posted by Tom Moertel at 11:43 AM /
In the B-L discussion about the recent protest, an anonymous commenter offered the following comment. Because of our comments policy, I can't approve it as part of that discussion. But because it probably represents what a lot protesters and their supporters are thinking, I'm going to put it on the front page to give their concerns more attention.
If any protesters want to add their comments, please do. As long as you follow our comments policy (include your full name), we'll publish your comments.
Here's the comment:
Why has Blog-Lebo not pressed the meeting organizers for answers like it has the protesters?
The short answer is because the meeting organizers have less to answer for. They said that their meeting was about taxes and the economy (not the high-school project), and that's how it turned out. They said people representing all sides of Mt. Lebanon would be there (including those who supported the planned high-school project), and that's how it turned out.
If the purpose and intent [of the meeting] was so innocent then why wouldn't Mr. Kluck or Mrs. Stephenson share the agenda, the invitees, or the proposed call to action with the school board?
I can't speak for the organizers (I'm not them), but my understanding is that there was no planned agenda because it was mostly a Q&A event. The list of invitees probably wasn't known at the time (I think people were given invitations to hand out to their friends and neighbors), nor would a reasonable organizer want to voilate the audience's expectation of privacy by handing out a list of their names. The proposed call to action boiled down to a lukewarm "people, be more involved," which isn't the kind of thing that makes one think to issue an up-front warning.
I also understand the school board was invited to the meeting and, further, that the school-board president was asked to sit on the expert panel. (Blog-Lebo has obtained an email dated 13 August, 2010, to document this claim.)
Why wouldn't Mr. Fraasch share his presentation or any information on what he would present with his fellow members of the school board?
My guess (I am not Mr. Fraasch) is because Mr. Fraash didn't have a presentation. None of the panel members did. It was mostly Q&A. Listen to the audio recording or read the Almanac's summary: there were no presentations. After each panel member made a short introduction, the moderator opened the meeting to Q&A.
It is well known in the Mt. Lebanon political community that the Concerned Citizens are trying to get together a block of candidates to run for school board in the election next year. Why wouldn't some be suspicious of a meeting with a "call to action" knowing this?
Why? Because the town-hall meeting wasn't a Concerned Citizens event (or a LeboCitizens.com event, if you're wondering), nor was it advertised as such. I agree, however, that if you learn that some of an event's organizers are also involved with groups you disagree with, you can be more suspicious of that event. (But to jump to the conclusion that it's a sham event designed to attack your favored cause?)
And there you have my responses.
If any protesters want to ask additional questions, comment away, but please be mindful of our comments policy: you must own your words by including your full name in your comments.
If any protesters want to add their comments, please do. As long as you follow our comments policy (include your full name), we'll publish your comments.
Here's the comment:
I know you won't publish this, but 1) I'm not willing to put my name on here to be ridiculed by those who frequently comment on this blog and 2) I at least want to pose some questions to the moderators of the blog. You continue to ask for explanations from the protestors, what about the organizers of the meeting? If the purpose and intent was so innocent then why wouldn't Mr. Kluck or Mrs. Stephenson share the agenda, the invitees, or the proposed call to action with the school board? Why wouldn't Mr. Fraasch share his presentation or any information on what he would present with his fellow members of the school board. He admonished Mrs. Capucci for doing this earlier this year. It is well known in the Mt. Lebanon political community that the Concerned Citizens are trying to get together a block of candidates to run for school board in the election next year. Why wouldn't some be suspicious of a meeting with a "call to action" knowing this? I think things stink on both sides of this issue. Will you pose the questions to the Concerned Citizens now?Now, here are my responses.
Why has Blog-Lebo not pressed the meeting organizers for answers like it has the protesters?
The short answer is because the meeting organizers have less to answer for. They said that their meeting was about taxes and the economy (not the high-school project), and that's how it turned out. They said people representing all sides of Mt. Lebanon would be there (including those who supported the planned high-school project), and that's how it turned out.
If the purpose and intent [of the meeting] was so innocent then why wouldn't Mr. Kluck or Mrs. Stephenson share the agenda, the invitees, or the proposed call to action with the school board?
I can't speak for the organizers (I'm not them), but my understanding is that there was no planned agenda because it was mostly a Q&A event. The list of invitees probably wasn't known at the time (I think people were given invitations to hand out to their friends and neighbors), nor would a reasonable organizer want to voilate the audience's expectation of privacy by handing out a list of their names. The proposed call to action boiled down to a lukewarm "people, be more involved," which isn't the kind of thing that makes one think to issue an up-front warning.
I also understand the school board was invited to the meeting and, further, that the school-board president was asked to sit on the expert panel. (Blog-Lebo has obtained an email dated 13 August, 2010, to document this claim.)
Why wouldn't Mr. Fraasch share his presentation or any information on what he would present with his fellow members of the school board?
