Through a Right to Know Request, PlanCon F Attachment C can be found here. PlanCon F Attachment C
In this document, Janice Klein answered Question 7 with "To be determined" even though Tom Celli specifically said at the April 25 meeting that a second Act 34 hearing or referendum is not required.
In Question 8, the School District plans to rebid, yet the Board is divided on this. Or is the Board not the decision maker here?
Added: March 23 PlanCon F Architectural Review
PlanCon F
33 comments:
It is big, because we have to rely on LeboCitizens to provide official PlanCon documents instead of the MTLSD website.
The board is divided about what to do next. The professionals hired by the district have already submitted to the PDE the next step. This clearly illustrates a communication problem between the board and the professionals.
We expect the board to make the tough decisions in a timely manner.
The bids were presented on April 25.
The pros were instructed to come up with a plan to present at the May 2 meeting. During that meeting, the same pros were instructed to come up with a schedule to present at the May 16 meeting.
Shouldn't the leadership and schedule come from our elected officials instead of the hired help?
Here we are 12 days after the bids were presented, yet we still don't know which direction the project will go.
The election is a musical chairs game. We are waiting to see which one of the six candidates won't sit in a chair when the music stops. They have an 83% chance of being seated regardless of past record or campaign effort.
The day before election day, I expect to leave the board meeting knowing what will happen next instead of marking my calendar hoping for a decision in the future. What do you expect?
David Huston
My goodness, how *sunshine* doc's reveal truths about things that mere SB oratory does not.
About PlanCon Part F, Attachment C...did the SB actually vote in public during the April 25, 2011 meeting to approve submission of this Attachment C ? I just don't recall.
A couple off-hand observations about the March 23, 2011 PlanCon Part F Architectural Review..it seems the District had not submitted the required written statement by the Muni that the project conformed with all required Codes, which would have included Fire Safety wouldn't it ! I'll bet the costs weren't included in the cost estimate either. Ahhh, *sunshine*, it feels so good !
And also, it seems the District was representing that no Alternates would result in the project not meeting LEED Silver requirements or certification...we'll see about that won't we boys & girls !
PlanCon Part F itself has many, many corrections by PDE and numerous appended notations with question marks...does the District really know what it is they are doing ? Do you also note that the design has a rated pupil capacity of some 2,300 students (vs. the indicated 2008 enrollment of 1,799 and a highest projection of 1,900) and that the size of the buildings exceeds the PDE design standards by 67,000 square feet ? Of course the *old boy network* of PDE and school districts provides automatic *check the box* waivers for such excesses in the PlanCon forms.
Chime in all you supporters of this travesty...show us all of your reputed facts that support this boondoggle project.
Bill Lewis
When a bureaucratic document is filled out in a manner consistent with my expectations for bureaucratic documents, it doesn't signal "BIG" to me. What am I missing?
For example, could you help me understand ...
What's wrong with a TBD answer for Question 7? If answering yes or no here eliminates options or commits us to a path we're not sure we want to be committed to, why wouldn't TBD be a reasonable answer, regardless of what Celli said?
Likewise, what's wrong with the school district's answer to Question 8? The school board was not divided on rejecting the first set of bids, nor do they appear divided on doing something with the current high school, so there will have to be some kind of re-bidding, yes? So the problem would be ...?
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying there isn't a "BIG" problem here, only that, if there is, I can't see it, and you didn't explain it clearly enough to make it visible.
Cheers,
Tom
Tom, when do you get mad?
Is it going to take another $6 million with nothing to show for it? $12 million? $24 million?
I know how about we just burn through $150 million debating hyperlinks and how big, BIG is!
I'm disgusted.
- Dick Saunders
Dick,
Why get mad? Instead, why not try to understand what causes problems when we see them? That way, we can try to solve those problems now and avoid causing similar problems later.
Note that the first step is seeing the problems.
So when Elaine writes that "This is BIG", and I can't see anything big, I'd like to understand what she's seeing.
Cheers,
Tom
Lets see if this is clear enough for you Tom.
There 36 comments under secrets and lies.
A lot of that discussion centered on how it was posted... hyperlinks, smiperlinks. Who the hell cares.
I don't give a crap if they delivered it by Pony Express.
The issue is what does the survey show us. If its nothing, then why are we spending thousands of dollars on Harris surveys?
