posted by Tom Moertel at 12:09 AM /
[This is an op-ed piece. It represents my views, and not necessarily those of Joe or Blog-Lebo. —Tom Moertel]
To start, I want to thank James Fraasch for explaining to the public what's so troubling about the current renovation plan. His report represents a ton of work, and it's work that he did on our behalf. Thank you, Mr. Fraasch.
Now, on to the report.
First, read it. It's only a few pages, and you won't find a shorter, more informative summary of the renovation project's implications. If you can't find the time, here's a summary of Mr. Fraasch's findings:
To end his report, Mr. Fraasch pleads with readers, asking them to take this last, best opportunity to throw the brakes on what he likens to a runaway train. He asks readers to do something now: call, email, or write a letter to the school board. (Call or email if you want your voice heard before Monday's Act-34 vote.)
By releasing his report, Mr. Fraasch has offered our community a clear argument, supported by evidence, that we cannot afford a renovation project this expensive. I have argued that even if we could afford it, it would be a poor way to spend our educational dollars. A less-expensive renovation solves both of these problems.
To start, I want to thank James Fraasch for explaining to the public what's so troubling about the current renovation plan. His report represents a ton of work, and it's work that he did on our behalf. Thank you, Mr. Fraasch.
Now, on to the report.
First, read it. It's only a few pages, and you won't find a shorter, more informative summary of the renovation project's implications. If you can't find the time, here's a summary of Mr. Fraasch's findings:
- Our school district is already on shaky financial ground and, post renovation, Mt. Lebanon would become the 15th most-indebted school district in Pennsylvania and earn the #2 spot for debt per student.
- In the next few years, your school real-estate taxes are going to increase by nearly 50 percent to meet the school district's obligations.
- To pay for the renovation, the cash-strapped district will probably have to make cuts elsewhere – reducing programs, reducing staff, closing schools possibly.
- Because of the cuts, the project will have a "negative impact on the overall educational outcome for our students." In short, we're getting a better building, but trading a better education to get it.
- It's possible to renovate our high school for less. Neighboring districts Baldwin, Upper St. Clair, and Bethel Park have each undertaken comparable projects for tens of millions less than our planned renovation.
- The renovation's price tag appears to have been managed to remain just beneath the threshold that would trigger a voter referendum, denying residents their opportunity to accept or reject the plan at the voting booths.
To end his report, Mr. Fraasch pleads with readers, asking them to take this last, best opportunity to throw the brakes on what he likens to a runaway train. He asks readers to do something now: call, email, or write a letter to the school board. (Call or email if you want your voice heard before Monday's Act-34 vote.)
By releasing his report, Mr. Fraasch has offered our community a clear argument, supported by evidence, that we cannot afford a renovation project this expensive. I have argued that even if we could afford it, it would be a poor way to spend our educational dollars. A less-expensive renovation solves both of these problems.
Therefore, if you care about the financial health of our community or of our school district, or if you care about the standard of education we can offer to future students, you must do something now: ask for a less-expensive renovation. If you don't contact the school board now and tell them you want a less-expensive renovation, you are going to get the current plan – and its consequences.
Labels: high school renovation, james fraasch, mt. lebanon school board, op-ed, school board
43 Comments:
This report could not be more well done. Excellent work!
Fix the roof, fix the HVAC, buy new windows and new seats for the auditorium. Renovate the pool and the football fieldhouse. Spend an extra ten million giving the teachers some more tools THAT THEY ARE ASKING FOR and for which they feel students will benefit from educationally.
Good luck!
You know, Tom, I can't say it any better than the way you just did or as James did in his analysis.
Those of us who have been so vocal, are not ani-kid or anti-education. We simply need a less expensive option that we as a community may be able to afford.
Closing schools and laying off good staff is not a viable option. What's the point of having a brand new sparkling building when the enrollment is going down? We need to think long and hard about all of this before checking the "Yes" box and moving on.
The Mt. Lebanon School District has the following tagline on the top of their web site:
To Provide the Best Education Possible for Each and Every Student
I hope that every school board member remembers that as they consider and then vote on Act 34. There's nothing in that statement that refers to the construction of a new facility that we simply cannot afford. They say that they want the best education for every student? PROVE IT and select a less expensive plan for the school.
