Summary of School Board Candidates' Positions on Lebo Athletic Facilities

During the last two weeks the "Mt. Lebanon's Field Sports Facilities Partnership" distributed a questionnaire regarding Mt. Lebanon High School outdoor athletic facilities to candidates for the School Board, and those candidates responded. All of that material was posted online, much of it here at Blog-Lebo. Here are the relevant links, collected in this one handy post:

A post that includes the original questionnaire. There are lots of comments at that post!

Responses from the candidates:
Jo Posti
Rob Gardner
Mary D. Birks
Alan Silhol
Dan Remely
Electa Boyle
Dale Ostergaard

Kudos to all of the candidates for sharing this information with the public!

Final Response on Athletics: Dale Ostergaard

There is one final candidate for School Board with responses to the facilities questionnaire. The following is from Dale Ostergaard. (I received this several days ago but was out of town until today!):

Mr. Reese,

I enjoyed meeting you and your partners for the overview presentation on your private-public joint venture initiative to address the athletic facilities in Mt. Lebanon. As the father of a student on the Soccer and Baseball teams I am well acquainted with the conditions of our current facilities and how Mt. Lebanon’s facilities compare to other schools in the WPIAL’s. You brought many interesting ideas and concepts to the table for refurbishing and enhancing our current sport fields and facilities. Your group has obviously given this a lot of thought and has a passion to make this happen. I am glad to see that there is a sufficient base within the community that is willing to enter into a joint public-private venture. I believe this type of private initiative done in concert with the School Board and Municipality has the best chance to succeed.

We are within 4-6 weeks of seeing the first schematic proposal from the architect on the High School Project. This proposal from my understanding will include new and renovated facilities addressing the needs in academics, athletics, and fine arts. A first estimate on costs will also be presented. No budget has been developed for either the academic, athletic, or fine arts components of the project. It is only after the schematics are presented that dialogue can begin in earnest about the project specifics and costs in all areas. This dialogue will include public forums. To this extent, I would encourage your Partnership to engage in the public forums that will be planned to openly view and discuss the architect’s proposal. The process of reviewing, amending, and consensus building I imagine will take some time. The more your group is engaged, the more informed you will become and your group’s interests heard.

Specific to your questions, here is my response numbered according to your questions.

1) The field house is in very poor shape and should be renovated or replaced with a new facility. The playing surface itself, while correctly sized for football, is undersized for other field sports. The turf is hard and dangerous to our athletes. Any athlete who falls on the turf gets brush burns. The turf is a health risk to our athletes.
2) The High School renovation project was designed to fairly treat all aspects of education. This includes academics, fine arts, and athletics. I believe it is necessary and important to address some components of the athletic facilities as part of a fair and equitable treatment with the academic and fine arts facilities.
3) I do not have a specific plan for prioritizing the athletic facilities upgrade. In talking with a variety of students and parents connected to athletics, I find wide ranging opinions as to priorities. In my mind there is no clear consensus on what the priorities are. I would welcome a clear consensus from the Athletic community as a whole that is agreeable to all. From there, specific projects can be proposed, estimate and plans drawn up, and financing determined. Until then it is premature to talk about financial commitments. Also, the architect’s schematics may in fact address some of the current needs in athletic facilities and point toward a clearer direction that other initiatives could take. Let’s first see what that plan delivers.
4) Again, how much money will be committed to athletic facilities should wait until the architect’s schematic and costs are unveiled over the coming weeks and a first estimate of total project costs are revealed.
5) I would fully endorse any proposal that brings together public and private financing to achieve a goal that enhances our athletic facilities and our student athletes experience. All parties must be fully committed and ready to bring financial resources to the table. The parties also must be able to work together, build trust, be able to gain consensus. The group will need to be able to work with the Commissioners and other township officials depending on the project. The commitment and effort must not be underestimated.
6) Any plan brought before the board would necessarily have to be a plan that has broad appeal and consensus among board members. It would be the Board’s plan, not an individual’s plan. If the plan is in line with the Boards overall mission, has gained broad consensus from student athletes, parents, and the community, has a viable business plan for the private-public partnership, and is financially viable, I imagine that consensus building would be easy.
7) I support funding for an upgrade to the field house. But this may be a mute point if in fact the architect’s schematics cover a renovated or new field house facility as part of the whole package.
8) If renovating building B achieves, in part, the stated goals of the High School project and is more cost effective than new construction then I am in favor of it.
9) Your partnership’s proposal for a revamped athletic field at Mellon is intriguing. Done properly, it could serve the community with a viable competitive sports facility, draw in competitions and spectators, and pump dollars into the uptown restaurants and businesses. Let’s think strategically here and not just ‘immediately turf’ the field.
10) I favor re-turfing the high school field to cut down on injuries and provide a viable playing surface for all field sports. If we just re-turf what is there now, it may well serve the football community, but will it not fall short the expectations of the other field sports? Again, what is the consensus of all the stakeholders? In any case, we need to wait and see if the turf is needed as a construction staging area for the high school project which may delay any decision for next fall.