If there are unhappy stakeholders or a downward trend in 'customer' satisfaction, why is it down and what if anything can we do about it. To do that you need confidence in the intelligence first.
A lot of this wasted time discussing hyperlinks could have been avoided, had the district put it out like just like the 'happy' news they like to post. They had no problem getting Ed Kubit's FAQ on line and in the mail. And we know how accurate the info in that was.
It wasn't posted and that is an issue for me. You or the board don't like that attitude... tough!
Want to work as a team reversing the down numbers... great. Lets quite playing word games, debating the ins and outs of hyperlinks, be direct and get to work on the things that matter.
No more buck passing. No more blame games. No more secrets!
Dick Saunders
Why get mad... because we've burned thriough $6,000,000 with absolutely nothing to show for it that could have gone to educating our kids or on books, on instruments, on computers or on athletics.
That's why we need to get mad!
Dick Saunders
P.S. Dick, I see you submitted a comment to Blog-Lebo recently. We couldn't approve it, however, because we couldn't verify that "Dick Saunders" wasn't a pseudonym. If you can email me with some reason to believe that you're a Mt. Lebanonite with that name, we'll be happy to publish your comment.
Cheers,
Tom
Tom, wrote a couple of comments before your post appeared.
You wrote: "Note that the first step is seeing the problems."
I thought the Harris Survey was suppose to let us do just that-- SEE THE PROBLEMS!
Oh that's right, you said taxpayers-- the people footin' the bill for 'OUR' school district should have to file a RTKs to see it if they want access to it.
Dick Saunders
Tom, people might not realize this, but this blog has been read in 29 countries. There are "Mt. Lebanonites" all over the world. I am sure it is the same way with your blog. Mine has only been in existence since the end of November.
Elaine
Tom,
The HS is now at rejected bid stage grossly oversize in both enrollment capacity vs. PDE enrollment projections as well as in square feet based on PDE standards...like 67,000 which is larger than the Giant Eagle in Village Square by 17,000 SF ! It is also been bid grossly over bid estimates. It is also grossly beyond the timeline established for the project schedule due to the gross number of errors & omissions by the project team.
The project has been a big disappointment with little to show for the big expense in $ and time devoted to it by a big team of alleged experts and their ardent supporters, athletic and otherwise.
Bill Lewis
Bill Lewis
Bill, I agree on all the big points. Nothing I've seen in the past eighteen months has changed my belief that the high-school project is a wasteful, ineffective response to the school district's educational challenges.
But we already knew this, didn't we?
So what is the "BIG" new thing I'm missing in these documents? I already knew (and I trust that you already knew I already knew), that the currently planned project is excessive, expensive, and wastes a lot of resources that could be invested elsewhere to greater effect. I already knew that the process that has advanced it is complicated, hard to control, bureaucratically unfathomable, and biased toward ignoring opportunity costs.
But we already knew this, didn't we?
So what's the new thing I'm missing?
Regardless of what I'm missing, one thing is clear: The claims and beliefs of the project's most-vocal supporters were recently tested against reality and found to be way off the mark. Some supporters "get" this and some don't, but either way it's unlikely that reality will let them squeeze a project this big onto our balance sheet.
In short, something's gotta give. And, now, after the bids, almost everyone knows it.
Elaine: point taken on Mt. Lebanonites all over the world. Nonetheless, we don't post comments on Blog-Lebo from people (regardless of where they live) unless we think they're using their real names.
Cheers,
Tom
Thanks for letting me know your policy, Tom. I know Dick Saunders. Don't know why I need to be telling you this.
Elaine
A good indicator for judging how BIG a topic is, would be to see how quickly the subject is changed.
We're talking about the RTK that was filed in order to see PlanCon F and the documents associated with it. But you're right. There are no secrets here in Mt. Lebanon. Nuh Uh.
Elaine
From the web:
...'shooting the messenger may be a time-honored emotional response to unwelcome news, but it is not a very effective method of remaining well-informed'.
Getting rid of the messenger may also be a tactical move; but the danger is that an ethos of non-disclosure may follow any hostile response to negative feedback. 'People learn very quickly where this is the case, and will studiously avoid giving any negative feedback; thus the "Emperor" continues with the self-delusion....obviously this is not a recipe for success'.