A question--
"To end his report, Mr. Fraasch pleads with readers, asking them to take this last, best opportunity to throw the brakes on what he likens to a runaway train."
Personally, I agree with his position and for the moment LETS ASSUME the MAJORITY of residents agree also and lets the board know.
What happens if the board ignores their constituents and proceed with a $113,000,000+ project?
Is there a legal emergency brake?
Dean Spahr
Fast forward. Act 34 vote was yes. High school renovations have started. My neighborhood school is now closed. Classrooms are overflowing. Staff was cut. Taxes are now 50% higher. I can't sell my house because the township is flooded with for sale signs. And this is a good thing why?
Remember to email the school board because Monday is a holiday. The post office will be closed.
Elaine Gillen
Dean, that's a very good question. Any attorneys out there that can answer it?
Joe Wertheim
Joe--
Did some searching and all I could find was a newspaper article on another district's project.
In the article they write, that the school board is not legally bound to heed the advice of taxpayers from an ACT 34 hearing!
The author also suggested that if the board was really interested in community input they would've put it to referendum in the first place.
Dean Spahr
I sent the following letter to the school board on September 21, 2009 and then addressed the board at the December 21 meeting. I posted the content of my address to the board on this blog in response to the December 28th blog foreclosure article. I don’t know what else I can do, but here is the letter which I sent in September:
(September 21, 2009) Dear Sir or Madam,
I attended the renovation meeting this evening. A resident of Mt. Lebanon since 1985, I have raised two children here and my second child is graduating this coming spring. Over the years I have served on the Boards of the Mt. Lebanon Foundation for Education, Extended Day Program, and Mt. Lebanon High School Crew Club. Other roles have been as a PTA volunteer and editor of the JMS newspaper, teacher of elementary school enrichment programs…. Like all of you, I have spent countless hours on these volunteer labors of love where my desire was to simply do what I could to serve our kids and community in the best possible way.
Lately, I have been feeling uneasy about our plans for the high school renovation for two reasons. First, I sense a growing dissatisfaction within our community toward the direction of the project and I have felt that there is a disconnect between the residents and the Board. I can’t explain why this has happened. I have tried to remain informed about the project but without architectural expertise the complexity of the information is overwhelming at times. Second, I am downright worried about the proposed cost involved and the long term impact of the debt on our residents and other resources that will be needed to ensure the reliability of our township’s infrastructure. Like any economic system, there are limited resources and we must consider the impact of our financial decisions as part of a larger integrated community.
I heard Dan Rothschild’s suggestion that to get this process back on track, the formation of a planning board comprised of nine residents with the necessary expertise could facilitate the optimum design for our school. Design workshops conducted by such a committee would clearly assist you all while giving you the opportunity to address the many other tasks which require attention by the Board. There is no doubt that within the boundaries of our community there are nine qualified individuals who, under your direction, could transform this concept into a model with real solutions.
Please consider Mr. Rothschild’s knowledge and recommendation. I do not agree, however, that this planning board should be comprised of individuals from our already existing township planning committee as Mrs. Posti suggested. I believe that there is an untapped pool of resources here in Mt. Lebanon that has the necessary passion, commitment and expertise to generate the best possible design.
Finally, if it is at all possible to work within a budget of $65 to $70 M, please do! Price tags over $90M are simply staggering and most likely, the project cost will go up from there. Our community has much to offer and we do not have to keep up with the other districts near us who have renovated their schools. They may have a brand new building, but they will never have the walking community we have here. Let us not go down the road where the squeaky wheels get the oil but rather do what is right for our students and our community at large in a proactive manner. My senior son has received an excellent education in Mt. Lebanon in spite of the disrepair aspects of the school, so I believe we must remain as practical as possible moving forward.
Sincerely,
Charlotte Stephenson
Dean, "if the board was really interested in community input they would have put it to a referendum". Unfortunately, we know the answer to that. The board is not only ignoring community input, but willfully going against it because they know the referendum would fail. Some of them even voiced this at earlier meetings.
