Breaking down the 2011 election results for school board

The most interesting race in Tuesday’s election was for school board. With James Cannon and the write-in challenge to the incumbents, who knew what was going to happen?

But, when the votes were counted, neither Cannon nor the write-ins had enough to take a seat from the incumbents and their running mates. Here’s how the votes broke down by ward:

                          Ward
            ------------------------------
  Candidate    2    1    3    5    4 (all)

1  Cappucci 1470 1287 1344 1138  997  6236  |
2  Lebowitz 1462 1247 1267 1090  962  6028  |
3     Kubit 1315 1168 1191 1018  935  5627  | WIN SEAT
4   Goldman 1231 1204 1087  972  871  5365  |
5    Cooper 1115  933  919  861  808  4636  |

6    Cannon  922  786  852  738  676  3974 
7  Write-In  677  631  596  459  559  2922

8     (all) 8192 7256 7256 6276 5808 34788

I’ve ordered both the candidates and the wards so that those with the most votes come first. This ordering makes it easier see where the votes came from and went. Ward 2 placed the most votes, and Ward 4 the least. Of the candidates, Cappucci and Lebowitz received the most votes.

The challenge to the incumbents made a good showing, but still placed last in all five wards. Cannon’s strongest showing was in Ward 3, where receiving just 1% more of the ward’s votes would have been enough for him to break into the top 5.

If we divide the wards into districts, we can see that Cannon did better in many districts. Take a look at the graph below. In it, I’ve marked with red where Cannon broke into the top 5. (If you click on the graph, you can see a larger PDF version that's not impossible to read.)

Votes by district for Mt. Lebanon School Board.
The candidates and wards are in most-votes-first order.
Red shows where Cannon received enough votes to break into the top 5.
(Click to see larger, downloadable version.)

If you look closely at the graph above, I’ll bet you can spot some interesting patterns. Take a look, and let me know what stands out.

School district denies citizen’s request to review redesigned high-school drawings

On September 26, 2011, Mt. Lebanon resident Bill Matthews made a request under Pennsylvania’s Right-To-Know law to review the plans for the high-school project. The project had recently been redesigned after bids for the original design came in too high. Mr. Matthews wanted to review the changes. His request was straightforward:

[T]o review, in the district administrative offices, current architectural or other drawings of the High School project reflecting changes incorporated or anticipated to be incorporated based on the recent project re-design efforts.

At different times in 2010, Mr. Matthews had made three virtually identical requests to review earlier versions of the plans and drawings. Blog-Lebo has obtained copies of these requests. They read as follows:

1. January 29: “HS Project Design Development plan and drawings. Request is to review in the District Administration or Facilities office.”
2. February 23: “Design development drawings and more recent drawings of the high school project. Request is to review the available drawings in the facilities office.”
3. November 24: “Request is to review, in the District administrative office, the current drawings and architectural plans for the high school project.”

All three requests were granted.

Mr. Matthews’s new request, however, the school district has denied. Why? Because, according to the school district, revealing the drawings would be too dangerous.

Seriously.

In a response to Mr. Matthews dated October 26, 2011, the school district claimed that it didn’t have to reveal the drawings because they were exempt from Right-to-Know law for safety and security reasons. Disclosing the drawings, according to the school district, “would be reasonably likely to result in a substantial and demonstrable risk of physical harm to or the personal security of an individual” or “[create] a reasonable likelihood of endangering the safety or physical security of a building...”

Still, even if all the drawings were exempt from Right-to-Know law (which I find hard to believe), that exemption would merely give the school district the option to deny Mr. Matthews’s request. The school district still could have allowed the review (as it had in the past), or it could have allowed a review of only the drawings it didn’t deem too sensitive to disclose. But the school district, for reasons I find hard to fathom, chose to deny a citizen – completely – the right to review something that it seems reasonable for a citizen to review.

Why? I have no idea. Does the school district believe that it’s genuinely dangerous to reveal the redesigned drawings? Even in its own offices? Even to a citizen it’s already shown earlier versions of those same drawings three times?

So why prevent a review of the drawings now? The school board and school administration have both claimed repeatedly that one of their foremost goals for the high-school project has been to be open and transparent with the community. What, then, does the school district hope to accomplish by denying, on grounds that seem specious, an in-office review of the redesigned high-school plans?

I have no idea, but I do find it concerning. If you find it concerning, too, you might want to ask the candidates for school board what they think about the incident before casting your votes on November 8. They all claim to support government transparency, but it’s cases like this that help us determine who actually lives up to the claims.

Did the president of the school board plagiarize?

Did the president of the school board, Josephine Posti, plagiarize in her public writing about school issues on her blog, Center Court?

Her critics at the Lebo Citizens blog, which first reported the alleged plagiarism, sure think so. But others, such as David Brown, who wrote to Blog-Lebo about the issue, think the accusations boil down to deceitful “context switching” to make a hard-working volunteer look bad. Mrs. Posti, herself, explained it as an “oversight” where she “had neglected to cite sources” a few times. Which brings us to an important observation.

Whether you believe Mrs. Posti did anything wrong is going to depend not only on the evidence but also on what you already believe about Mrs. Posti. Her strongest supporters, for example, are unlikely to conclude that she did anything wrong, regardless of the evidence. Her most-vocal detractors, in contrast, probably don’t need more than a change in the wind to condemn her and, as always, ask for her resignation – loudly.

That’s why, in situations like these, if you want to understand what happened, you can’t go by what people tell you. You have to look at the evidence yourself.

So that’s what I did.


Looking at the evidence

Is there evidence of plagiarism?