Private-public ventures have worked in other school districts. I see no reason why it could not work in Mt. Lebanon. They require visionaries and experienced leaders committed to a common set of goals and objectives. It requires a collaborative effort between the private venture, the School Board, the Commissioners, and the community. It requires persistence, patience, process, and financial commitments.

Regards,
Dale Ostergaard

Another Response on Athletics: Electa Boyle

Another candidate for School Board asked me to post her responses to the facilities questionnaire. The following is from Electa Boyle:

Dear Mr. Reese and Members of the Mt. Lebanon Field Sports Facilities Partnership,

It is with interest that I respond to your email dated April 9th regarding your hopes to form a non-partisan collaboration between the Mt. Lebanon School Board, the Municipality and your Partnership to create athletic facility upgrades for Mt. Lebanon’s students, as well as, the community. Since I was unable to attend the discussions regarding your planned proposals, I have relied on discussions with some of my running mates to understand your ideas. As such, I would like to give you an overview of my thoughts with hopes that we can review together the particulars of your plan at a later date.

As a school board candidate, I support a well rounded education including academics, fine arts and athletics which will allow our students to fully develop. The school facilities should reasonably support these activities in a way that demonstrates our pride in Mt. Lebanon’s students and in our community. The current high school facilities do not accomplish this and I believe we can do better.

Regarding the specific questions within your questionnaire, you will find my responses below.

Best regards.

Electa M. Boyle

1. What is your view of the current condition of the field house, track & field and stadium complex on the campus of Mt. Lebanon High School?

The field house should be renovated or replaced – depending on which is the most cost effective solution. There may already be some consideration of this within the High School Project proposal. The outdoor facilities, reportedly, present some safety risks to our student athletes. I will review these with someone more experienced than myself to understand these hazards further. Student safety is very important.

2. Do you believe that it is necessary to address significant upgrading of the outdoor athletic facilities as part of the proposed High School renovation project?

It is necessary to treat equitably all aspects of a student’s education – academics, athletics and fine arts. By necessity, the High School Project should include enhancements to the facilities supporting all three of these areas.

3. If so what is your specific plan (including order of priorities for such upgrades) and how much money do you believe the District should commit to this endeavor in Phase I as part of the overall High School renovation?

Keeping in mind that I believe specific plans for any construction project should include architectural drawings and associated cost estimates, I do not have specific plans, nor am I aware of anyone who does, for prioritizing the outdoor athletic facilities upgrades. Public opinion on such upgrades seems to vary widely according to community interests. I would first like to see the architectural schematics for the High School Project. I think that is a good launch point for open and public discussions of any gaps in the athletic facilities.

4. Separate and apart from how much money the District “should” commit to this initiative, how much money do you believe the District “will” ultimately commit as part of the High School renovation project and at what stage (i.e., Phase I) will it be committed ?

