with three candidates), reserving our right to follow-up (which we did) to push a candidate who failed to answer the question posed. And we made certain that many of the questions we asked were the most controversial ones most likely to raised by average city residents.
Still, you can never cover everything you wish, and criticism of debates, candidates, and moderators comes with the territory. My experience in Mt. Lebanon is that almost every candidate for local office will take your phone call. So if something was missed in the debate, place a phone call to the candidates. You might actually pin them down to an answer better than we can do in a debate!
Finally, I have said many times that there is no more difficult elected job than serving on School Board. As a parent and resident, I sometimes disagree with Board decisions, but I have tremendous respect for anyone willing to run and serve on this body. This year's candidates are no exception. Voters will pick winners on Tuesday, but all of them deserve our thanks for putting themselves forward. Mt. Lebanon is the better for it.
-Jon Delano
I applaud the long and patient work of the LWV as one of the few areas where citizens can learn about candidates in a non-partisan environment. I'm often asked how people can learn about and talk to the judicial candidates or other candidates and I invite them to the 3rd Wednesday meetings of the Mt. Lebanon Democratic committee. (Obviously however we have a tendency towards partisanship) Our doors and meetings are open and candidates are always welcome to speak after regular committee business. This year's slate of judicial and local candidates however caused such a large slate of campaigns that I was told by the LWV to have to draw a line at who would have the opportunity to debate in the public forum. Unfortunately and regrettably the Treasurer's contest between the 24 year incumbent and Joe Senko, the contender, was not able to be offered in a public forum. With only a day to go I'd invite people to view Joe Senko's video at , and discuss areas of interest with the candidates.
Bob Lee
The link to Joe Senko's video message didn't make it in my comments.
If you're interested in viewing the video you can go to YouTube and search for "Joe Senko" or visit the Mt Lebanon Democratic Committee blog.
Bob Lee
Post a Comment
<< Home