First, let’s be clear about what plagiarism is. It’s the act of presenting someone else’s work in a way that gives people the false impression that it’s your own. Even if you have permission to use the work, and even if you don’t mean to give anybody the false impression that it’s yours, you can still plagiarize by not taking the expected care not to plagiarize. It’s like speeding: you can do it willfully or just by not paying enough attention; both ways will earn you a ticket.

To look for evidence of plagiarism, I examined the articles on Mrs. Posti’s blog, looking for text that matched other documents on the Internet. Then I reviewed the matches and kept only those that showed substantial, unexplained duplication.

Here’s what I found: Blog-Lebo analysis of suspected plagiarism, August 2011.

First, the findings make it hard to believe that Mrs. Posti just forgot to cite a few sources. My search found not three cases of apparent plagiarism, as originally reported on the Lebo Citizens blog, but eleven. Second, in some cases, the duplicated material seems to have been edited in ways that would reinforce a reader’s impression that the work was Mrs. Posti’s own.

So, looking at the evidence, it’s hard to believe that there’s nothing wrong here.


Does it matter?

I asked a number of people that question. Their answers ranged from, “It happens so often it’s not worth worrying about” to “I have a serious problem with this.”

My take is that it is a problem. If we want our children to believe that plagiarism is worth avoiding – and we do try to teach them that in Mt. Lebanon – we can’t expect them to believe us if our actions demonstrate that we don’t believe it ourselves. When someone plagiarizes, and especially when students see that person as a respected authority, how that person handles it – and how we handle it – matter.

In this case, Mrs. Posti handled it by effectively denying it. On her blog post about the subject, “Corrections,” she explains it as an “oversight”:

Recently, a resident accused me of plagiarism as the result of information she received and published from an anonymous source. The anonymous source found three of my 435 blog posts where I had neglected to cite original sources that I had pulled information from. I apologize for that oversight and have made corrections to those posts.

I have a hard time squaring this explanation with the evidence. If it happened once or twice, I could believe the oversight explanation. But more than ten times? That’s not an oversight.

And now, in anticipation of those people who will say I’m out to get Mrs. Posti or that this is mere political mean-spiritedness, I have only this to say: Before you come after me, look at the evidence, and tell me there’s not a problem here. Because, once you understand that there is a problem here, you can understand why it can’t be ignored.

And one more thing: I have nothing against Mrs. Posti. I think she’s trying to serve her community in difficult times – and under a lot of scrutiny. On the plagiarism thing, it looks like she made a mistake in judgment and compounded it with another. We all make mistakes.

But judgment matters. And so does plagiarism.

So I do hope that Mrs. Posti will take care of it, herself. Because, if she doesn’t, I don’t think the rest of the school board will be able to let it pass. Not anymore.

Trib: Much ado about.... Mt. Lebanon board chief's blog

The Tribune-Review is now reporting about the alleged plagiarism of school-board president, Josephine Posti:

Mt. Lebanon School Board President Josephine Posti temporarily pulled her blog off the Internet and issued an apology after being accused of plagiarism this week – an accusation about which experts disagree when it involves speech online.

Elaine Gillen, a resident, former candidate for commissioner and frequent critic of the school board, said material on Posti's blog, "Center Court," was copied from other sources without attribution.

Read more:

• Much ado about....Mt. Lebanon board chief's blog (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review)

Lebo Citizens Blog: School-board president Posti plagiarized (updated)

Update 2011-08-22 12:35: Mrs. Posti’s blog is back online and now contains a “Corrections” article that includes an apology for “neglecting to cite original sources.”

The Lebo Citizens Blog is reporting that the president of the Mt. Lebanon School Board, Josephine Posti, has been involved in “numerous instances” of plagiarism in her public writings about school issues:

There have been numerous instances over the last year of Mt. Lebanon School Board President Josephine Posti stealing information from websites and posting it on her blog as her own. In the three instances outlined below, I have copied word for word her blog post and indicated in yellow highlighted text where that information was sourced from and the original text of that source. Again, Mrs. Posti has never indicated that her sources were from anything but her own intelligence.

At the time of this writing, Mrs. Posti’s blog, Center Court, is no longer available to readers. Visitors to the blog are told that “This blog is open to invited readers only.”

Update: Mrs. Posti issues “corrections”

At around noon on Monday, August 22, 2011, Mrs. Posti’s blog was reopened to the public. Its most-recent posting, Corrections, includes an apology:

Recently, a resident accused me of plagiarism as the result of information she received and published from an anonymous source. The anonymous source found three of my 435 blog posts where I had neglected to cite original sources that I had pulled information from. I apologize for that oversight and have made corrections to those posts.

Read more:

• Where is President Posti’s Integrity? (Lebo Citizens Blog)

LeboDesign.net: Is this the high school you want?

Over on lebodesign.net, Dan Rothschild has written a great article about the recently released cost-cutting changes to the high-school plans. If you’re wondering what’s been changed or what those changes mean – and you should – read his article.

Mr. Rothschild argues that, when bids for the school board’s preferred design came in almost 20% over budget, the school board was forced to drastically reduce the cost of the project. But how?

Examining the list of proposed cost reductions, Mr. Rothschild concludes that the school board is attempting to cling to its original design and extract savings by “diminishing” that design, cutting away or downgrading pieces of it.

But drastic cost reductions, he continues, usually require a different design or substantial design modifications – if you want to preserve your original design intent. That’s because everything that was part of the original design was there for a reason. If you cut that design back by a fifth, you’re likely to sacrifice things that were essential to it. (Think about it: if a four-fifths version of the original high-school design would have met our original design goals, wouldn’t we have gotten that design in the first place?)

So Mr. Rothschild asks, highlighting some of the things our community is likely to give up with the diminished design, “Is this the high school you want?”

Is it?

Read his article, consider what we’re giving up, and think about that question.

