posted by Joe Polk at 2:13 AM /
A 9 minute and 16 second long video entitled "MTL High School Renovation" was recently published this past weekend on YouTube. The video shows various adults and students discussing the need for the renovation of the high school. There is an uncredited/unnamed narrator to the video and the end credits state that the video was produced by "FNK Productions". The username for the video -- "justdiginlebo" -- doesn't offer any further identity to the producer of it.
Labels: high school renovation, school board, school district
23 Comments:
I'm curious to see if YouTube will take it down for using copywrited music in the background. I did enjoy the use of the Ramones though.
-Andy Vines
I see an individual talking about "Lebo Pride."
Where is this athletic supporter's pride when it comes to raising $8-Million for a Field House?
Maybe the narrator is un-credited and un-named because he is embarrassed that the athletic supporters have not given the School District $8MM for a Field House?
I don't get the message in the video. The school they want has been blessed by the school board and approved by the planning commission. Unless I'm missing something, it would be being built NOW but for the blunder of the architect in failing to design the campus in accordance with the zoning ordinances.
At this point, shouldn't the fingers be pointed at the architect and the board that hired him, rather than the folks who oppose the project?
Just a reminder, folks, that we don't publish anonymous comments.
Just now I had to reject an otherwise perfectly fine comment that began, "I'd be interested to see if most or all of these folks in the video are 'locked in' to those old assessments..." If it was your comment, please resubmit it, but remember to include your full name.
See our comments policy in the right-hand sidebar of the home page for more.
Judge James wisely writes on tearing down building C and replacing it with the athletic complex on the other side of Horsman Drive: "These amenities are not necessary to create a modernized high school although they might be preferred by the community."
I recollect the CAC in their presentation asked if they could pursue developing their rough concepts further? I recollect those concepts didn't require tearing down building C, still modernized the high school and might come in for substantially less that the Celli plan? And meet zoning codes?
Now that this decision has been handed down, perhaps we should ask the CAC to come back.
Dean Spahr
The video communicates a message that the existing high school needs repairs. If that is the problem, then let's limit the scope of the project to repairing the existing high school at a total cost to the community of $75MM.
As each day passes the children who attend the existing building are deprived the opportunity to attend school in a modernized facility. Sadly, the children are the losers because of the delays in the project that were brought about by the astronomical desires from a few of privilege.
The people who oppose the project have been saying that it is a bad plan. We absolutely agree that the school needs a renovation. I have gone to the microphone and asked that the architect be fired. We have spent close to $5 million in architect fees. for a bad plan! To complicate matters, legal fees have been added to the mix to defend and oppose a bad plan! The video points out areas that need attention; however, it will be revealed in the near future that the project will not start with the existing high school. Instead, the project will begin with the sports complex. So how many more years will we be seeing videos of those duct taped windows and auditorium seats? Maybe the producers of the video will now understand what we have been saying all this time. Filming the neglected areas of the building and then interviewing graduating students and adults who are associated with sports doesn't drive the point home. Now Celli is recommending keeping the roof as a way of saving $600,000. Yes, let's look at cutting costs with the "dilapidated" building, not the sports complex. As Judge James suggests, the amenities are nice to have, but not necessary to have a modernized high school. Can't we revisit the CAC recommendations? Their presentation is on The Facts page at lebocitizens.com
Elaine Gillen
Another friendly reminder, dear readers: On Blog-Lebo, we do not publish anonymous comments.
If you have something to say, we welcome your comment. But please include your full name in your comment. If you don't, we won't be able to publish your words.
For more on our comments policy, see the right-hand sidebar of the home page.
I remind readers of this policy because I just had to reject a comment offered anonymously that began, "Whoever made this video used copyrighted music..." If it was yours please resubmit it but include your name. (If you don't want to retype it, email me, and I'll email you back the body of your comment.)
Cheers,
Tom
We really can't blame the architect for the delay of the high school project. He did not write the 15 design criteria for the building that omitted zoning. Instead Mr. Celli did what the Master Design Team told him to do and the Board followed along without being given the Master Design Team Minutes by the Superintendent.