Barbara Ehrenreich in Bright-sided/Smile or Die argued that a culture of "thinking positive" so as to 'purge "negative people" from the ranks...[fed into] the bubble-itis ' [The Bubble, don't some people call MTL that?] of the late Noughties.
In modern usage, the expression still refers to any kind of punishment meted out to the person bringing bad news, but has taken on an ironic dimension as well. Nevertheless 'it is still worth a man's neck to disturb an emperor's image. Nowadays the axe falls more subtly and the execution may be postponed, but sooner or later it comes'.
Anyway Tom, I can accept your choice to confirm an author.
But I'm glad you also recognize that something has to give.
With "FACTS" maybe we can erradicate bubble-itis!
Dick Saunders
Dick: I have no idea where you're going with the "shoot the messenger" line of reasoning. What I care about is the message. Which is why I keep asking this: What's the message that we're supposed to be getting from these PlanCon documents?
Elaine: we don't need indicators to suggest how "BIG" something is when we can measure it directly: If there's something big in these documents, just tell us what it is. Explain it to your readers in straightforward terms that anyone can follow, and then we'll know how big it is.
Again: I'm not claiming there's nothing here, only that, if there is, you haven't shown it to us yet. I'm willing to believe you, Elaine: just show me what it is I'm missing.
Cheers,
Tom
So now at Blog-Lebo you not only have to sign your name and own your words to post a comment, you have to prove your residency in Mt. Lebanon too.
Tom, do you need a notarized copy of residency from the local magistrate? Does someone have to meet you personally at Aldo’s Coffee to post on your blog or do they just have to post things you agree with, not be harassed by you on a blog?
Keep it up, Tom. Keep telling us what you don’t understand about bond issues and PlanCon documents. Keep insisting that folks prove your bubble view is wrong, that the Board didn’t botch the HS plan by increasing the Sq Footage and keeping the costs at $113,200,000 when Superintendent Allison told us in June 2009 that the costs were at $114,800,000.
As for me, I’m having fun watching your credibility sink. When folks figure out that you are on the Super’s Information Task Force, and that your blog partner at Blog- Lebo started Blog-Lebo with Jo Posti and her husband Steve, they will be asking how you were compromised from your original opposition to the HS to a position of not understanding unfavorable information about this HS project.
Even better, folks will ask how you can question things you don’t understand and try to defend the Board for acting against the wishes of so many much better informed advisors while still maintaining an opposing view.
As for the BIG in this post, Celli asked Jaynes, our paid PlanCon guru if we needed another Act 34 Hearing. Celli said Jaynes said, “NO.” The PlanCon Form posted for all to read says, “To Be Determined.”
Gee, Tom, do you think it is too much trouble for the district-paid Board Secretary and Finance Officer who is signing the PlanCon forms asking for State reimbursement to talk to a paid-district advisor before telling the State she doesn't know the answer to the question about an Act 34 hearing on the PlanCon reimbursement application?
John Ewing
Wait a minute, Giffen Good and Dick Saunders may not be real people using their real names? I thought this was the transparency blog.
Tom Saila
Tom Saila,
This IS a transparency blog. I don't know who you are, but I published your comment. How
could I possibly know everyone? As I wrote previously, this blog has been read in 29 countries.
If you are not using your real name, then you got one on me. I personally know Dick Saunders and know that Giffen Good is using a pen name, but I still monitor every comment. I am sorry that I don't have time to do security checks of people who comment on this blog.
Elaine
Tom you aked: "Dick: I have no idea where you're going with the "shoot the messenger" line of reasoning."
Where were you going with your comment on Dick's bloglebo post in this chain of comments on the HS project and accurate timely delivery of documents?
- Dick Saunders
Tom Moertel,
I should have also disclosed that this document came from a RTK request that was filed with the PDE in Harrisburg. It did not come from the Mt. Lebanon School District. This should have been on the District website along with a working hyperlink. Maybe you will hear from Dr. Steinhauer where he will provide you with a broken link explaining that it has been posted since xxxxx.
Elaine
Everyone: thanks for your responses.