Given that the first schematic and budget for the High School Project is not complete, it is premature for me to say what the District should or will commit to the outdoor athletic facilities. For me to venture a number at this stage would be like grabbing it out of thin air – and this I will not do. We should wait until we have the schematic for the High School Project in hand to begin any further analysis of the outdoor facilities.

5. Would you support our group “bridging the gap” between the resources that “should” be dedicated to address this need and the resources that “will” be dedicated by the District to address the needs articulated by our group?

I support the concept of a private and public partnership as long as it done in a spirit of collaboration and service to our students and our community.

6. Are you committed to prioritizing your specific plan while serving on the School Board and, if so, do you believe you are capable of building a consensus to support your plan on the Board?

My intention is to become a collaborative member of the Mt. Lebanon School Board. As such, I do not come to the board with a personal agenda in mind. I will listen, with an open mind, to all viewpoints regarding academics, athletics and fine arts with the goal of providing an excellent education for each and every Mt. Lebanon school student.

7. During the past 12 months, the School Board has referred to a two million dollar commitment of funds to upgrade the outdoor athletic facilities at the stadium/field house. At a minimum, will you vote to commit to advance funds from the capital improvement reserve of two million dollars in Phase I of the high school renovation project to address outdoor athletic facility upgrades at the stadium as part of our proposed joint private-public venture?

Since I am not a sitting board member, I am unaware of any ‘committed’ funds within the High School Project. All funds within the High School Project at this time, I believe, are ‘proposed’ funds. I believe that the current process of obtaining schematics and associated costs for discussion prior to committing funds is an appropriate one as it will allow for reasonable review and discussion before funds are committed. Fully understanding the proposal before voting is appropriate and that is the path I will follow.

8. What is your position regarding either renovating or demolishing Building B of the High School? If you are in favor of renovating Building B, what was the basis for your decision both financially and politically?

The High School Building B, along with many of our historical structures in Mt. Lebanon, contributes to the ambiance and esthetic beauty of our community. I support the preservation of building B so long as it is not cost prohibitive to do so. I believe that building B can be renovated in a cost effective manner to provide functional educational and administrative facilities for our school.

9. Would you support financially a collaborative project with the municipality regarding immediately “turfing” the field at Mellon in preparation for the High School renovation project?

Since the earliest I could vote for any proposal would be next year, it would be premature for me to speak to any ‘immediate’ plans. However, I think your proposal is very interesting and has in it opportunities to benefit the school district and the community. I would like to hear specifics with regards to plans and costs before venturing a final opinion.

10. Do you support re-turfing the high school stadium’s field this summer in preparation for Fall sports in 2009?

The idea of re-turfing the field, before other High School plans are known, is also premature. We do not know the sequence of construction and, thus, do not know how the field facilities will be impacted by the High School improvements. While re-turfing appears to be a good idea, it should be planned in conjunction with the entire High School project, not in isolation.

Another Response on Athletics: Dan Remely

Another candidate for School Board asked me to post his responses to the facilities questionnaire. The following is from Dan Remely:

1) What is your view of the current condition of the field house, track & field and stadium complex on the campus of Mt. Lebanon High School?

The locker rooms and restrooms are in immediate need of total renovation. I have asked for a tour of the field to personally visualize the concerns and hazards that our student athletes endure.

2) Do you believe that it is necessary to address significant upgrading of the outdoor athletic facilities as part of the proposed High School renovation project?

The high school project has been reviewed and analyzed for several years with an equitable emphasis on academics, fine arts and athletics contained within the facility, save and except those funds proposed for renovations and improvements to the locker rooms and facilities at the stadium. Could some “outdoor athletic facilities” be included in the overall high school renovations project? Possibly, if the budget will allow. As the final plans, phase schedules, and cost estimates are prepared and reviewed, if further renovations to these facilities can be incorporated into the process, I would have no objection.