Can you imagine the reaction of a corporate board that was denied the written details of a large building project only to find out the building design violated the law? Where do you think the CEO would be working the day after the board found out the project could not be properly financed? State law places limits on our second bond financing.
Ah! This is only government work so for non-performance of his yearly goals our superintendent gets a salary increase and a contract extension instead of his 150-day notice of non-renewal of his Contract as permitted under the School Code.
Now where does the blame really belong, folks?
John Ewing has an excellent point. Tonight feels like a historic moment in the history of our community. We need to start thinking about how we can work to repair the damage that the current Board has caused our community. We need to select the next generation of leaders who share the guiding principles of the vast silent conservative Republican majority that is the foundation of our community. The next generation of leaders must have a strong manager who can sink his teeth into the organization and take command. The new leadership, and the management team that will support them, will oversee the largest restructuring program in the history of our school district, and the new leaders will support beginning of the largest reconstruction program in the history of our municipality.
I don't see any of these critical managerial qualities in our current superintendent. John's right - Steinhauer has to go; and then we need an immediate external audit to ensure that we have an accurate assessment of the district's financial position.
Mr. Kendrick, can we send the invoice for Mr. Steinhauer's buyout to your house? How about the bill for a search for our new Super? And let's not forget the cost of the external audit. You just spent a lot of money . . .
And can we assume that we'll see a "Kendrick for ___________" yard sign in 2011? No one can run Lebo as well as you can!!
Have you read the Steinhauer contract, Mr. Franklin?
The District is only on the hook through 30-JUN-2011 for a termination other than cause.
It would be a very cost-effective option at this point. David Huston
I loathe doing this, because I personally have no issues with Mr. Steinhauer and I hate to even give any more time to the issue. Unfortunately, however, I am once again compelled to respond to the misinformation supplied by the team of Kendrick-Ewing-Huston. I have read the contract Mr. Huston, and the termination without cause (Section 1.4 to be exact) goes something like this:
1. A meeting is held to discuss the Board's concerns about Steinhauer's performance (assuming they have any).
2. The District then submits to Mr. Steinhauer the basis of their concerns and affords him with a 2 month period to correct these issues.
3. After the 2 month period the Board re-evaluates his performance and if no improvement has occurred then the District has the right to terminate him.
If the Board elects to terminate him without cause he continues to be paid his salary for a period ending upon the earlier of (i) the 1 year anniversary of the effective date of termination or (ii) the expiration date of the Agreement (June 30, 2013).
So Mr. Huston, assuming the Board has an issue with Mr. Steinhauer, they must go through a process that takes several months and then pay him for a full year thereafter. Let’s assume the initial meeting and 2 month remedy period start in November. No decision to terminate could be made until at least January of 2011. If such a decision is made, he would be entitled to his full base salary through January 2012. Couple that with a search fee, attorneys’ fees and another Super’s salary for all or part of 2011, and a termination quickly approaches a quarter of a million dollars. Perhaps you and Mr. Kendrick can split the bill.
You see Mr. Kendrick, my reading comprehension skills are pretty good.
The simple fact is that we need to start thinking about building a managment team that can translate the vision of the new leadership into the architecture of an organization that [within reason]meets the need of ALL of the community stakeholders and not just the athletic supporters.
The people that are up there now can't do the job. This entire circus is an excellent example!
Mr. Kendrick,
If you want to promote fiscal responsibility, that's great. Just don't plant your Republican flag there.
1. There is no "vast silent conservative Republican majority" in Mt. Lebanon. The last time I checked, Democrats enjoyed a 5:4 registration advantage over Republicans in Mt. Lebanon.
2. Fiscal responsibility is an American value. It's just good business. Republicans do not have a monopoly on responsibility or good business.
3. Republicans are no better than Democrats at stopping government spending. They just borrow the money instead of taxing.
4. In fact, in my experience, Republicans have been extremely irresponsible because they used anti-government ideology to strip away financial regulations, leading to the economic problems we all are paying for today . "Trust us, we know how to run banks" turned into "We know how to ruin banks."
