I have been asked to start a new topic here called, "Secrets (and Lies.)" This is in response to Monday night's School Board meeting where Dan Remely said there will be no more secrets. Elaine Cappucci disagreed with Dan's statement since she felt there have been no secrets all along.
OK, Folks. Here it is. I'll start with:
What happened to the Harris mail survey conducted last December community-wide? What were the results? What is this current Harris survey intended to do? Or is this another example of the rebidding mentality?
46 comments:
Great start, Elane.
Where is the PlanCon F submission the board approved on 28-FEB-2011?
It should be posted on the MTLSD website with the other PlanCon submissions to the PDE.
The document would help clarify what the District has done to-date.
David Huston
This is neither a secret or lie, but why did the board want to have closed discussions with the commissioners.
What are they running the Manhattan Project or covert missions to hunt down Osama?
I also agree with your question regarding the Harris survey. They haven't shared the results of November's and they are already starting another one!
Dick Saunders
Here's another Remely *revelation*---he only now*reveals* concern that an electoral referendum might likely be required to authorize a 2nd. bond issue in the middle of construction, the referendum results of which might call a halt to the project mid-stream. Gee, Dan, this is really not new news at all. The SB member that you and your SB mates ridiculed and dissed all during 2008 and 2009 warned you SB members about this. To wit, the SB meeting of Aug.11,2008 and the Audit & Finance Committee meeting of September 2009when James Fraasch made you aware of such a distinct possibility. You all paid no attention to James and ultimately disbanded the Audit & Finance Committee that he had chaired....all perhaps in the name of increased transparency, one presumes ? Bill Lewis
Another interesting question not answered.
From the district's FAQ-es.
"Does the District have a limit to the amount of debt we can have?
School districts have a limit on bonds they can issue without voter approval. This is known as non-electoral debt. The District’s limit on outstanding bonds is 225% of the average revenues over the past three years. As the District’s revenues rise and the District pays off old bond issues, the debt limit rises. The last audited debt limit was as of June 30, 2007 at $155,747,202. At that time the District had $75,023,642 in outstanding debt leaving a balance of $80,723,560 for future bond issuance. Our financial advisors estimate that we will be able to issue about $110 million in bonds for the high school as our debt limit rises over the next five years. Note that is the limit on non-electoral debt. If the community votes to approve additional debt, this limit is not in effect for that electoral debt."
SO exactly how did we arrive at the president's assertion that the debt limit has risen to $131,000,000 in only 4 years?
And a bigger question- just because we can, should we?
- Giffen Good
Just to confirm:
From Posti's "Project Update" posted 4/26.
"Our current referendum debt limit is now about $131 million, a number the Board finds just as unacceptable as the low bid received last week."
- Giffen Good
Mr. Good,
Here is Ms. Posti's answer to me on 29-APR-2011 when I asked the question. It is posted in its entirety.
Her answer to you may be different.
Mr. Huston,
Please be aware that our debt limit is not a static number. The debt limit changes each year based on payment of outstanding bonds and annual revenue changes.
In order to project our maximum debt limit, our financial advisor reviewed revenue projections for this year and the next few years to project debt limit capacity for June 2012 (earliest we would issue new debt for the project) and each year beyond. The extra capacity projected for that year allows for new debt of $56 million. Added to our original bond proceeds of $75 million, a debt limit that could be reasonably estimated for this project is $131 million.
The Board finds that number to be an unacceptable debt load for our community and remain committed to reducing costs and finding acceptable solutions.
For the Board,
Josephine Posti
President
Mt. Lebanon School Board
Yes, but revenue projections in 2007 didn't consider the huge DECREASE in revenue from the state!
The financial advisor's look into the future may not be as rosy as presented.
- Giffen Good
My interpretation of Mr. Remely’s and Mrs. Cappucci’s comments, in light of Remely’s follow-up clarification a few moments later, was that neither believed the school board had kept secrets from the public. The “secrets” Remely referred to were those that he alleged the school district’s hired experts had kept from the school board.
Lets make this simple, Tom.
Ask them to produce the 11/2010 Harris survey. Not their interpretation of the survey, the actual data.