Joe Wertheim
On page 5 of his report Mr. Fraasch points out: “[Mount Lebanon’s High School’s] enrollment is nearly identical to Bethel Park enrollment but we are planning for almost 180,000 more sq ft than Bethel Park. “
180,000 sq ft of extra space is at least an $18,000,000 cost over run.
Our PlanCon documents indicate we have large excess capacity in our elementary and middle schools already.
Why are we building extra space almost equal to the combined size of Mellon School and Washington School onto our high school if we have no more students than Bethel Park?
As Will Rogers once said, “there are lies, damn lies and statistics”. Mr. Fraasch has taken some numbers out of context, used an unknown multiplier and created his “statistics” to attempt to make a point. By using the Chicken Little school of economics, he is creating hysteria, which is unjustified. He has ignored the thousands of hours spent by hundreds of people who have worked diligently for the benefit of the community. These people have included engineers, accountants, attorneys, architects, and just plain Moms. But, like the Wizard of Oz, Mr. Fraasch is all knowing (don’t look behind the curtain!) and always right. Thus far, he has not been correct in any of his predictions and this latest nonsense should be given as much credence as his prior screeds. His only consistency has been to march to the drum beat of the politically expedient. His recent whining about the possibility that by adopting a school policy on alcohol and drug abuse, it might create a law suit is an example of his lack of leadership. I am not sure what is worse; his distortion of reality or his cringing fear of being sued for doing the right thing.
James Cannon: Where is the evidence to support your claims? Using numbers out of context? Show the evidence. Unknown multiplier? Show the evidence.
If you want your arguments to be persuasive, build them upon evidence and clear logic. Otherwise, don't expect to win many converts.
Cheers,
Tom
Mr. Cannon, it's easy to make a comment asserting that someone is lying. It's something very different to offer support for your assertion. Please enlighten us -- what about Mr. Fraasch's report is false? In fact, let's look at 3 components of his remarks and you tell me if they are false:
1. The recent budget proposal is WORSE than the School District's own WORST CASE scenario projection.
2. Real estate taxes under this proposed budget will increase by 14%, and similar increases are foreseeable for the next several years.
3. The state reimbursment rate for the high school project is actually only 8%, as opposed to the 15% that has been used until just recently.
Frankly, Mr. Cannon, I don't need Mr. Fraasch to tell me that I should be concerned about these facts. However, I do give him credit for not sticking his head in the sand, but instead bringing this information to everyone.
Mr. Cannon:
Remember when we heard that Bldg. B couldn't be used for 21st ed space and that it cost $25 million to save! Sq. Ft. construction costs comparable with new construction nymbers cited by the PA Dept. of Education and RSMeans.
Now, thanks in part to James' diligence, we're renovating Bldg. B in line with PDE recommended construction $$$.
Dean Spahr
Tom,
Given my availability of time, I spent a few hours friday and saturday morning speaking with local business on Cochoran and Beverly road regarding the tax increases. I took a copy of Mr. Fraasch's report with me and discussed the contents with them. (Even though the contents of his report are not new, it carries more weight than the work I had prepared and sent to the MLAO) Generically, not one person was aware of the magnitude of Tax increases that were coming down the pike. The comments were varied, but overwhelmingly, most where quite concerned, especially when they realized that if they were leasing the business space, they would ultimately have the taxes passed on to them by the real estate owner, and ultimately would have to try and pass them on to the consumer, or face lower profitability. My background in institutional investment research and corporate finance lends well to this type of evaluation. Generically, in competitive businesses, consumer will ultimately choose a lower priced product or service assuming all other variables such as quality and accessibility are the same. Consider this for the laundrymat, baker, restaurant or gadget shop that is located in the area. Individual comments ranged from astonishment to "Well, whatever, I will be leaving anyway". Only 1 person was strongly supportive of the renovations at any cost. That said, I encourage all readers of this blog to print a few copies of Mr. Fraasch's report and take it to his/her neighbors house and talk about it or send it to friends and family in the community. I guarantee you that you will be suprised, and maybe even shocked by the responses you recieve. Clearly, the majority of residence have no knowledge of what is set to transpire. In close, i again encourage any reader to speak with friends, neighbors or business owners in our municipality about the Fraasch report, and then encourage them to send there comments and/or concerns to the Board and it's members.
