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.

Guest Post: Reforming Mt. Lebanon Government

Mt. Lebanon resident and Blog-Lebo reader and commenter Tom Moertel read my post yesterday titled "Lebo High School Renovation: A Status Update" and was moved to respond at length. Rather than leave his thoughts in the comments, Joe and I agreed that Tom's thoughts belong here, as a guest post.

The following, then, comes from Tom:

In Mt. Lebanon, there is a surprising lack of public participation in policy decisions that ought to be of great interest to the community. While some on Blog Lebo and elsewhere have characterized this apparent lack of concern as apathy, it is more likely the result of a deeper problem, a communications problem that makes public participation impractical for most residents. The ongoing planning process for the high school renovation is a perfect example of this problem.

The problem: The important stuff isn't getting communicated to the public

We residents of Mt. Lebanon may disagree about many aspects of the proposed high school renovation, but there is one thing we can all agree on: waste is bad. And if you examine the available evidence dispassionately, you are likely to conclude that the high school renovation, as proposed, will be wasteful.

That waste has three sources. First, we are proposing to build more high school than our community genuinely needs. Second, for what we are proposing to build, we are proposing to overpay. Third, for what we are proposing to pay, we are proposing to overpay, again, on the financing. (If you are unconvinced of any of these points, please share your answers to the questions I ask later.)

That we are proposing to do these things, and that more residents are not outraged, suggests that most residents simply do not understand what is going on. Why not?

It's a communications problem. With the exception of James Fraasch, our school board has not communicated about the essential considerations of the renovation project clearly or succinctly, and this failure is the root of our community's apparent apathy. Like Mike, I believe it is the school board's responsibility to encourage meaningful public participation in decisions about our schools. But the public cannot be expected to participate without having the information necessary to do so. If, then, the school board wants to fulfill its responsibility to the public, it must communicate clearly about what is really going on. And by clearly, I don't mean dumping data on a disorganized web site, and I don't mean tossing out details now and again at public meetings, where the details lack the context necessary for interpretation. I mean the board should publish and keep current an easily accessible distillation of the most important information about the project, and it should publish and keep current a concise, cogent argument for what it believes is the best plan to date. Only then will the public have the information it needs to participate meaningfully in discussions about the renovation project.

Instead, the information that truly matters is buried within a mountain of minutia, where the average resident has no hope of making sense of it. Consider the High School Renovation web site. To understand how unhelpful this web site is, try using it to find clear and complete answers to the most basic questions about the proposed renovation project:

Why do we need to renovate the high school? Why won't less-ambitious repairs suffice? Why do we need to pay this much for what we are getting? Are there no other reasonable options? If there are, what makes our chosen option better? By committing so much money to this renovation now, what resources will we be unable to afford later, and why does it make sense to forgo them for this renovation?

These basic questions are what most people ask themselves when contemplating any large purchase. Why, then, does the public lack a clear understanding of the school board's answers to, or at least thoughts about, these questions? Why aren't the board's answers front-and-center on the High School Renovation web site, where everybody could find them easily?

I do not mean to suggest that the members of the board are being coy about important financial matters. As far as I can see, the board members are all decent people, trying to do their best at a difficult, thankless job. If I am to fault the board, it is only for failing to perceive that the planning process was a confusion machine and that part of their duty was to overcome its effects and make sure the public understood what was really going on.

A proposal: do it ourselves

Whatever its cause, the problem exists: the job of communicating clearly with the public about important community decisions is not getting done. If we cannot count on our elected representatives to do this job, and if the news media have likewise proved ineffective at filling this void, what should we, as responsible citizens, do?

Here's what I think: We the People should take ownership of this problem. We should mine those mountains of minutia, extract the useful information, and place that information in context. Then We should communicate that information clearly and succinctly, directly to the public. In short, we should form a grass-roots "Mt. Lebanon Accountability Office" and start issuing reports on important community issues.

The effort would not be easy, and it would not be without controversy or challenges to its credibility. But it is within our reach. Heck, with the Blog-Lebo regulars, we have a head start on fact-finding and analysis. All we need are a little organization, an emphasis on clarification and presentation (think Edward Tufte or New York Times infographics), and then a touch of get-the-word-out (not all Mt. Lebanon residents live on Blog Lebo). Together, we could do something about our community's "apathy."

What do you think? Is the idea crazy, or is anybody up for discussing it over coffee, maybe getting something started?