Also consider the alternative that Mr. Rothschild offers: Reusing Building C. If you would like this alternative to get the consideration it is due, ask the school board to study it and estimate not only its potential cost savings but also its potential educational benefits.

Mt. Lebanon does have more than one option. It’s time for the school board to stop acting like it doesn’t.

School board switches high-school project back to multiple prime contracts (Updated 5)

Update 1, 2011-07-19 16:30: minor edits for clarity.

Update 2, 2011-07-19 18:45: added link to the school district’s mandate-waiver application. (Thanks to David Huston for bringing it to our attention.)

Update 3, 2011-07-19 22:52: School-board president Josephine Posti writes about the switch back to multiple prime contracts.

Update 4, 2011-07-21 10:25: Dirk Taylor, president of Taylor Structural Engineers, Inc., and a member of the Community Advisory Committee that the school board formed to review the high-school plans, has written a public letter to the school board, condemning the recent switch back to multiple primes.

Update 5, 2011-07-25 15:56: Resident and frequent Blog-Lebo contributor Bill Matthews has also written a public letter to the school board, questioning the recent switch back to multiple primes.

---

Last night, the Mt. Lebanon board of school directors, on the advice of its architects and construction managers, reversed its decision to have a single prime contract for the high-school project.

Recall that a year ago, when the school board settled on a single prime contract, it did so to reduce the “all-in cost” of the project. As single-prime contracting was explained at the time, it would cost more up front but save money in the long run by reducing our exposure to delays, change orders, and legal claims, which are often expensive and have burned Mt. Lebanon in past projects.

At the time of the decision, school director Josephine Posti wrote on her blog, “The School Board and Community Advisory Committee both identified the application for this waiver [which allows single-prime contracting to be used] as a possible cost-savings to the project, and the Board approved application for the waiver in March.” In Section 4 of that application, the school district claims that, “without a waiver, the cost of completion of this project may be significantly and unnecessarily increased.”

So, if we originally chose single-prime contracting for cost savings, why switch to multiple-prime contracting now?

“Cost savings.” Yes, that was the explanation offered by our hired experts last night at the school-board meeting.

School director Elaine Cappucci found that explanation, for what appeared to be a big contradiction, somewhat lacking. “I’m not going to let you off the hook that easily,” she said. She reminded our hired experts that cost savings has always been an important issue, so why, she asked them, did they wait until now to push so hard for the supposed cost savings of multiple prime contracts?

Our experts: “Because [back then] the project was under budget, or within budget. And now we’re struggling to find ways to bring the project within the budget.”

Now we get to the heart of the matter: the budget. What matters to our experts is not so much the project’s actual cost, but the project’s cost on paper, at bid time.

They’re probably looking ahead to the next round of bidding and wondering what’s going to happen to them should those bids, like the first bids, exceed the project’s price cap. As foolish as they looked the first time the bids flopped, if it happens to them again, their reputations are going to take a ringing blow.

So now they’re urging us to switch to multiple-prime contracting to lower the bids. In effect, they’re advising us to buy lower bids by exposing ourselves to the very real possibility of substantially higher “all-in” costs down the line.

How much higher? According to Mrs. Posti’s earlier blog post, “The Master Builder's Association has estimated cost increases of approximately 13% for projects using multiple primes.”

So here’s the question: Does multiple-prime contracting truly hold the greater promise of cost savings, or did the high-school project, once again, just get more expensive?

State budget deal includes property-tax reforms that are likely to affect high-school plans (Updated)

Update 2011-07-01 14:00: It’s now law: Governor Corbett approved SB 300, now Act no. 25. Also, I added links to additional coverage.

Yesterday, Pennsylvania legislators passed Senate Bill 330, “an Act amending [Act 1 of 2006], the Taxpayer Relief Act, further providing for public referendum requirements and for installment payment of school real property taxes.” The bill is expected to be signed into law by Governor Corbett later today. Governor Corbett approved the bill late on Thursday evening.

It’s a big deal because, on Wednesday, the bill was amended to include much of the controversial property-tax reforms of House Bill 1326. These reforms, among other things, would require school districts to seek voter approval before raising property taxes above inflationary rates to pay for school construction. The Philadelphia Inquirer explains:

Though payments on construction debt incurred before Act 1 passed would still be allowed – as would debt for a specific spending project approved by voters – [the bill] would do away with the exemption for school construction.

Why is voter approval of school construction important for property-tax reform? The answer, put in terms Mt. Lebanon residents can immediately understand, comes from James Broussard, chairman of Citizens Against Higher Taxes, who is quoted in the Tribune-Review’s coverage of the legislation:

One of the “real drivers” of increased property taxes is “Taj Mahal school building projects.”

So how is this legislation likely to affect the planned high-school project?

It’s hard to say. The school district has a track record of figuring out how to get what it wants, so who knows what it might be able to squeeze between the new requirements.

But I do think it’s likely that the project’s price tag will be forced downward. I think this for two reasons.

First, a higher-priced project is more likely to require voter approval and also more likely not to get it. Knowing this, the school board must now make sure the project is more in line with voters’ expectations for these frugal times.

Second, this legislation makes it harder for school districts to raise taxes in general. So, if the school district spends too much on the high school, it might not have enough money left over to pay for other things. Raising taxes is no longer an easy solution to such problems. Thus the school board will be forced, in a very public way, to choose between spending its money on bricks and spending its money on education.

Let’s hope the board members choose wisely.

Additional coverage:

• New Pa. law gives greater control to property owners (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review)
• Corbett signs budget (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)

High-school update shows progress but also confusion and hard realities (Updated 2)

Update 2011-06-15 15:00: add more links to media coverage.

Update: another briefing on the high-school project is scheduled for next week at 6:30 pm, before the regular school-board meeting on Monday, June 20, 2011. The meetings will be held in the high-school library.