- Giffen Good
Nothing is made simpler by ignoring evidence that you’re not seeing things as they are. Mr. Remely didn’t say or imply that the school board had kept secrets from the public. If that’s what you choose to believe he said, nobody can stop you, but maintaining this belief isn’t making things simpler for anybody. It just makes the school board’s critics less credible.
Why do I care? Because the school board is making mistakes and there are genuine grounds for criticism. But if the people in the best position to offer this criticism burn up their own credibility by criticizing the school board for everything, including problems that are imaginary, who will be left to help the school board see its mistakes?
Giffen Good: On the survey, if you want the unfiltered results, why not just file a Right To Know request for them?
Cheers,
Tom
Tom and Giffen,
I started this thread with the Harris Survey question. I suppose we could all file a RTK, but wouldn't that cost the District a lot of money? Wouldn't it just be easier and cheaper if they shared the raw data on their website? I am still waiting for the information to be reviewed as Dr. Steinhauer and Josephine Posti had promised at that winter school board meeting. They told me it would be soon.
Elaine
And Elaine, its an excellent example.
I guess I was foolish as Tom suggest to take Dan's exclamation literally as to "no more secrets."
Where Tom goes off track in his thinking is that just because one makes a public request for info. (that coincidentally Dr. Steinhauer alludes to it being available on the district web site in his letter to parents announcing yet another survey) that one is convinced there is something bad occurring.
There is NO acquisation! Is there a question for which the answer MAT BE found in the survey results-- most certainly.
Is there more to the restructuring than meets the eye, perhaps the Harris survey results may shed some light on the topic.
If not, hey its no big deal and exactly the point to asking for it.
If it's not a big deal why isn't available to the people that paid for it.
Do we really need to file an RTK request for something taxpayers paid for?
Doesn't sound transparent to me, Tom. Guess my interpretation of transparency and "no more secrets" differs from yours.
Although according to a guidance dept. staffer they've seen at least part of it.
- Giffen Good
Mr. Good, this excerpt from Sue Roses' 25-AUG-2010 letter to the Almanac edior should reassure you Ms. Posti's $131MM figure is well above the maximum budgeted $113.2MM figure.
Do you believe everything you read?
"Dozens of people who work on this project daily tell me that the current and near future bid environment is competitive and Mt. Lebanon could see significantly lower bids than the budgeted estimate of $113.2 million...the project cost is indeed budgeted and, by law, no more than $113.2 million can be spent on this project."
David Huston
Elaine,
I just got a heads-up from the school district that the survey results were put online in March. Here is the link:
http://www.mtlsd.org/BSC/BSCRow0204.asp
Cheers,
Tom
Tom, your link points out the "Executive Summary", not the actual data, or unfiltered results Mr. Good wishes to see.
Should he still file a RTK, or can you make the most of your key communicator position and get the information published on the MTLSD website?
David Huston
Ever since James Fraasch's resignation last winter, it has been abundantly clear that 78 percent of Mt. Lebanon residents---those of us without children in school---have no voice on the board.
Another term for this is taxation without representation.
I understand the Harris survey is targeted for parents, students and teachers, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be sent to all residents or posted on the district website. And where are the complete results from last winter's survey? It appears the board only wants to hear from us when the tax bills go out.
A resident at the May 2 board meeting was absolutely correct when she stated that this once-proud district has become a laughingstock. I am routinely in neighboring municipalities for my job and I hear unsolicited negative comments about Mt. Lebanon on a regular basis.
Maybe it's time for a tax revolt...maybe it's time we demand attention from the district in exchange for tax payments. Or, maybe it's time to call the project what it really is---the Mt. Lebanon Athletic Complex---and take it off the tax rolls.
Carole Brown
Thank you Tom. That wasn't so hard now was it. Regardless, it is up and available for study.
This qoute from the report...
"All but three of the issues listed have experienced movement in a negative direction – higher percentages of community members reporting them as problems. While this is a cause for concern,these
issues should be further addressed and clarified in order to uncover
the root of concern within this stakeholder group."
Quick review- seems dispite increased taxes all things are not going in a positive direction.
Thankfully the board and the administration are concerned and it will be interesting to follow how the issues are uncovered and addressed.