Mr. Brown,
We know how to run a school district turned into we know how to ruin a school district; this occurred when we started to elect Democrats and RINO's to the school board.
One thing, I beleive is certain. There is absolutely no reason to extend Dr. Steinhauer's contract or raise his salary beyond what is contractually obligated. We are not getting our money's worth now, and past performance does not, in any way, merit reward.
Joe Wertheim
Joe Wertheim,
To add to your point, let's look at the Superintendent's 2009-2010 goals. http://www.mtlsd.org/superintendent/goals.asp
Goal 1. He asked, "How many elementary schools do we have? Five or seven?" It is on tape.
Goal 2. Construction readiness for Summer 2010. I don't think he met that one.
Anyone care to comment on Goals 3 or 4? I wonder where declining test scores fit in.
The School District wants to extend his contract and give him a raise. Seriously. Where are his goals for 2010-2011? October is almost over. Are they just going to change the date and give him the same goals from last year? Sure. He only had four goals. Let's just keep giving them to him every year until he gets it right. And we will extend his contract and give him a raise. Is that how it is in the business world? I have never seen that done anywhere else. The same Board who has not pursued an $8 million donation, wasted our tax dollars by appealing a municipality decision, spent almost $5 million so far on a renovation, turned down the CAC's recommendations, couldn't scale back the high school renovation but now has a list of Recommended Deduct Alternates from the architect, gave administrators a 3% raise to hold them accountable at every turn, cost us $5.1 million in bond debt service payments, (let's see-did I forget anything?) now wants to give the Superintendent a raise. Makes perfect sense to me.
Elaine Gillen
On the other hand, Tim Steinhauer got dropped into a pretty screwed-up situation.
The school district he inherited had lacked stable leadership for years and had deep organizational problems. The high-school project he inherited was about to get thrown into the ring with, and body slammed by, reality. And, just to make his job entertaining, he was forced to take orders from a school board that was in many ways out of touch with reality, to rely upon a host of advisers that were at many times dispensing bad advice, and to please a divided and distrusting public that was for many issues impossible to satisfy.
Welcome to Mt. Lebanon, Mr. Superintendent!
Now think about the following experiment. Take one hundred talented school superintendents and throw them, one at a time, into a situation like the one Steinhauer inherited. After a year or so, grade them on their performance. Now look at their report cards.
My guess is that their grades are going to look a lot like Steinhauer’s.
And that’s the thing. Who cares that Steinhauer didn’t meet the school boards’ goals? Who could?
What I care about is whether he did worse than I can reasonably expect. And by my books he didn’t. In a lot of situations, he did better than I expected. More importantly, I can easily imagine lots of potential replacements for Steinhauer doing worse.
So I’m willing to give Steinhauer another year. It beats the alternatives.
Tom,
Dr. Steinhauer's current contract expires June 30, 2013. What is the rush? Sounds like another move done prematurely by the School Board.
I put up the December 14, 2009 School Board meeting, which contains the CAC presentation, on lebocitizens.com. Maybe the School Board will listen to it this time.
Elaine Gillen
Dr. Steinhauer has 2 1/2 years left on his current contract. What is the rush to extend it? One possibly valid reason would be if we had an exceptional person who success here led to him being courted by others. Whether he has been successful here is, at least in Tom's opinion, open for discussion, and there has been no indication that other districts are lined up to seek his servics. So again I ask, what's the rush?
Joe Wertheim
Elaine, I suspect that the school board thinks Steinhauer is doing a good job given the circumstances and, moreover, that he would be difficult to replace. Further, were he to leave now, his departure would raise serious doubts about the school district’s credibility. My guess, then, is that Steinhauer’s raise has less to do with the school board being in a “rush” than with Steinhauer asking for a raise – and the implied threat of his departure should the raise be denied.
That explanation seems to fit all the observable facts. I know that if I were in Steinhauer’s shoes, I certainly would have asked for a raise.
Post a Comment
<< Home