Before last night’s school-board meeting, there was another update from the architect and construction manager on the effort to reduce the price of the high-school project. The meeting was scheduled to run for 30 minutes; it ran for about two and a half hours.

There are too many details to recount; if you want them, listen to the meeting recording over at Lebo Citizens. But here are some interesting things I observed.

First, there is evidence of progress: a list of about 200 options for reducing the project’s cost. I think I heard it said that the list represents a potential $14-million savings. That’s the good news.

The bad news is that there is evidence that something’s not adding up. School director Dan Remely noted that the project’s cost per square foot is still unusually high. Even with the proposed savings, we’re only saving a couple of dollars per square foot, he noted.

The project was originally estimated at about $185/sq-ft but the actual bids put it at about $220/sq-ft. This graphic, which I prepared in January, 2010, shows how unusually high $220/sq-ft actually is. In short, 90% of similar projects from 2008 cost less than $150/sq-ft. Our project costs that and nearly half again more.

Further, School director Ed Kubit shared some of his back-of-the-envelope calculations and said that, if the proposed cost reductions were accepted and had their intended effect, their savings would just reduce the project’s cost to the previously declared maximum of $113 million – if applied to the lowest bid we got in April. He pointed out, however, that we might not see bids that competitive in the next round of bidding. The margin for error was slim.

One thing that concerned me was that head architect Tom Celli “urged” the school board to consider switching from single to multiple prime contracts. The general understanding is that this switch would reduce the construction bids – making it more likely that a bid or two would squeak under the maximum – but, ultimately, cost the community more during actual construction. Most school directors, thankfully, seemed to be skeptical if not resistant to this advice.

Another thing that concerned me is that it wasn’t clear what effects all these proposed changes would have. School director Lawrence Lebowitz said that he was concerned about “what is coming out” of the project. Other directors echoed his concern, saying that they didn’t even know what the exterior of the building was going to look like any more. The architects said they could furnish “elevations” to help the school directors visualize the changes, but a 3D computer rendering would take too long to prepare.

If you’re getting the picture that nobody seems to have a handle on these changes, you’re seeing what I’m seeing. Some directors see it, too. I heard at least two say that the timeline for considering changes was too fast. They felt rushed and were concerned that, if they had a hard time keeping up, the public was probably even further behind. Two directors said that there ought to be a public forum to make sure the community understands what the changes would mean. This idea, however, was not universally celebrated.

Even so, I urge the school board to set a time and place to tell the community definitively what the revised project includes (and doesn’t) and how much it’s expected to cost. I follow these things more closely than most residents, and I have no idea what the project now represents. (If you’re on the school board and believe that you’ve kept the community up to date, please believe me when I say that, from out here, we have no idea what’s going on.)

So there you have it: progress but also confusion. And, as I predicted earlier, it looks very much like, compared to what the community was told to expect for the project, we must now pay more and get less.

Other coverage:

• Architect's Update (Lebo Citizens blog)
• Mt. Lebanon trying to get high school renovation costs down (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review)
• Mt. Lebanon board reviews renovation costs (The Almanac)

Early predictions for the school board election give Cannon 4-to-1 odds (Update 2)

Updated 2011-06-02 11:30 to clarify that, for the predictions, “cross-file” means “cross-file and then succeed in the primary to get both parties’ nominations.” —Tom

Updated 2011-06-02 18:13 to revise predictions after fixing a data-entry error that said Cooper had won both Democratic and Republican nominations in the primary. (He won only the first.) As a result of the change, the models give Cooper lower chances of winning a seat, with the difference being distributed to the other candidates and improving their chances. Cannon’s odds, for example, are now increased to 6-to-1 for winning a seat. —Tom


Let’s take a look at the recent primary election and see what it says about the race for the school board. This year, five seats are up for election, and six people are running for them. That means when the music stops playing, somebody is going to be left without a seat.

Of the candidates, three already have seats on the school board (Elaine Cappucci, Lawrence Lebowitz, and Edward Kubit), and three are newcomers (James E. Cannon, William Cooper, and Scott Goldman). Of the newcomers, the latter two have been endorsed by incumbents. Cannon, however, is running as a challenger to the current board’s direction. That makes him interesting.

Another thing that makes Cannon interesting is that he didn’t cross-file for an attempt to appear on both Republican and Democratic tickets. Politically savvy people have told me that this was a tactical mistake. Candidates who cross-file and then win both parties’ nominations in the primary are believed to get more votes in the general election. Passing up this bonus, then, could be costly.

How costly? Let’s find out.

Take a look at the following plot. It shows the outcomes of the 2007 and 2009 general elections for the school board. I’ve replaced votes with standardized scores that make the two elections more comparable.

Candidates who cross-filed and then won both parties’
nominations tended to do better in the general election.

Looking at these elections, the “cross-filing bonus” seems to be real. As a group, cross-filers who appeared on both tickets got about one standard deviation’s more votes than their single-ticket competitors. One standard deviation is a lot: most candidates weren’t separated from their neighboring rivals by that much.

So, given that Cannon didn’t cross-file, but also given his strong showing in the Republican primary, what can we say about his chances in the 2011 general election?

I’d say he’s got a pretty good shot. I created three simple statistical models based on the last two elections and used them to predict the outcome of the 2011 general election. All of them predict that Cappucci and Lebowitz are the most likely to win seats, that Cooper is the least likely, and that in between there’s effectively a three-way tie between Cannon, Goldman, and Kubit. All in all, I give Cannon 4-to-1 6-to-1 odds of winning a seat.