3) If so what is your specific plan (including order of priorities for such upgrades) and how much money do you believe the District should commit to this endeavor in Phase I as part of the overall High School renovation?

I have no specific plans or priorities at this time, nor do I have any idea of the dollars that are needed or that could be committed. The thoughts and desires of your group regarding the outdoor fields and facilities have not yet been reviewed by the community to determine their support, have not been designed or planned, have not been engineered, and have not been professionally costed out. Until all of these items are available for analysis, and public hearings are held, if required ( Act 34 hearings may be required if public funds that are part of the school construction project are employed), dollars in excess of the proposed budget can not be committed.

4) Separate and apart from how much money the District “should” commit to this initiative, how much money do you believe the District “will” ultimately commit as part of the High School renovation project and at what stage (i.e., Phase I) will it be committed?

In light of the required information outlined in #3 above, as well as an understanding of what the commissioners and the contributors to your effort intend to do, I would have no firm estimate of what could, will, or should be designated to these outdoor facilities proposals. Your project’s cost may vary greatly depending upon what indoor facilities are included in the high school project, and where the final budget for the high school is established.

5) Would you support our group “bridging the gap” between the resources that “should” be dedicated to address this need and the resources that “will” be dedicated by the District to address the needs articulated by our group?

Absolutely! However, as you have asked of us, I ask if you as well, are capable of building a consensus within the community to support your plan? I do not want this effort to result in a “here’s ours, now where’s yours,” rather than a team effort focused on success. Please recall the failure of the McNeilly project where no contributions were committed and the project failed.

6) Are you committed to prioritizing your specific plan while serving on the School Board and, if so, do you believe you are capable of building a consensus to support your plan on the Board?

The School Board is made up of nine members that operate through consensus on every issue. To prioritize one’s specific plan would equate to joining the Board with a personal agenda which is inappropriate and, to my knowledge, has never been successful. The Board’s “priority” is our mission, “To provide the best education for every child.” The best education includes academics, athletics, fine arts, extra-curricular and co-curricular activities, and if your goals can be incorporated to enhance this mission then they should and will receive priority from the Board and the community.

7) During the past 12 months, the School Board has referred to a two million dollar commitment of funds to upgrade the outdoor athletic facilities at the stadium/field house. At a minimum, will you vote to commit to advance funds from the capital improvement reserve of two million dollars in Phase I of the high school renovation project to address outdoor athletic facility upgrades at the stadium as part of our proposed joint private-public venture?

Funds have been proposed in the high school improvement budget for the upgrading of the stadium locker room facilities. I have supported this proposed budget item from the onset of the project.

8) What is your position regarding either renovating or demolishing Building B of the High School? If you are in favor or renovating Building B, what was the basis for your decision both financially and politically?

I support the renovation of B Building for several reasons: (1) Classrooms that meet regulations and student comfort can be completed on the lower floors and the upper floors can be improved to serve as district and administrative offices; (2) the renovation of this structure will be less costly than a complete demolition followed by the reconstructing of equivalent square footage; (3) saving B Building will meet our desire to be “green” in our development effort which will assist in securing LEED Certification and thereby possibly a higher reimbursement from the State; and (4) from a community cultural prospective, this structure has a historical significance in that it’s architecture is the same as six other buildings in Mt. Lebanon including other school facilities and the Mt. Lebanon Municipal Building.

9) Would you support financially a collaborative project with the municipality regarding immediately “turfing” the field at Mellon in preparation for the High School renovation project?

I would support the concept of a financially collaborative project with the Municipality regarding the Mellon field. As to whether or not this could be done “immediately” would depend on several factors including design, engineering, planning, the time requirements of the bidding process, the schedule for completion, and of course the funds required and available.

10) Do you support re-turfing the high school stadium’s field this summer in preparation for Fall sports in 2009?