My guess (I am not Mr. Fraasch) is because Mr. Fraash didn't have a presentation. None of the panel members did. It was mostly Q&A. Listen to the audio recording or read the Almanac's summary: there were no presentations. After each panel member made a short introduction, the moderator opened the meeting to Q&A.
It is well known in the Mt. Lebanon political community that the Concerned Citizens are trying to get together a block of candidates to run for school board in the election next year. Why wouldn't some be suspicious of a meeting with a "call to action" knowing this?
Why? Because the town-hall meeting wasn't a Concerned Citizens event (or a LeboCitizens.com event, if you're wondering), nor was it advertised as such. I agree, however, that if you learn that some of an event's organizers are also involved with groups you disagree with, you can be more suspicious of that event. (But to jump to the conclusion that it's a sham event designed to attack your favored cause?)
And there you have my responses.
If any protesters want to ask additional questions, comment away, but please be mindful of our comments policy: you must own your words by including your full name in your comments.
Labels: accountability desk, blog-lebo, protest, town hall meeting
4 Comments:
Tom, I am not one of the protesters, but would like to post this: There is a handout from the meeting at this link. Podcast Your link to the audio does not show this since your link goes directly to the .mp3 file (audio file).
Elaine Gillen
I received some more anonymous comments from a person claiming to have submitted the original questions to Blog-Lebo:
I sent you the anonymous questions and I never said that I supported the protesters. You assumed that.
You're right. My apologies if I got it wrong.
Tom, you say - "Because the town-hall meeting wasn't a Concerned Citizens event (or a LeboCitizens.com event, if you're wondering), nor was it advertised as such." Anyone who follows this blog closely would have seen a post by Mrs. Stephenson on July 27, 2010 in response to your post titled: "School Board Director Fraasch's July Update: Now What?" where Mrs. Stephenson told people to sign the petition to get an invitation. So, indeed, Concerned Citizens were involved.
Here is the paragraph from Mrs. Stephenson's comment I am referring to: "I believe we are in the process of a community awakening. Tune in tomorrow for a soon to be announced town hall meeting which will be even more enlightening than James’ blog post! To receive town hall details since space will be limited, please sign the petition. Certainly, those who have signed are already engaged and may be interested in attending. Grassroots efforts must be cost effective since there are no taxpayer dollars available to fund a glossy town hall announcement. The online petition is free! Please join us at: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/mtlhscost/ Password is spendwisely"
You say, "So, indeed, Concerned Citizens were involved."
But the evidence you offer – that one of the meeting organizers, who also happens to be involved with CC, used the meeting as a carrot to gain some petition signatures for CC – isn't sufficient grounds to jump to your conclusion, is it? Yes, it is grounds to be more suspicious of the meeting, but how does it justify the claims the protesters made to the media and passers-by? Is it reasonable to do these things on suspicion alone?
(Please note, also, that you said "people were told to sign the petition to get an invitation," but that's not what the quotation you provided says.)
Thanks for your comment. (BTW, you haven't received the ridicule you expected, so I hope you'll post under your real name from now on.)
Cheers,
Tom
I would like to respond to this. When initial discussion about a town hall meeting with a tax theme began, it was a concept without a road map. I assumed that anyone willing to sign the petition (and thus would have submitted contact information) for a lower cost high school renovation may be interested in a program related to our local economy and also may have the initiative to attend. In the end, however, the invitations were made through personal contacts of the committee members and not the online petition. Some attendees probably signed the petition in the past (I did), but as has been pointed out several times, attendees also included folks who support the current high school project. So, once again, this individual is jumping to conclusions which are not correct.
-Charlotte Stephenson
I had lunch with my father today. I asked him if he had heard about the town hall meeting that was on Saturday. He said, “You mean the one that the public wasn’t allowed to go to in Mt. Lebanon?” I said, "Yes, that's the one." His exact words were, "By definition, town hall meetings are public meetings. They should be open to everyone." So I looked it up on Wikipedia. Definition
Just a thought here - what if Kristen Linfante plays the part of Charlotte Stephenson, Rob Gardner can play the part of Bill Lewis, Dave Brumfield takes on the role of Matt Kluck, and Elaine Cappucci or Dan Remely plays the James Fraasch part and hold your own “town hall meeting” in the Commission Chambers? Bring in a real estate agent and an expert on the local economy. If you listened to the town hall meeting, you could use the same format. Have a meeting and try to come up with solutions to living in a highly taxed community as the original cast did. You would have to invite several people who are against the $113 million high school renovation, just as the committee invited several who are for the $113 million high school renovation. Get it recorded (or I could get someone to record it for you) and I will put it up on the Concerned Citizens of Mt. Lebanon website (www.lebocitizens.com) for all to hear, just like this one was posted. After all, everyone involved is a concerned citizen of Mt. Lebanon and wants the best for our community.
Elaine Gillen
Post a Comment
<< Home