Here are the models’ predictions:

  Model M1Z                 Model M2Z                 Model M3Z

# candidate prob_elected    candidate prob_elected    candidate prob_elected
1  CAPPUCCI 99%              CAPPUCCI 99%              CAPPUCCI 99%
2  LEBOWITZ 99%              LEBOWITZ 98%              LEBOWITZ 99%
3    CANNON 86%                CANNON 94%                 KUBIT 86%
4   GOLDMAN 84%                 KUBIT 94%               GOLDMAN 86%
5     KUBIT 83%               GOLDMAN 94%                CANNON 86%
6    COOPER 49%                COOPER 22%                COOPER 44%

The percentage after each candidate’s name gives the predicted probability of that candidate winning a seat.

These predictions, as you might expect, shouldn’t be taken too seriously. They are based on models that, for obvious reasons, can’t account for chance and, for simplicity reasons, don’t try to account for anything but nomination status and performance in the primary election. And when a model predicts that something is 99% likely, we shouldn’t believe it; it’s way more than 1% likely that model itself is wrong. Perhaps most importantly, November is a long way off. There’s plenty of time for candidates to shake things up – or flame out.

Still, the models manage to explain most of the variation in the 2007 and 2009 elections, so they are likely to offer some insight into the upcoming general election. I think I’m safe in saying that Cannon’s got a pretty good shot of winning a seat.

What do you think about my models’ predictions? How do they compare to your own?

The results of the May 17, 2011, primary election

From the relevant Allegheny County elections page, here are the summary counts from last night’s Primary Election. For convenience, I have listed the candidates in order of descending votes:

       ********** (Republican) **********

School Director MT LEBANON       Votes     %
Vote For Not More Than  5
 James Edmund Cannon .  .  .  .  1,542   20.51
 Scott D. Goldman .  .  .  .  .  1,302   17.32
 Ed Kubit.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  1,300   17.29
 Elaine L. Cappucci  .  .  .  .  1,194   15.88
 Lawrence Mark Lebowitz .  .  .  1,099   14.62
 William L. Cooper.  .  .  .  .  1,014   13.49
 WRITE-IN.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     67     .89
                                 
Commissioner MT LEBANON WARD 1   
Vote For Not More Than  1        
 Thomas Michael Brown.  .  .  .    320   91.95
 WRITE-IN.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     28    8.05
                                 
Commissioner MT LEBANON WARD 3   
Vote For Not More Than  1        
 Joseph J. DeIuliis  .  .  .  .    318   61.15
 Elaine T. Gillen .  .  .  .  .    176   33.85
 WRITE-IN.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     26    5.00
                                 
Commissioner MT LEBANON WARD 5   
Vote For Not More Than  1        
 William L. Hoon  .  .  .  .  .    244   90.04
 WRITE-IN.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     27    9.96


       ********** (Democratic) **********

School Director MT LEBANON
Vote For Not More Than  5
 Elaine L. Cappucci  .  .  .  .  2,074   22.55
 Lawrence Mark Lebowitz .  .  .  2,034   22.11
 William L. Cooper.  .  .  .  .  1,795   19.52
 Ed Kubit.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  1,561   16.97
 Scott D. Goldman .  .  .  .  .  1,513   16.45
 WRITE-IN.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .    221    2.40
                                 
Commissioner MT LEBANON WARD 1   
Vote For Not More Than  1        
 John Bendel.  .  .  .  .  .  .    484   99.38
 WRITE-IN.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .      3     .62
                                 
Commissioner MT LEBANON WARD 3   
Vote For Not More Than  1        
 Kristen Linfante .  .  .  .  .    440   93.62
 WRITE-IN.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     30    6.38
                                 
Commissioner MT LEBANON WARD 5   
Vote For Not More Than  1        
 Kelly Fraasch .  .  .  .  .  .    431   75.48
 George Jackson.  .  .  .  .  .    135   23.64
 WRITE-IN.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .      5     .88

Letter: School-board candidate James Edmund Cannon on recent events

The following is a letter to the editors from school-board candidate James Edmund Cannon. —Ed.

I recently became aware of an email with attachments circulating in our community regarding my school board campaign. They level accusations and impugn my integrity. Here are the facts:

On May 5th, my treasurer, Charlotte Stephenson, sat at the desk of the Allegheny County Elections Division and completed an expense report, as required by law. She asked if there were any other forms to complete and was told no. The following Wednesday, May 11, I received in the mail a letter from the County stating I was late filing my expense report and would be fined $20.00 a day. I obtained a blank copy of said form, left work, signed the form and had it notarized, then personally handed it to the clerk in the Elections office along with a check for $80.00. If one were to actually examine the publicly available information, one would note I still have not reimbursed myself to the tune of $329.56.

Having never run for office, I was not aware of the requirement to fill out a separate but duplicate copy of the expense report. And once it was brought to my attention, I corrected it. In the end, I take full responsibility. It was what we in the real world call an innocent mistake. It hardly rises to the level of a scandal. Yet some in our community seek to use this as political fodder two days before an election. It is silly, desperate, and far below the standards I expect from sitting elected board members.

Recent letters written by Lisa Borelli Dorn and Mary Birks, Board Director, and being circulated by Mary Birks, include the following statements:

It leaves the voter in the uncomfortable position of having to wonder who is backing this candidate and what is their agenda? … Cannon’s yard signs claim transparency, integrity and fiscal responsibility. Unfortunately, by either failing to know what was required or perhaps ignoring it for whatever reason, this candidate falls short on those hallmarks. As a veteran, James Cannon deserves our respect, but on May 17, he does not deserve our vote. [From letter by Lisa Borrelli Dorn]

And Mary Birks, sitting board member, is openly rallying for other candidates? For example, in Mary’s own words, she states

Only 5 candidates made certain to have all of their campaign forms completed on time and correctly, as well as turning in their individual candidate finance forms, as required by law: Cappucci, Cooper, Lebowitz, Kubit and Goldman.