I cannot answer this question until several factors are known:

a) Will the high school construction project damage or destroy a new turf, causing an expense to replace it again, or at least sooner than its expected life?

b) What will the phasing of the high school improvements be, and will any portion of this area be needed for staging or otherwise?

c) What is the cost of this effort?

d) How long will this effort take since there are only about 8 weeks between graduation and the start of daily field use?

e) What is the timing for public notice and the advertised bidding process?

f) Are there contractors acceptable to us still available for this work to be one this summer? (And, if they are that good, why aren’t they booked for this summer?)

g) Is there money in the budget for this project?

I have no problem supporting a turf replacement proposal, however, I might think that it could be better planned for the summer of 2010.

Another Response on Athletics: Alan Silhol

Another candidate for School Board asked me to post his responses to the facilities questionnaire. The following is from Alan Silhol:

Our current High School, academics, athletics and fine arts facilities are in dire need of replacement and/or refurbishment. To meet these needs the School Board has directed our architects and project managers to prepare a preliminary set of plans and costs estimates to reflect a partial new and partial refurbished facility. This information should be available for review sometime in May, however, at this point in time the true extent and cost of this project are unknown.

As I have stated in public, my first priorities and responsibilities are to education and the safety of our children. It is essential that our district provide our teachers, students and administration with the facilities and tools they need to exceed our current level of educational excellence. As referred to above, safety, deals not only with a secure environment during construction, but also includes providing athletic and educational facilities which protect our children's health and welfare.

Other Stakeholders, such as your group, have expressed concerns regarding such issues as, historic preservation, environmental design, ADA compliance, cost, timing and pool facilities. While you may or may not agree with these priorities, it is imperative that each individual understands that the High School project is not the only issue which will impact our millage rate and that there is no guarantee that each stakeholder group will receive everything they are requesting.

I will not make false promises to win a vote, but I will tell anybody, (i) that athletics has always been and will continue to be a part of the High School project, (ii) a budget for the entire project has not been established and therefore, no allocation of funds for fine arts, athletics or education has been developed, (iii) I would welcome and support any efforts to further a public/private partnership, (iv) I would support any initiative to re- turf the stadium's field once it is established that this area would not be required as a staging area and when a solid plan is presented to enlarge the field to accommodate all sports, (v) all facets of the project, education, athletics and fine arts will be treated as equitably as possible and (vi) I will continue to work with any stakeholder to find solutions and build support and consensus for the project.

It is my hope that this election does not become a one issue campaign. When determining which candidate or candidates to support each individual should consider, all the issues which the next board will have to face, which candidate(s) have the experience to oversee a project of this magnitude and who will work best with the community to build consensus.

Another Response on Athletics: Mary D. Birks

In response to my request for more information from the School Board candidates regarding their positions on athletic facilities renovations, candidate Mary D. Birks sent me a complete copy of her responses to the facilities questionnaire. Thanks, Mary!

Her responses follow:

1. What is your view of the current condition of the field house, track & field and stadium complex on the campus of Mt. Lebanon High School? I believe that the current state of our facilities is abysmal. I have visited many other facilities because of football, soccer and track and have come to realize that our facilities are old, seriously lacking and do not reflect the excellence we expect from our student athletes. (I was part of a team of parents who volunteered to paint the weight room last year and it was gross) There are safety, health and privacy issues that need addressing.

2. Do you believe that it is necessary to address significant upgrading of the outdoor athletic facilities as part of the proposed High School renovation project? Absolutely. They must be part of the overall and long term designs being discussed.

3. If so what is your specific plan (including order of priorities for such upgrades) and how much money do you believe the District should commit to this endeavor in Phase I as part of the overall High School renovation? This is a difficult one to answer, not knowing what the schematics include. I have heard board discussions about the pool being a non-negotiable, along with our gyms, locker rooms, etc. I would need to see more, and if anything is being left out of the overall plan, before I could give you priorities. I will say that any issues involving the health, safety and security of our students should be the top priority for renovation/construction.