Tom-- NO acquisations, NO incriminations, an honest report on what may be problems. Now we can all work together on solutions to any problems that may exist.
That is transparency and in my mind how to change negatives to positives.
- Giffen Good
David the debt limits you are questions are two different issues.
The $113 million is for the 'HS project', the new $131 million is the max the 'district' could borrow for one or a number of projects if they wished.
I'm open to some one correcting the above.
- Giffen Good
This made me chuckle:
"The absolute performance of the District matters much less than knowing how to improve."
I would have said it a little differently: given that nothing can be done about past performance, the focus should be on identifying areas of weakness and then making improvements.
Tom,
I was unable to find the link provided you by the District by alternatively accessing the District website directly and the Balanced Scorecard link...I tried, clicked on everything available on Scorecard pages ?
In any event, interesting to note from the link you were provided that the 2010-2011 ratings have slipped since the previous 2006-2007 survey, the most dramatic in Budget/Budget Process category. And, while the lower Actual Overall rating for 2010-2011 was provided, neither the Target or Target Met (%) for 2010-2011 was provided. Must still be figuring that one out ?
Bill Lewis
Same here Bill. Tom''s link worked, trying to get there directly on the district web site doesn't make it available.
Hmmmmm, so thats why I couldn't find it before Tom pointed it out- TODAY!
- Giffen Good
Bill,
Here's the link to the survey results summary from Harris: http://www.mtlsd.org/bsc/stuff/mtlebanonexecsumm_final%202010.pdf.
Cheers,
Tom
Bill and Giffen Good:
You're right: the survey-results document was added to the school district's web site but effectively not made available to the public because it was never connected to any publicly visible page by a valid hypertext reference. (Looking at the HTML used in the MTLSD's Balanced Scorecard, I can see that the "links" there aren't actually links but JavaScript callbacks.) Therefore, unless you know to click on the right sequence of links by hand (or someone like me gives you a direct link to the final document), you're not going to find the document, even if you search for it.
Of course, now that I've linked to the document from here, Google will eventually find it and index it. So it's now effectively published.
Cheers,
Tom
Tom,
Thanks for tracking this down....I thought the problem might have been me, or that I maybe needed a password or had to register somewhere in order to access the information.
Given what you found, I imagine then that the general public has not been aware of the Harris results until just today even though someone in the District quietly posted them on the District website in March without public notice or fanfare. Seems a bit strange to me.
Bill Lewis
OK, Tom now that we've cleared up whether the Harris survey... was there or not there... can we get to the nitty gritty on what the survey shows.
You wrote: "Nothing is made simpler by ignoring evidence that you’re not seeing things as they are."
Well, the evidence I SEE thanks to the recently "accessible" survey, suggest dissatisfaction appears to be growing rather than shrinking with district stakeholders.
Any sane businessman will tell you if the number of customers unhappy with your (pick one, two or all) service, your widgets or whatever... you've got problems.
It might be perception, it might be service or perhaps a defective product.
It better be figured out and fixed ASAP. Pretending it doesn't exist won't make it go away.
I consider this issue a board secret, unless it's been withheld from them. (that's a different problem.)
You're free of course to ignore the evidence you are seeing if you choose too. Thats the simple option you wrote about I guess.
- Giffen Good
Looking at the Harris Survey in terms of Percentage Satisfaction, we see:
Year Harris Survey 2007 2010 Change
Curriculum and Training 85% 85% 0%
Teachers 84% 83% -1%
Computer Technology 84% 83% -1%
Communications/Involvement 78% 75% -3%
District Administration 73% 70% -3%
Equipment & Facilities 76% 71% -5%
Budget/Budget Process 73% 63% -10%
No Category improved
6 of 7 Categories declined
Administrators were promoted despite a 70% satisfaction rating.
The Budget/Budget Process fell 10% to 63% satisfaction, yet No Finance Committee was appointed by Pres. Posti for oversight in this category.
The Board continues to lose credibility.
John Ewing
In the 2007 Harris Survey, the Board got the same substandard rating as the Administration and the Budget Process. Somehow the Board ranking does not appear in the 2010 Survey. Go figure!