And

Only 5 candidates value a representative government system, and expect to be held to a standard set forth by its citizenry: Cappucci, Cooper, Lebowitz, Kubit and Goldman.

It’s sickening and epitomizes the unethical sheen of modern day politics. I am profoundly disappointed with the behavior of a sitting school board director, and her actions are telling. They are also reflective of all that is wrong with the current board. The lack of integrity and honesty on the part of Mrs. Birks, and the other board members who are as complicit by remaining silent, only underscore the reasons behind my campaign. Our system is broken and I want to start fixing it. We have a sitting board member sending email from her personal e-mail account in an attempt to damage someone else's campaign.

I've seen firsthand the result on a society of tiny, petty individuals with only a minuscule dose of power operating unchecked and unaccountable. Dictators and despots throughout the world capitalize on apathy and fear. Well, I possess neither. I want to do what’s right for our community. This missive illustrates my desire to do so. And this, friends, is what transparency is all about.

Our current board does not want a dissenting voice, a different opinion or even input from the community – the very community supplying the money for the school district’s budget. That’s clear based on the email from Mrs. Birks. It’s akin to putting your paycheck in a bank only to be told a week later by the teller that you’re buying a new boat whether you want one or not.

I won’t spend much time or energy pointing out she tried the same thing with previous candidates only to be shrugged off. But this entire issue should have a chilling effect on voters since we have school board members who actually feel emboldened enough to act this way with no fear of repercussion.

The bigger issue is, as I’ve pointed out during my campaign, the Board’s priorities. Obviously the current directors are solely focused on the renovation. Again, that’s disappointing. The focus should be on academics. I’ve said as much and intend to make that my number-one goal should I be elected.

I look at the board as a volunteer position, one designed to help the community and a position free from partisanship. Unfortunately, objectivity and the focus on children has been relegated to the back burner in favor of pursuing an ever-ambitious and costly high school construction project. I see the current Board’s attitude as dismissive and destructive and hope that my presence on the Board will start to turn that attitude around to be more accepting of dissenting voices.

I am running a campaign based on transparency and am showing that here today by admitting that my campaign made a mistake. This type of humility is sadly missing from the current board.

On May 17th our community will decide whether we want to be bullied and cower in fear or take back control from an out-of-control local entity and reestablish open, representative government. I have faith that my fellow Mt. Lebanon residents will choose correctly.

Thank you for your attention.

James Edmund Cannon
Candidate for Mt. Lebanon School Board

Attachments

• Birks’s Election day letter.doc
• Dorn Letter to the editor.doc

School board rejects high-school bids and vows to lower costs (Updated 5)

Updated yet again. Added more description and link to Bill Matthew’s letter to the school board on the bids. Also added more links to other reports. Be sure to read The Almanac’s article; it gives a pretty good summary of the meeting.

Tonight the school board voted unanimously to reject the bids for the proposed high-school renovation. The bids, which had been opened on April 19, 2011, had exceeded the project’s estimated maximum construction cost by more than $15 million, suggesting that the project’s total cost, once capped at $113 million, was in reality closer to $130 million.

Members of the school board vowed to bring the project’s cost down. While they hoped to preserve the existing design, they said that all options were open for consideration.

“There are no sacred cows,” said Josephine Posti, school board president.

School director Dale Ostergaard, pointing to upcoming pension obligations, said that the board must be realistic about how much it can afford. He said that the renovation’s cost must be sharply reduced, and that things previously non-negotiable must become negotiable.

Board members offered suggestions for lowing the cost: forgo LEED Silver certification, use split shifts for students to ease construction phasing, challenge the municipality’s “high-rise” fire-safety designation (but see Dan Miller’s blog post, linked to below), relax contractual terms for bidders to encourage lower bids, and others. Even some of the previously untouchable Fifteen Design Criteria were discussed.

Community member Dan Rothschild suggested revisiting Building C, which had been slated for demolition. Reusing Building C, as the Community Advisory Committee had advised the school board in late 2009, would be a more efficient use of an existing building and potentially keep all of the other programmed spaces intact, he said.

Community member Bill Matthews asked the school board to keep a closer eye on its hired architects and construction managers, who the school board had questioned earlier in the meeting about the unreliability of their project-cost predictions. Matthews had also written to the school board earlier, asking them to realize that the high bids were not caused by a problem with the bidders but with the complexity of the high-school project itself.

Other reports:

• Now is the time (Lebo Citizens blog)
• Mt. Lebanon school board rejects renovation bids (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)
• Project Update (Center Court, Josephine Posti’s blog)
• Bids for high school renovation too high for Mt. Lebanon board (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review)
• Mt. Lebanon rejects renovation bids (The Almanac)
• Mt. Lebanon school board wants reasons for high bids (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)
• Mt. Lebanon board awaits answers on high project bids (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review)
• Fire Safety Questions at the High School (Dan Miller’s blog)

The school board’s test begins today

Over on the Lebo Citizens blog, Bill Lewis asked me about the high-school construction bids and what they say about the credibility and integrity of the people leading our community from the school district. It’s an interesting question, and because my answer is complicated, I’m going to give it here.

When people say something that turns out to be false, it certainly ought to affect our understanding of their credibility. If it didn’t, we wouldn’t be thinking straight. It should also affect our understanding of their integrity, but in what way depends on whether we believe they believed what they were telling us.

So I’m going to tell you what I believe.

I believe that the folks on the school board are good people, trying to do a good job. Nothing I’ve seen makes me think otherwise. I also believe the same of superintendent Steinhauer.