Mr. Moertel: I seriously doubt that I can “convert” any of the true believers that read this blog. Many studies of zealots and fanatics have consistently pointed out that True Believers, as defined by Eric Hoffer, cannot be swayed by logic, rational thinking or truth. If the True Believer is told by the leader that it is night time, he will put on his pajamas at noon looking at the bright shining sun.
It is just as deceptive to try to prove a point by omitting relevant information as it is making something up. If I was trying to convince someone that Mt. Lebanon has incredibly high taxes, I could tell them that my property taxes have gone up over 120% since I have lived here. Although this is a true statement, by neglecting to mention that I have lived here over 30 years that omission would make it a deceptive statement. Stating that “taxes will increase by 45%...”, and then neglecting to mention why the taxes would go up or that the taxes in every community in the State of Pennsylvania will increase as well, is misleading. To imply that the School Board is solely responsible for this increase is more than a disservice. The primary reason for the increase in taxes in every school district in the state are mandated expenditures that the board has no control over. I have done what most of your bloggers seem to have missed. Contact our state Senator and Representative and demand that the state legislature at least fund what they mandate. Recently I had a choice of replacing a part in a 25 year old washing machine or buying a new one. The part cost $230, plus the labor of $90. A new machine cost $400. Guess what my decision was? I think this is an apt analogy when looking at the costs associated with the maintenance of the High School. As far as printing out and distributing a “report” that is misleading at best and insulting to our intelligence, I think I would rather tell people the truth.
Mr. Cannon, sorry to hear about your 25 year old washing machine biting the dust. I hate when that happens. Did you have to downsize your living arrangements to get it and put it on your credit card, or did you have the money to buy a new one? Now, I believe we are talking an apt analogy.
Elaine Gillen
James Cannon: You haven't offered evidence to support your earlier claims. Further, your new claims don't fare well under scrutiny.
You claim that Mr. Fraasch neglects to mention why taxes would go up or that taxes would go up in other districts, too.
You claim that Mr. Fraasch implies that the School Board is solely responsible for these tax increases.
But Mr. Fraasch does neither of these things. He points out page 6 of his report, for example, that half of our tax increase is because of pension obligations that will affect other districts as well: “If Mt Lebanon is going to raise taxes at a 45–50% clip over the next few years while other districts are able to hold their millage increase to 20–25% due to pension obligations, then the cost of living in Mt Lebanon goes up relative to those other districts.”
I hope you can understand why a person doesn't have to be a “True Believer” to have a hard time taking your claims seriously.
Cheers,
Tom
Mr. Cannon, when I was a kid and I would try to talk my way out of a mess, my dad would say, "When you're in a hole, stop digging." I think the same applies to your two comments, but actually I prefer that you keep talking because I think you're helping our case.
You called out Mr Fraasch's report as a sham, so several of us asked very specific questions in response. We essentially asked, "If Mr. Fraasch is pulling the wool over our eyes, please tell us how." Your last comment made no effort to respond to the general question nor did you counter the very specific facts that are contained in his report.
Mr. Cannon, NO ONE is blaming the school board alone for creating the tax increase. Those who are paying attention understand that some of the increases are directly related to the existing teachers' contract and the pension issue. Those issues, particularly the pension mess, impact every district and will certainly result in tax increase in other districts.
However, what I do lay at the feet of the board is the responsibility to recognize that those FIXED increases, combined with our other needs and expenses (both school-based and municipal-based), may make it impossible or extremely difficult for us to afford a $113 million high school at the same time.
If I may borrow your analogy about your washing machine, if there was also a new model that sold for $800, I assume that you would either repair your old one or buy the $400 model. In our situation, very few, if any, residents are suggesting that we do nothing. All we are saying is that given all of the other expenses and commitments (which even you acknowledge), we may be wise to opt for the less expensive model. Say, something in the range of $75-95 million. (Hardly chump change).
Just last year, many of us chuckled at those people who were featured on the evening news facing serious mortgage problems. Specifically, we watched in amazement as homeowners who earned $50,000 a year asked for relief from their $400,000 mortgage. We asked ourselves, how in the world could people be allowed to get extended so far beyond their means? Well, fast forward to this Monday's school board meeting and we may just be watching it in action . . .