John Ewing
Also, the 2010 Survey named the participants as "COMMUNITY MEMBERS." The Survey was only among Parents, Students and Staff. Some of our Staff does not live in Mt. Lebanon, nor do they pay property taxes here, yet they were included in the Survey.
The rest of the community members that pay the bills were ignored - again!
This Board sure is good at ignoring people. First they ignored the Design Advisory Committee, the District's Structural Engineer, the Community Advisory Committee and almost 4,000 residents who signed a petition of non-support for the HS. Now the Board and Super. are ignoring the rest of the community - until it comes time to be cheated out of extra taxes.
John Ewing
Tom, I don't have a clue as to what you meant by "a valid hypertext reference." All I know is, I am glad I asked about the Harris Survey. I guess it wasn't a secret afterall. It looks like the School Board was counting on you to communicate to us and tell us where we could find it. Interesting that you (Tom) got the heads up while I was the one asking for it. Couldn't someone from the District submit this information to the blog directly? I DID sit through a Policy Committee meeting on Tuesday when the policy in question was about social networking sites. You did say it is OK, folks. Getting information from the School District is like pulling teeth sometimes. It is almost like it is a secret. But of course, there are no secrets.
Elaine
Elaine - the district is reading your blog during work hours. That is why Tom got it and not you.
Sarah Morris
Elaine, the "valid hypertext reference" thing just means that a link connects pages in a way that follows the internet's recognized standards for connecting pages. If a page doesn't have at least one valid hypertext reference from the rest of the web, it's not actually connected to the web at all: no search engine, for example, can ever index it.
In the case of the survey results, my guess is that the school district's web-management system is crappy (most of them are) and doesn't always use valid hypertext references.
Cheers,
Tom
My head's spinning. Are you kidding me!
What part of Right To Know am I not getting?
If a resident has a right to know something, why should they have to file a right to know it?
Or in other words... the request should be called WSYWYHALRTSSYHTUIOWYPALGTOHOPPFI!
We'll show you what you have a legal right to see should you happen to uncover it only when you put a legal "gun" to our head or publically press for it!
Transparency - yeah right!
- Giffen Good
Tom Moertel is essentially correct in his analysis of the District's web site, although I would rather say it is not so much that the document in question “is not connected to the web at all” as it is that a person must already know the URL to the document in order to access it. But that is probably just a couple of guys with backgrounds in computers (this was part of what I taught for 23 years) quibbling over semantics.
What I find more interesting is why this situation exists in the first place. I can identify only three reasons for it:
1. The District made an honest mistake and forgot to hyperlink the document
2. The document was uploaded to the site, but whoever did it did not know how to create a link to the document
3. The District knew very well what it was doing
I find option #2 to be unlikely. The District's web site is filled with hyperlinks to other documents. Besides, if they didn't know how to create a link the District could have asked almost any middle school kid to come in and show them how to do it. That leaves options #1 and #3. To be charitable, option #1 is a distinct possibility. I've done this myself on my own commercial web site; but I corrected it PDQ once it was discovered. Unfortunately, option #3 is also a distinct possibility. By placing the document on the site and not linking to it the District can truthfully say the Harris Survey has been on the District's web site since March, which has the added benefit of discrediting those people who claim the information isn't available (which, of course, for the average person it is not). The sad thing is that, if this is the case, the District and the MTL School Board end up losing even more credibility.
At this point I am tempted to invoke Mark Twain's famous quip about school boards, but I'll let it go.
Richard Gideon
I propose Moertel's Corollary to Hanlon's Razor:
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by use of a crappy web-based Content Management System.
Richard, until I created the hypertext reference to the document in my earlier comment, the document was literally not connected to the world wide web: no document already connected to the web connected to it.
Why not? As Matt intuited, I think your option #2 the most likely explanation. (The SEO market exists in large part because lots of people who run web sites, large and small, don't know how to create sites that follow the web's standards for connectedness and searchability.)
Mr. Moertel:
I think you misunderstand my point. That document was placed in a folder on the District's server. (Whether the person putting it on the server understands how it gets there isn't important; if he or she is putting it in a folder on the server the software will take care of the addressing.) What I'm saying is that once the document is on the server it is accessible. Of course it could be protected, but even if it had been it still has an address associated with it. If a person knows the address he (or she) does not need a hyperlink to click on. I can access files on my clients' web sites directly that are not hyperlinked at all.