And that’s why I believe that the project’s champions genuinely believed what they were telling us – that they could get the renovation’s price tag down to around $95 million. In my eyes, then, their integrity remains intact.

But their credibility is shot. Almost everything they said about the project’s cost has now proved false, and by such a wide margin it’s hard to believe they know where things actually stand.

In light of the bids, it seems hard to deny that our community must now pay more for the renovation – perhaps $25 million more – than we were told to expect. And, most likely, we must also accept less in return, as parts of the project get lopped off to avoid a referendum that would almost surely fail.

Therefore, because we now know the truth, the school board’s test of integrity begins today.

Faced with overwhelming evidence that their beliefs about the project were off target, what will the school board tell us? Will they tell us that everything is fine? That this renovation is “worth it,” even if it costs $25 million more than expected?

Here’s the problem with that argument: it ignores opportunity cost. If we spend $25 million more than expected on this renovation, that’s $25 million less than expected we have to invest in other things within the school district. In other words, to go forward with this renovation, we’re going to have to give up $25 million worth of real education.

Will the school board tell us that this sacrifice is “worth it”?

Or will they be willing to consider that it’s time to pause, clear our eyes, and take a fresh look at our options?

The test begins today.

High-school bids exceed $113 million, despite assurances to the contrary (Updated 3)

Updated 2011-04-20 09:39 to add link to school district’s announcement about the bids.
Updated 2011-04-20 18:24: the school district cancels the April 28 groundbreaking ceremony.
Updated 2011-04-21 10:17: local media are now reporting that the lowest bid came in $15.3 million higher than the the school district’s estimate.

Yesterday evening, the Mt. Lebanon school district revealed in a press release that bids for the proposed high-school renovation came in more than $14 million higher than expected. The lowest bid suggests a project cost of over $127 million.

Earlier, the school district had told the community that the project would cost no more than $113 million. This was the “maximum project cost” reported in the school district’s Act 34 declarations, back in January, 2010.

Since then, proponents of the project, both on and off the school board, had spread the belief that the project would cost less. One school-board director had said that “$95 million or less” was achievable. Another had written in her blog, “I'm confident that we will bring the project in below $113 million...”

Community activists contributed to the belief as well. Bloggers at Real Lebo had written that “cold, hard facts” about similar projects offered guidance about what Mt. Lebanon “could likely expect,” explaining that, “if you do the math, if our $113 M cap gets bids that are 20% less, that would bring our ACTUAL cost down to about $90 [million].” Similarly, the VOICE of Mt. Lebanon group claimed that the cost would be capped at $113 million and “could come in as much as 20% less...”

Speaking about the bids now, superintendent Dr. Timothy Steinhauer said they were “unacceptably high.”

The school district’s construction manager and architect are trying to figure out why the bids came in so much higher than expected. They will report their findings at a meeting scheduled for Monday, April 25, 2011, at 7:30 pm in the high-school library.

Update: groundbreaking ceremony canceled

The school district has now canceled the groundbreaking ceremony planned for April 28. From the school district’s web site:

The High School groundbreaking ceremony scheduled for April 28, 2011 is postponed while the Board deliberates on the outcome of the bids for the High School project.

Update: lowest bid $15.3 million higher than school district’s estimate

In updated coverage, the Post-Gazette and the Tribune-Review are reporting that the lowest bid was $15.3 million higher than the school district’s project cost estimate.

Read more:

• Mt. Lebanon postpones renovation project groundbreaking (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)
• Bids for Mt. Lebanon high school renovation ‘unacceptably high’ (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)
• Bids for Mt. Lebanon schools renovation higher than expected (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review)
• No $75 Million Plan, and No $113.3 Million Plan Either (Lebo Citizens)
• High School Bids Opened: Costs Exceed Estimates (Mt. Lebanon school district)

School board approves first steps of reorganization

At its meeting on April 18, 2011, the Mt. Lebanon school board approved the first steps of superintendent Dr. Timothy Steinhauer’s proposed reorganization of top staff positions. The board made five appointments.

Dr. Deborah Allen’s appointment was extended for an additional two years. Under the new plan, she will become the Assistant Superintendent of Elementary Education.

Dr. Ronald Davis, currently the high-school principal, will become the Assistant Superintendent of Secondary Education.

Brian McFeeley, the principal of Mellon Middle School, will replace Davis as the high-school principal.

Peter Berg, currently the Supervisor of School Counseling, will become the High School Dean of Students, another new position.

Greg Wensell, currently the Supervisor of Mathematics, Computer Science, and Business and Information Technology, will become the principal of Jefferson Elementary School. Wensell will replace Mike Schnirel, who is retiring.

Sources in the school district say the reorganization is expected to make the district run more effectively. Lines of communication will become clearer, and the resources to solve problems will be placed closer to the people working on those problems.

Trib: Mt. Lebanon High School inspection fees create impasse

Mt. Lebanon commissioners are weighing whether to waive more than a half-million dollars in inspection fees for the high school renovation project, but could not reach a consensus this week.

Calculated by the size of the construction project -- capped at $113.27 million -- the municipality would charge the school district $587,000 in fees for the services of its two building inspectors, who would regularly visit the construction site to check everything except the plumbing and electrical systems.

Read the full article:

• www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_729759.html (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review)

Will the school board choose secrecy or better coordination with the municipality?

Over on his blog, Commissioner Dan Miller sheds some light on the proposed joint steering meetings between the municipality and the school board. It’s a topic we’ve discussed before on Blog-Lebo (19 comments; 5 comments), but it’s worth revisiting because, now that the commissioners have reconsidered the legality of closed meetings, it looks like there will be no meetings unless they are open. From Dan Miller’s blog posting:

Upon hearing the Solicitor’s opinion in executive session, the Commission decided unanimously to rescind our offer to participate in private joint steering meetings and instead extended an offer for public meetings to begin asap. Four Commissioners were present at that time of this unanimous decision. (Emphasis in original.)