4. Separate and apart from how much money the District “should” commit to this initiative, how much money do you believe the District “will” ultimately commit as part of the High School renovation project and at what stage (i.e., Phase I) will it be committed ? I am not in favor of a phased in project. But again, this is one of those questions I do not believe I can properly answer at this juncture. I have heard the $2 million figure being thrown about, but not in a clear cut way, and not with a definitive use attached to it. These decisions will be made by the sitting board, and if I am fortunate enough to be elected, I would be diligent in my oversight of any monies being used to upgrade the athletic facilities, fine arts facilities and the overall renovation project. I would also want the community’s input at all stages, and would expect this group to be visible and vocal at the meetings.

5. Would you support our group “bridging the gap” between the resources that “should” be dedicated to address this need and the resources that “will” be dedicated by the District to address the needs articulated by our group? Absolutely. I believe that any group willing to organize, put together a plan, present it to the board and open it up for public discussion should be seen as a resource for the Board and the community. We should encourage this type of citizen involvement and collaboration for the benefit of all students and residents.

6. Are you committed to prioritizing your specific plan while serving on the School Board and, if so, do you believe you are capable of building a consensus to support your plan on the Board? I have always believed that a plan must include plenty of input from our community members, so that the facility is seen as a resource for their use. I promise to listen to all sides of any issue, to educate myself on the pros and cons, and I believe I can help build consensus with my fellow board members for the best interest of our students and the community at large. I might not agree with everything, but there is always a starting point for discussion and compromise.

7. During the past 12 months, the School Board has referred to a two million dollar commitment of funds to upgrade the outdoor athletic facilities at the stadium/field house. At a minimum, will you vote to commit to advance funds from the capital improvement reserve of two million dollars in Phase I of the high school renovation project to address outdoor athletic facility upgrades at the stadium as part of our proposed joint private-public venture? If elected, I will be inheriting decisions already made by the sitting board. If this $2million figure is accurate, I would hope that the board would commit these funds so that the fundraising arm of this group can proceed with raising more capital for specific athletic facility improvements.

8. What is your position regarding either renovating or demolishing Building B of the High School? If you are in favor of renovating Building B, what was the basis for your decision both financially and politically? I do not base any decision on politics. (I am, after all, the un-endorsed Republican candidate.) Again, this decision will probably be made by the time of the election. I saw a lot of creative ideas when I was part of the Education Specification Committee, and learned a lot from the DeJong study. The overall plan has to make sense when/if utilizing this space and the price tag needs to be considered carefully. Will the resulting cost to renovate render appropriate, useable space? I do not know the answer to this without seeing schematics and the figures associated with those drawings.

9. Would you support financially a collaborative project with the municipality regarding immediately “turfing” the field at Mellon in preparation for the High School renovation project? In light of the fact that there is no money in this year’s budget to turf the high school field, I’m not optimistic that monies would be found to turf MMS field. But supporting a collaborative effort between the Board and the municipality? Absolutely. Long overdue. Same pants, different pockets.

10. Do you support re-turfing the high school stadium’s field this summer in preparation for Fall sports in 2009? Again, this decision has already been made by the sitting board. I happen to know that it was not on the Capital Improvement list, so that it will not happen. These types of items are usually brought forward by the director of facilities and/or the AD, and I didn’t see a request for upgrading the turf this year. As a private citizen, and the parent of student athletes, I know the turf is not in great shape and I do worry about the number of concussions which have occurred. New turf needs to be part of the complete plan for the stadium, field house and press box facilities. The time to address this issue next year (if not in the overall schematic), would be at December’s meetings so that it is on the radar for the Capital Improvements list presented to the Board in January/February.

(Also, remember that there is a School Board candidate forum next Monday, April 27th in the Jefferson Middle School Auditorium, from 7:30-9:00pm. Mary told me that she will make herself available after the event for further questions from residents, and I expect that other candidates will do the same.)