Regards,
Richard Gideon
Richard, after a document is placed on a web server, it is accessible only if you know its URL. If nobody tells you its URL, and if the URL isn't embedded as a valid hypertext reference within a publicly discoverable document already on the WWW, how will you (or the public in general) ever access the document?
Tom - who gave you the heads up from the school district?
Sarah Morris
Tom, are you part of the School District's double secret, super confidential, special agent task force?
And did you help fake the moon landing?
Dave Franklin
Sarah asked a reasonable question. I guess if Tom ignores, she will have to file a RTK.
We can keep missing the point too. The Harris Survey was kept from us because it is abominable. Faking a moon landing? Nah, they couldn't land a groundbreaking. Where are they hiding their weapons of mass instruction?
Elaine
Sarah: I got the email from the superintendent himself.
Elaine: I don't believe the school district intended to hide the survey results. As I've tried to make clear, most web-site content management systems are crappy and get lots of things wrong, including hypertext references. I suspect, therefore, that whoever put the results on the web site thought they were made public. Most people don't understand what hypertext references are, let alone whether their CMS creates them properly. (If Blogger created bad hrefs, would you have noticed?)
Dave F.: I didn't fake the moon landing, but I did fake the faking of the moon landing, which, in conspiracy theory circles, is infinitely more impressive ;-)
Back to important things: the survey results provide compelling evidence that the public's satisfaction with the school district has declined. There is a real problem here, but it's not how documents are published on the school district's web site.
Cheers,
Tom
"the public's satisfaction with the school district has declined."
Agreed and that is largely due to the high school project. However, when I look around, I'm still getting my money's worth.
I have to ask myself, how would these surevy results be diferent if it weren't for the high school project and the issues surrounding it? I'm sure the most recent survey won't be much better. However, in my opinion, the proof is in my own kids. And I'm happy with those results thus far.
Dave Franklin
Mr. Moertel:
That's exactly MY POINT! As I said in my earlier post to you, "If a person knows the address he (or she) does not need a hyperlink to click on." Ergo, it is entirely possible for the Board to claim they posted the information on their web site, but unless a person knew the address (URL) they wouldn't be able to find it.
As I said earlier, I think this is two computer guys arguing semantics. I believe the argument is exhausted; I know I am!
Regards,
Richard Gideon
Nobody gives a hoot about hyperlinks!
Amazingly, I have to agree with Franklin here. Are we getting what we're paying for or expect?
Is the HS project the reason for the negative swing in essentially all the catagories?
If so, we better get it resolved and soon, before it drags everything else down.
If not, we have bigger problems than what color the tiles are.
Hypeerlinks are just a small glitch that can be resolved as one poster said by the average middle schooler!
Way to go to divert attention from the real issue!!!!
-Giffen Good
Forgot to include that Tom recognizes the real issue too - "Back to important things: the survey results provide compelling evidence that the public's satisfaction with the school district has declined. There is a real problem here, but it's not how documents are published on the school district's web site."
That's why people wanted to see the survey and why it is so important. Survey aren't the end all- be all, but they can point investigation in the right direction.
The HS project and the events leading up to the project may well be the cause of most of the stakeholder dis-satisfaction. I'll agree to that!
I'm not sure it is cause of all the decline though. Some of this started with the Sable fiasco and this Harris survey is just one more log on the fire for many.
It didn't need to evolve to the nonsense that is going on here in this chain.
We debating hyperlinks now, my god! Whose fault is that?
- Giffen Good
Giffen,
Don't forget about the fact that the District doesn't have spell check. They must rely on me to catch the spelling errors. Now, they are relying on me to communicate to the community where to find the Harris Survey results since they can't handle hypertext. I have published the PlanCon F documents under "This is BIG." Maybe the District should start using Blogger. It is free and allows one to hyperlink anything with ease. Google Documents is also free. Something to consider. But then again, I don't charge them for this service either. Interesting how this is all under the "Secrets (and Lies)" thread.
Elaine
Post a Comment