posted by Tom Moertel at 8:00 PM /
Solving our school district’s spending problem isn’t going to be as easy as “just” changing the school board. That’s because the school board operates within an environment that fosters waste.
When you have a reliable stream of over $70 million that flows from the taxpayers every year, people are going to want some of it. And when you have a small, volunteer board that decides who gets to be on the receiving end of that stream, people are going to want to manipulate that board. Thus a whole industry of advisers and special interests has grown up around school districts.
This industry has great influence over the environment in which our school board operates. It’s this environment we must change if we want a better school district, a school district where our money is spent on what actually provides the best education instead of on what our trusted partners tell us.
Yes, changing the school board will probably help. At the least, a fresh board would not suffer from the divisions that weaken our current board. But a fresh board would still have to operate within that same exploitative environment.
Without a special kind of leadership on the board, the kind that can see this environment for what it is, I doubt that any board would do much better than the current board. I’ve met the people on the current board, and I think they’re good people, trying to do a good job. Maybe the problem, then, is that they’re too good, too trusting.
Maybe what we need instead are leaders who are wary enough to recognize when they have been dropped into an exploitation machine – and who are strong enough to fight it.
Our current board already has some fighters on it, but they are outnumbered. What we need are fighters in every seat.
More than that, we need leaders within our community to challenge the advisers and special interests that have intertwined themselves with our school district. We need to detach these self-interested parties from our decision-making processes. Until we do that, any school board is going to have a hard time spending our education dollars wisely.
For now, however, I’d settle for few more fighters on the board.
When you have a reliable stream of over $70 million that flows from the taxpayers every year, people are going to want some of it. And when you have a small, volunteer board that decides who gets to be on the receiving end of that stream, people are going to want to manipulate that board. Thus a whole industry of advisers and special interests has grown up around school districts.
This industry has great influence over the environment in which our school board operates. It’s this environment we must change if we want a better school district, a school district where our money is spent on what actually provides the best education instead of on what our trusted partners tell us.
Yes, changing the school board will probably help. At the least, a fresh board would not suffer from the divisions that weaken our current board. But a fresh board would still have to operate within that same exploitative environment.
Without a special kind of leadership on the board, the kind that can see this environment for what it is, I doubt that any board would do much better than the current board. I’ve met the people on the current board, and I think they’re good people, trying to do a good job. Maybe the problem, then, is that they’re too good, too trusting.
Maybe what we need instead are leaders who are wary enough to recognize when they have been dropped into an exploitation machine – and who are strong enough to fight it.
Our current board already has some fighters on it, but they are outnumbered. What we need are fighters in every seat.
More than that, we need leaders within our community to challenge the advisers and special interests that have intertwined themselves with our school district. We need to detach these self-interested parties from our decision-making processes. Until we do that, any school board is going to have a hard time spending our education dollars wisely.
For now, however, I’d settle for few more fighters on the board.
Labels: mt lebanon school district, mt. lebanon school board
10 Comments:
Tom is right. We have too many people who want to manipulate the school board.
First, the athletic supporters are running the bill on the high school as high as possible. The athletic supporters endorsed candidates in the last election who are sympathetic to their requests. One school board candidate was quoted in an email saying it was the first time he ever saw a power point presentation in a bar. Other candidates were endorsed by athletic supporters that gave support to their campaigns.
The board paid several thousand dollars for a turf consultant who did not write a proper set of bid specifications for the turf. Bids had to be put out a second time even though the facilities department and the superintendent recommended the first low bid be accepted.
When I asked Ed Kubit if he had read the Master Design Team (MDT) meeting minutes he replied, “NO.” Then he asked the superintendent if he put the MDT meeting minutes in the board’s packet. The superintendent said he had not distributed the minutes to the board.
Think about the above paragraph for a minute:
1) The president speaks for the board but had not read the MDT meeting minutes.
2) The president had to ask the superintendent what was in his board packet. Did the president read his packet?
3) Director Fraasch said he didn’t even know the MDT meeting minutes existed until a citizen filed a Right-to-Know request for them.
4) The three board members who are on the MDT (Remely, Cappucci, and Steinhauer) were not properly keeping the board informed about the high school project and Director Fraasch’s statement about not knowing the MDT meeting minutes existed indicates the board was not properly informed for a very long period of time.