Mr. Cannon....I suggest you withdraw from this debate cause you're making an absolute fool out of yourself. Just concentrate on paying all your taxes...including those of the school district that are rapidly escalating...enjoy your international travel, retirement and don't be an embarassment to your family....and one of these days, pull your head out of the sand.
Ok, lets take a close look at Cannon's washing machine. Its his example and maybe a good one.
Accoding to Consumer Reports 2007 Buying Guide they state top loaders are noiser than front laoders nd range from $300 to $650.
High-efficiency Top Loaders range from $800 to $1200 and Front Loaders $700 to $1200.
Mr. Cannon, wise shopper that he is paid $400 for a new machine.
He didn't obviously buy the most expensive, high-efficiency machine on the market.
So Mr. Cannon, are you happy with your middle of the road machine? ARe your clothes any less bright than those washed in a $1,200 machine.
Maybe some of us think we can be smart shopppers too-- on the HS project!
Dean Spahr
The analogy Mr. Cannon presented is a red herring, and a totally inappropriate analogy. A washing machine is a self-contained tool; a high school is a building. Let's use an analogy with a building: When parts of a vintage Mt. Lebanon home's roof and pipes begin to leak, the storage shelves are knackered, and some lead paint is peeling, does the owner tear down the house? Or does the owner maintain the home and its vintage woodwork?
I think we've gotten all the value we're going to get out the washing-machine analogy. Let's give that one a rest. (Otherwise, you'll remind me I need to do laundry.)
Cheers,
Tom
Much of the difficulty with our current conundrum(Taxes/HS Project) is the lack of solid, competent information from the District. It makes the Board's job harder and unnecessarily give's taxpayers heartburn.
Over at Center Court, (http://tinyurl.com/Center-Court-Reimbursement) Mrs. Posti outlines an explanation from the District regarding the state reimbursement snafu. I'm not buying.
The District's explanation is HOOEY.
Take a look at all the documentation on the District website, starting with the January Community Forum. It does not support the District's yarn.
For convenience the relevant documentation is pulled together here:
http://tinyurl.com/No-Small-Goof
Looking at the documentation, it is worth noting the District is not solely at fault here. The financial advisor consistently overstated the reimbursement rate.
We paid JMS $45,000 to guide us through the bond process and advise the Board as to the financial impact of the bond issue. If JMS is going to make assumptions (in concert with the District) JMS should put some independent thought into them. I cannot see any way we should have ever expected a 16% reimbursement.
Further, JMS or the Superintendent should have explained the late change - - in September.
The District's failure to realistically portray our potential state reimbursement wiped $14,000,000 from the much anticipated reimbursement and is No Small Goof.
Not sure what took me so long but the combination of the recent preliminary budget and James' analysis has finally pushed my butt off the fence. (It was coming off eventually given the way I voted in the past election and the fact I've always appreciated the work James Fraasch has done on the issue). My thoughts as a resident, alum and parent of a school kid are on my personal blog Suburbia Calling. Make me another against the current renovation project and begging for some sensible decision making.
Sadly I don't think the train can be stopped.
I'm trying to decode Jo Posti's justification of what I read as a bait-and-swtich by the District regarding the reimbursement rate.
The claim is that the high reimbursement rate applies to the nominal cost of the project -- what the District pays contractors, designers, engineers, advisors. The low reimbursement applies to the actual cost of the project over time -- what the District pays to finance it, and (this is key) what the taxpayers eat in their school tax bills.
Have I got that right?
Right or wrong, it never occurred to anyone at the District or on the Board, many of whom have been through this process before (see two middle schools and seven elementary schools!), to note and explain the difference that Jo P. describes to the people of the town? I simple don't believe it. Either that fact was known and actively concealed, or the people involved were too poorly trained to understand it. Perhaps some of both.
There outta be a law. This is shameful.
For perhaps-forgotten background on some of the current situation, see these two older posts:
Here (on the influence of staff on governance of the School District and the Municipality and here (on the "just trust the Board/just trust the Superintendent" tradition in Mt. Lebanon).