What’s interesting is that this reversal creates what economists call a “natural experiment”: it’s when Nature changes some variable, normally beyond our control, in a way that allows us to measure something that ordinarily we could not.

In this case, that something we ordinarily could not measure is the school district’s preference for secrecy. (I use “secrecy” here not to be dramatic but to be precise: the content of the joint steering meetings, as originally proposed by the school district, was not merely to be closed to the public but also unrecorded and therefore never subject to public review.) Now, thanks to the counteroffer from the commission, we can learn whether the school board values secrecy more than better coordination with the municipality.

That’s because, now that closed meetings are off the table, the school board can’t have both secrecy and better coordination: it must choose between the two. If it chooses to go ahead with the open meetings, we’ll know it was willing to give up secrecy for better coordination with the municipality. But, if it chooses not to go ahead, we’ll know that secrecy was more important.

(My argument assumes that secrecy is not somehow essential to better coordination with the municipality. If you believe otherwise, that without secrecy the joint steering meetings cannot bear fruit, then I can understand why you might reject open meetings. But, if any elected representative believes this, I want to hear them say it in public, especially since what they do say in public is that they believe in openness and transparency.)

Pretty soon, the school board is going to have to decide whether to accept the commission’s offer of open meetings. When they do, we will learn something important about the school board’s values.

James Fraasch Resigns from School Board (Updated 4)

Yesterday, James Fraasch announced his resignation from the Mt. Lebanon School Board. Writing on his new blog, Politics, Policies, Government, and Economics, he elaborated:

It's been a good run, but it is time for me to move on from the Mt. Lebanon School Board. In the past few months I have missed some meetings due mostly to travel out of the country. More often than not I find myself putting an emphasis more on my personal/work life than I am on the school board. For most of my 3 years on the Board the exact opposite was the case.

Mr. Fraasch wrote that he intends to “move on to different things,” starting with more extensive travel to South America and getting an MBA.

But also among his reasons for moving on is the sense that the school board is unwilling to consider concerns he has raised. One such concern was the solicitor’s contract, extended recently, despite the school district’s embarrassing loss of the recent zoning appeal. Mr. Fraasch wrote that he received no response when he emailed the other board members about not extending the contract.

Despite the difficulties, he was glad to have served:

One last thing. I have to say that being elected to serve on the Board was perhaps the most humbling experience in my life. I never took your votes for granted. In the end I hope those that voted for me will always be able to say that I followed through on every one of my campaign promises: fiscal responsibility, open and honest communication, and new ideas.

On a personal note, I’d like to thank James Fraasch for his service. He was willing to take difficult stands, to say things that were unpopular yet needed to be said, and to think critically about decisions and their long-term consequences. Doing these things was not easy and often earned him unkind words from those who disagreed with him. Yet James carried those burdens to serve us.

Thank you, James.

Update 2010-12-16 10:45
School Board President Josephine Posti has written briefly on her blog about Mr. Fraasch’s resignation: Board Member Resignation. She also writes that the school district is now seeking Mr. Fraasch’s replacement:

According to the school code, we must appoint someone to fill his position within 30 days. We have advertised the vacancy and ask for applicants to respond by December 24. We will then conduct interviews during a special public meeting on January 3. We will take action on an appointment at the January 10 Discussion Meeting.

Filling Mr. Fraasch’s shoes will be difficult. Let’s hope some good citizens step forward.

Update 2010-12-16 11:45, 12:20, and 16:45
Additional coverage:

• Mt. Lebanon school board member Fraasch resigns (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review)
• Mt. Lebanon school board member resigns (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)
• One of the last of the good guys (Lebo Citizens Blog)

School Board to Give New School Superintendent a Raise and Contract Extension (Updated 2)

Update 2010-10-18: As expected, the school board voted at tonight’s meeting to extend the superintendent’s contract by one year and raise his salary by 4.5 percent. The first vote was unanimous; the second 8-1, with James Fraasch dissenting.

[There’s been a lot of discussion about whether giving the new school superintendent a raise and a contract extension is a good idea, given the school district’s well-publicized problems of late. The Blog-Lebo portion of that discussion has occurred, so far, as an off-shoot of a completely unrelated story. But it’s clear that there’s interest enough in the topic to merit a story of its own, so here it is. —Tom]

On Monday, 11 October, 2010, the school board revealed at its discussion meeting that it intends to extend the contract of the new school superintendent, Dr. Timothy Steinhauer.

Steinhauer was hired by the school board on 8 June, 2009, to replace superintendent John Allison, who had left the school district after receiving an attractive offer from Wichita Public Schools in Kansas.

Steinhauer’s contract was to expire on 30 June, 2013, but the school board, expressing praise for Steinhauer and his performance, intends to extend it by one year at the school-board meeting on 18 October, 2010. The extended contract will expire on 30 June, 2014.

“I have been pleased with [Steinhauer’s] performance... We have suffered from a little uncertainty in the superintendent’s position in the previous couple of years, and I hope that by the contract extension and other provisions we can secure the position for Dr. Steinhauer, for the foreseeable future,” said Ed Kubit, president of the school board, during Monday’s discussion meeting.

The school board also intends to give Steinhauer a 4.5% raise, increasing his starting salary of $140,000 per year to $146,300.

What do you think?

I’ve already revealed that I’m taking a favorable view of the raise and contract extension, a view I expect many people to find surprising. Based on the emails I’m getting, I know many of you don’t agree with me. So if you have something to say, either way, now’s your chance: Let’s hear it.

Updated 2010-10-17 15:20 with quotation from Ed Kubit, school board president.