5) It was later discovered that Cappucci and Celli gave a presentation to the Pennsylvania School Boards (PSBA) Construction Conference that Director Fraasch said was never reviewed by the school board.
6) Dr. Steinhauer indicated in an email to me that he had ideas that were different from what was presented at the PSBA conference by Celli and Cappucci.
My inference from these happenings is the board wants political cover for the turf project, and the superintendent and the school board are not cooperating to keep each other informed. Does the board have any idea what and why things are happening in the schools?
For an answer to that question let’s remember what has gone before:
Silhol wanted building materials delivered to the high school site by June 2010 indicating a shovel should be in the ground by June 2010.
Remely admitted at an Audit and Finance Committee meeting it would take at least three months to get a shovel in the ground after bids are received; that puts us up to March 2011 - nine months after Silhol wanted a shovel in the ground. So the “Shovel Date” was not met by the administration.
More than $5,100,000 in principal and interest payments will have been paid on the first bond issue before a shovel is in the ground. Over $5,100,000 will have been squandered because we issued the bonds too early. We are ignoring proper expense control because we have millions in reserves that could pay the bills without those bonds being issued.
A zero based budget has not been implemented, but we have surplus tax funds to pay for new turf lobbied for by the athletic supporters but can’t pay the architect without squandering over $5,100,000 on a new bond issue.
The Baldridge Criteria to drive continuous improvement has not been implemented and no Baldridge score has been announced for at least two years.
PSSA scores are dropping in our district and we are now third in Allegheny County and seventh in the State.
We rank lower than number 60 in attendance in the State. Do you remember the importance Dr. Sable put on attendance? Could a lack of attendance be influencing our PSSA scores?
The teachers Contract Extension expired on June 30, 2010 without a new agreement.
The Policy Committee, Rose, Cappucci, Birks, the Superintendent and a representative of the Solicitor’s office, are busy funneling release of information through the president of the board (who doesn’t read his packet) and the superintendent (who won’t put the MDT meeting minutes in the board packet). The Policy Committee through the solicitor’s office is trying to classify documents as pre-decisional and thus excluded from Right-to-Know requests at the same time the Board is claiming to be transparent.
My observation of this board is: Board members and the solicitor’s office are working at cross-purposes instead of trying to serve our children. What perverse influences could make a school board this dysfunctional? Did the athletic supporters really do all this damage to our schools just by themselves?
What's the latest status on the erroneous Master Design Team contention that Building F's sprayed-on asbestos is not the same as the sprayed-on asbestos in Building C? Truth is stranger than fiction....
John Ewing,
Thank you for your inisghtful comments. You have made some interesting observations. As a community how do you think that we should move forward? How would you answer the question, "What's next?"
What is your vision for the role of the new leadership?
What do you think that the guiding principles of the new leadership should be?
What do you think that the vision of the new leadership should be?
What changes would you like to see the new leadership direct the management to make, and how would these changes build tangible value in the community for all of the stakeholders?
That's what I thought...
Gripes don't fix problems. Constructive suggestions, creative ideas, and an open dialog fix problems.
I hope that you get things worked out with the machine. I am sure that the reigns of power will remain tightly held.
At the end of the day though, someone is going to have to pay for all of this - and one of these days Pennsylvania isn't going to be there to fill the revenue gaps!
John Kendrick -
PA Association of School Business Officials developed a committee to study 500 ways that local school districts could cut costs. One recommendation is when people retire, the economy dictates that they don't get replaced on a 1 to 1ratio anymore. The economy? How about our declining student enrollment? Why don't you file a Right to Know request with the School District and ask for all the documents that pertain to the cost cuts that were suggested to the School District from the study. If you need help with filing RTK's, go to lebocitizens.com and check the Right To Know tab for further assistance. Good luck, John. I hope they grant your request.
Elaine Gillen
Here is a prediction from 2008. http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2008/12/04/will-there-be-food-riots-and-revolution-in-the-us-by-2012/ I think this guy has a good sense of what is happening in the bubble.
Elaine Gillen
So what is your point? If you believe that post and see declining school enrollment then you should be suggesting constructive ways to cut costs in the district budget.
Gripes don't solve problems, constructive suggestions and an open dialog solve problems.
John Ewing's opening comment is interesting, "We have too many people who want to manipulate the school board." Does John Ewing regret filing his petition with the court? I hope the Judge sees his post.
Good luck to you too Elaine! ;)
Post a Comment
<< Home