Has there been an analysis of what the maintenence and operation costs of the new building is going to be? Is there any difference between the current M&O costs and the new building M&O costs. In other projects I have been involved in, these costs are frequently overlooked, and a year or two after the new construction is completed, people are caught by surprise by new costs.
-Andy Vines
Mike...I assume you have reviewed the evidence provided by Bill Matthews on his *tinyurl* link. I believe it to be compelling and confirmation of concerns a growing number of us have about the veracity of both District staff and some board members.
It is to me unfortunate that Jo Posti "trusted " the staff --Klein & Dr. Steinauer-- and,obviously without question, passed on a diversionary and misleading explanation of a critical aspect of the HS financing impact on taxpayers. This was a bait-and-switch move buried in 28 pages of documents that some "trusting" board members claimed they had carefully reviewed prior to their being rushed into "checking the boxes and moving forward" by the staff and District retainers.
Jo Posti should consider apologizing to the public, and the responsible District staff and retainers disciplined. The more the onion is peeled, the more tears flow !
Andy Vines--
There is an interesting article on the American School & University website titled, A Final Determination which looks at and compares the long-term cost of renovation vs. new construction. Its loaded with tablea for making evaluations and discusses replacement and maintenance issues.
It suggest this comparison should be done before embarking on any project. To my knowledge this was never done or at least made public by the board.
To find it google A FINAL DETERMINATION". It will dhow up as an asumag.com article.
Dean Spahr
I sent an email to the school board asking for a no vote for Act 34. I also went into my personal situation about why I can't afford for my taxes to increase, which those who know me, know what I am talking about. I heard from James Fraasch. And I heard from Mary Birks. She "will be voting yes on Monday evening and will provide an explanation for my vote in the public meeting, which is the appropriate forum for Board member comments and opinions. Have a lovely day."
See? She wants the best for me because she wants me to have a lovely day.
I guess I shouldn't expect nor do I deserve an explanation now.
Elaine Gillen
Losses on Mt Lebanon High School Project
Rounded
State Reimbursement Lost ($14,000,000)
Extra 180,000 sq ft @ @$100 per sq ($18,000,000)
Total Losses on High School Project ($32,000,000)
Price to be Cut From Project Cost ($32,000,000)
From the MTLSD chronicles, I am reminded of a story similar to the current state reimbursement goof...
Recognizing our "bottom line" sensitivity to millage rates, for the 2008-2009 MTLSD Budget the Board asked the finance department to begin forecasting future millage rates.
Previously, revenues and expenses were forecast, but not millage rates. So it was done - sort of.
Millage rates being a direct function of property valuations, the District in its customarily, fiscally aggressive manner (NOT) forecast the assessment values for our Community. For school year 2009-2010 our collective valuations were forecast to increase by more than $150 million.
The budget forcast can be found here:
http://tinyurl.com/Budget-2008-2009
Turns out, the District was way off. Property values grew by only about $19 million.
By forecasting an unfounded assessment increase, the finance department was able to limit the anticipated millage increases in coming years. Basically, revenues and expenses were increased appropriately, but the inflated property valuation suppressed the real millage impact.
Had the forecast valuation been accurate (as I believe the Board expected) the millage increase would have been about 1.5 mills higher beginning in 2009-2010.
Maybe MTLSD thought a County reassessment would be completed by now. If so, MTLSD is the only one this side of the Delaware River to think so.
Once more, Bill Matthews documents an example, in conjunction with a myriad of other examples by others that have recently come to light on this blog, that together could reasonably be thought to represent a PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR that is totally unacceptable by public officials, and which may even be actionable.
I too emailed the board with my extreme concerns- being a young family just out of grad school, a new homeowner (and privy to the current outside opinions of buying in Mt Lebo), and someone with an M.Ed.. I explained my concerns and thoughts on reducing the scale of the project as logically as I could.
I received the same email from Mary Birks that Elaine Gillen did. What concerned me was her statement that she "will provide an explanation for my vote at the public meeting, which is the appropriate forum for Board member comments and opinions." This might be technically true, but it puts a pretty foul taste in my mouth. To me (and this might be entirely my own perception), this statement makes a clear position NOT to reach out to the community. If the community wants to be involved, that's their problem. Apparently, she doesn't think an issue like this deserves the effort required to reach out to the community and is not at all open to debate beforehand. And for 'reaching out' I would accept anything as small as making your arguments easily available for discussion and study beforehand. I don't appreciate being told 'no, and I won't even tell you why until after.' (my words- not hers)
But she does "encourage my continued involvement in the process." Apparently, she thinks that involvement should be waiting until Monday and listening quietly to her after her vote is cast (because that's the appropriate forum). The picture of involvement I'm getting here doesn't seem so 'involved.'