More on High School Athletic Facilities

Following up on last week's post about the insistence by some Mt. Lebanon citizens (the "Mt. Lebanon's Field Sports Facilities Partnership," which is a real mouthful) that School Board candidates sign on to their agenda regarding renovation of the high school football stadium:

Two of the School Board candidates, Jo Posti and Rob Gardner, posted public responses to the athletic supporters' questionnaire.

According to Dave Reese, who commented at the earlier Blog-Lebo post, some of the other School Board candidates also have responded -- but they have done so privately, sending their responses only to the Partnership.

Would those candidates who replied privately please post their responses on their websites, or otherwise share their responses with the rest of Mt. Lebanon?

All of the voters deserve to know whether or not incoming Board members have made promises to honor requests by specific community groups.

Thank you.

Lebo Athletic Facilities: School Board Candidates Respond

Two candidates for the Mt. Lebanon School Board, incumbent Jo Posti and challenger Rob Gardner, have posted joint responses Incumbent School Director Jo Posti, who is running for reelection, has posted responses to the "athletic facilities questionnaire" that's the subject of this earlier Blog-Lebo post.

Read their her full comments here. On the whole, the comments strike me as balanced. Nice work.

Added: Rob Gardner comments below to note that he will be posting his own responses shortly.

And now read Rob Gardner's comments in response to the athletic facilities questionnaire.

An Ultimatum from Some Athletic Supporters

Over the weekend I received a copy of a "questionnaire" that was sent last week to all candidates for the Mt. Lebanon School Board. I'll excerpt the "questionnaire" below rather than post the whole thing.

The "questionnaire" has a presumptuous "or else" tone that I find pretty amazing. If I were a candidate for the School Board, I would respond by telling this group that they can count on my support when they actually show up with cash in hand, and even then, that the School District may have more important athletic facility priorities than new turf at the high school stadium. How about that swimming pool and locker room area? Why prioritize outdoor athletics or athletics of any kind over arts and other non-athletic programming?

No "public/private partnership" should dictate strategic priorities to the School District, no matter how much money they claim to have - or threaten to withhold.

April 9, 2009
Mt. Lebanon's Field Sports Facilities Partnership
Advocating a private-public joint venture
Board and Candidate Questionnaire
... As you are already aware, our group of concerned Mt. Lebanon taxpayers is prepared to launch, and is wholly dedicated to promoting, a private-public partnership to secure adequate funding for capital improvement projects that will benefit Mt. Lebanon's students and residents. In so doing, our group, comprised of Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike, will shoulder a large portion of the financial responsibility of raising private funds for athletic facility improvements, including the athletic fields, track, field house and stadium-complex, on the campus of Mt. Lebanon High School and, if necessary, other properties within the School District.

As momentum enthusiastically builds during our group's continued organizational efforts, we have, unfortunately, started to detect a notable distrust amongst many private funding sources and Mt. Lebanon residents regarding the School Board's ability to serve as a responsible partner in our proposed joint private-public venture. This is a potentially problematic development since our group's ability to effectively raise private funding will depend heavily upon the assessment of donors who are interested in determining whether Mt. Lebanon's elected officials are committed to the shared vision, and are responsible custodians of the shared financial resources, of this proposed joint initiative.

We have carefully considered how best to address this concern by attempting to identify elected officials and/or candidates who may be counted upon to willingly partner with our group to ensure that whatever public dollars are available for outdoor athletic facility upgrades as part of the pending High School renovation project are identified from the outset and are appropriately applied to realize the collective goal of our private-public collaboration.

Given the foregoing, and in an initial attempt to preliminarily promote our mission, representatives from our group met with all of the candidates running for and currently serving on the School Board (with the exception of two). We did so in the spirit of partnership and with the optimistic hope that our elected officials (and those running for office), who - by virtue of your title - are in the best position to prioritize the co-curricular and extra-curricular needs of our high school students, would share our commitment to this political-neutral initiative.
...

Regrettably, the vast majority of our meetings with Board members and candidates failed to reveal any clear and unequivocal position regarding the issues of most importance to our group at this time. The single most obvious consensus point was that no person was willing and/or able to provide our group a firm commitment regarding a specific action plan related to short-term and long-term steps to bring the outside athletic facilities such as the stadium, field house, etc. up to best-in-class status.

As a result, we now question whether our initial optimism and faith in the School Board as a partner in this joint venture may have been misplaced given its prolonged lack of vision, lack of creativity and inability to build a consensus. To this extent, we remain uncertain as to the School Board's vision and leadership capabilities when it is considering a massive renovation project at the High School without dedicating specific resources to reasonably address the long-neglected needs of our students and residents.

Fearing that nothing may be done for several more decades to timely address the needs of current and future Mt. Lebanon students and residents as it pertains to the dedication of sufficient resources for improved outdoor athletic facilities, our group is now prepared to take ownership of this matter. In so doing, we are exceedingly confident that as the only group within the community that has commenced mobilizing in support of a private-public partnership to address the challenges of the High School renovation project, we are well postured to respond to the needs of Mt. Lebanon's students and residents. To this extent, we are unlike any other group within the community -- we are committed to putting our own skin in the game, in terms of our collective good will, sweat equity AND millions of private equity dollars.

In order to assess whether you may be counted upon to support a private-public funding partnership dedicated to committing financial resources for upgrading the outdoor athletic facilities at the High School and other locations, we encourage you to respond to the following questions. Your responses will afford our group the opportunity to evaluate your formal commitment to both the needs of our students and the community, and your commitment to a position consistent with the mission of our group.

In responding to the following questions, please be advised that we will advise members of our group and residents as to your responses.

1. What is your view of the current condition of the field house, track & field and stadium complex on the campus of Mt. Lebanon High School?
2. Do you believe that it is necessary to address significant upgrading of the outdoor athletic facilities as part of the proposed High School renovation project?
3. If so what is your specific plan (including order of priorities for such upgrades) and how much money do you believe the District should commit to this endeavor in Phase I as part of the overall High School renovation?
4. Separate and apart from how much money the District should commit to this initiative, how much money do you believe the District will ultimately commit as part of the High School renovation project and at what stage (i.e., Phase I) will it be committed?
5. Would you support our group "bridging the gap" between the resources that should be dedicated to address this need and the resources that will be dedicated by the District to address the needs articulated by our group?
6. Are you committed to prioritizing your specific plan while serving on the School Board and, if so, do you believe you are capable of building a consensus to support your plan on the Board?
7. During the past 12 months, the School Board has referred to a two million dollar commitment of funds to upgrade the outdoor athletic facilities at the stadium/field house. At a minimum, will you vote to commit to advance funds from the capital improvement reserve of two million dollars in Phase I of the high school renovation project to address outdoor athletic facility upgrades at the stadium as part of our proposed joint private-public venture?
8. What is your position regarding either renovating or demolishing Building B of the High School? If you are in favor of renovating Building B, what was the basis for your decision both financially and politically?
9. Would you support financially a collaborative project with the municipality regarding immediately turfing the field at Mellon in preparation for the High School renovation project?
10. Do you support re-turfing the high school stadium's field this summer in preparation for Fall sports in 2009?

... Please forward your responses to [the] Mt. Lebanon's Field Sports Facilities Partnership by no later than April 15, 2009. If we do not receive any response from you, we have to assume you are unwilling to commit to the type of private-public partnership that our group envisions.

Thank you for your participation.

Updated 4/16 at 5 pm: Way down in the Comments to this post, I volunteered to post an unedited version of the questionnaire if I was asked to. I was asked to. You can find the full document that I received -- with some formatting curiosities that are undoubtedly caused by some OS incompatibilities -- here.