I'm sure she feels this is the correct, official way this should be done (and is sure her opinion wont change), but to me, it sends a message of her unwillingness to even hear other arguments.
Tess,
Our email is a standard reply from Mary Birks. Others have received the same reply. I have to give her credit for replying to my email. Seven others did not reply.
It does explain Mary's reference to the show, "Survivor" at a previous school board meeting. We are getting voted off the island tomorrow night.
Elaine Gillen
Tess Carter, the school board version of transparency is different from yours and mine. Unfortunately, an apparent majority of the board has decided that, although they were elected to "represent" us, they alone KNOW what is right, and we are just an annoyance. They are absolutely unwilling to accept the fact that, in light of the current economy, and with the known problems (pension costs, teacher's contracts) that we face we cannot afford today what may have been feasible in years past.
Joe Werthem
We have to bring this monster to an end. I find it amazing that a few citizens would be in control of spending our money without a referendum. Please contact the school board today.
Lynn Hagan, resident of 40 years.
Elaine / Tess -- I know that you are frustrated with the answer that you received from Mary. I would be too.
I do give her credit for actually writing back to both of you (as James Fraasch has also done). I'm very disappointed that the other school board members have not replied at all. What's the point of having an email address for all of the school board members if the "conversation" is only one way? If anything, people should get some kind of reply -- even if it is cookie cutter like Mary's was to both of you.
Apparently, most of the voters in our town think that she knows what's best for our district since she was the top vote getter in the election this past November (http://www.county.allegheny.pa.us/elect/200911gen/summary.asp). I guess we reap what we sow.
Some folks are saying the 45% forecasted millage increase is not true. OK - it is officially not 45%.
The forecasted increase between the current school year and 2014-2015 school year as projected by the school district in its official 2009-2010 Budget Book is .... 44.46%. (by my calculation)
A copy of the page from the budget book is available here:
http://tinyurl.com/MTLSD-Forecast-Increase
What is disturbing about the forecast referred to in the districts 2009-10 Budget Book is that the caption in the Book for the April 2009 forecast indicates "five year look, no hs debt-no change in PSERS. No change in assessment".
No HS debt, no change in PSERS!? And the millage will still increase by 44.46 % in 5 years ? The same % increase as when there IS both HS debt and change in PSERS ? Obviously a mistake...yet this is the official public budget document. Who in the Administration and/or the board majority caught or was aware of this error ? The answer is apparently no one.
The real lesson here is that there is a continuing pattern of errors & omissions associated with the HS project, and this is yet another example of sloppy, inaccurate work on the part of a highly educated, highly compensated staff coupled with a board majority who blindly "trusts" the Administration and fails in their responsibility for appropriate due diligence and oversight because they want to move quickly forward and not be bogged down in details.
In the last few days alone we've been faced with the Reimbursement 2-step flim-flam, and now this....wonder what may be next ? Maybe tonight we'll find out.
A quick reminder to people who want to post a comment: Please do not forget to state your name clearly in your post (or post under a public Blogger profile). If you don't put your name to your words, we can't publish them here.
(I just had to pass over a comment because it was posted anonymously.)
Also, please stay on topic and be civil (if not friendly).
Cheers,
Tom
See post "Improving School Ones Parent at a Time". It is very unfortunate, but it certainly seems as if the school board looks at the community and sees only 1's, 2's & 3's.
Joe Wertheim
Bill Lewis we have always seen a padded school budget because the cash balances increase significantly from year to year. Perhaps the extra frills like PERCERS, the high school and the retirement health care were already padded into the budget document and dollars were to be pick-pocketed from Mt Lebanon taxpayers over several years.
You could write the State Auditor and ask for a multi-year State audit of our budgets and expenses.
Post a Comment
<< Home