Dick: The reason I wrote to you here about your post not being approved on Blog-Lebo is that posting here is the only way I knew of to reach Dick Saunders. Please understand, when you left your comment on Blog-Lebo, you didn’t leave any contact information, nor did you use an account that had a linked email address, nor could I find any contact information for you from the usual Google searches. Nevertheless, I did owe you an explanation for why your comment wasn’t approved and, since I knew I could reach your here, that’s what I did.
John: Just to be clear, you don’t need to be a Mt. Lebanon resident to post on Blog-Lebo. Our comments policy is the same as always:
Blog-Lebo Comments Policy. Comments are moderated and anonymous comments are not permitted. Comments must include the commenter’s real first and last names and contact information. Putting contact information in your Blogger profile is fine, so long as the Blogger profile is public and lets us see your real name. If we cannot verify who you are, we will not post the comment.
When I wrote to Dick Saunders earlier in this conversation about his comment to Blog-Lebo not meeting approval, I didn’t mean to imply that he had to be a resident to post; rather, I just assumed that he was a resident and wrote my comment accordingly. That is, I meant “a Mt. Lebanonite with that name [Dick Saunders]” to be contrasted with the implied alternative “a Mt. Lebanonite using a pseudonym.”
Elaine: Are you saying that you filed an RTK request with the school district first and they denied it? If so, that is big. Is that what actually happened?
Cheers,
Tom
Benjamin,
Don't you mean "my?"
JJ P. Hamilton
Tom: thanks for the clarification.
I figured you didn't have access to my personal info and assumed as that was the reason it didn't appear.
Didn't complain or ask for an explanation-- its your blog. You can post or not post comments from people at your discretion wither they're known to you or not. No problem here.
It was curious to me why at that point you choose to make that comment and not as soon as my name appeared in the chain.
Oh well, as is usual on these we've gone off track on some meaningless excursion that has nothing to do with our kids education.
Dick Saunders
Tom,
I was as plain as day in the initial post as to what was big. I find it discouraging that people are more caught up in comments and where the people are real or not. I published the actual documents related to the largest and most expensive project in the history of Mt. Lebanon. I asked for these documents to be published on the District website at the last school board meeting I attended and they were not. A RTK was filed with the Department of Education because we have that right. You may or may not think this is big news, and that is certainly your prerogative. I am trying to inform the community of what is going on regarding this Act 34 and bidding process. Maybe I should have called it something else like, "This may be BIG to some of you, or it may not be big news depending on where you stand on the high school project."
And thank you for thoroughly clarifying your position on my blog instead of yours. We were all wondering.
I hope we can get back to the topic at hand, becasue I kinda think it is BIG.
Elaine
Dick, in answer to your implied question, the reason I “choose to make that comment [later] and not as soon as [your] name appeared in the chain” is that it wasn’t until after I posted my comment at 4:44 pm that it dawned upon me that I was talking to “Dick Saunders” and could use this channel to communicate with you. That’s why my follow-on message to you a few minutes later starts with a “P.S.”: it’s a postscript tacked onto my earlier comment.
Elaine, I suspect the reason people are caught up in discussing minutiae and not the “BIG” stuff is because nobody knows what the big stuff is. If people saw it, they would need no prompting to talk about it.
I know, however, that you believe you’ve already made it “plain as day.” If you want to test this belief, print out your blog post and the related PlanCon documents, hand them to residents strolling through Uptown Mt. Lebanon, and ask them, “Can you explain to me what’s the big news here?” My guess is you’ll get blank stares.
Cheers,
Tom
Tom: this is my last post on this chain because it's becoming quite obvious that you enjoy chasing your own tail more than finding a solution!
As evidenced in this comment by you to Bill Lewis: "So what is the "BIG" new thing I'm missing in these documents? I already knew(and I trust that you already knew I already knew)[love that one], that the currently planned project is excessive, expensive, and wastes a lot of resources that could be invested elsewhere to greater effect."
I think Bill, John, Elaine and a large number of MTL taxpayers concur with your assessment.
So can we move forward or keep running round in circles?
I'm curious as to where the VOICE of Mt. Lebanon crew are that absolutely knew [OK trusted- whatever] this project was going to be well south of $113,000,000?
we need a solution and I'm not sure the board that got us into this mess is capable of getting us out.
Dick Saunders
Dick,
I agree that we need to move forward. The thing that you and John and Elaine seem to be missing, however, is that the most promising way to move forward is not to keep doing the same things over and over again, especially when those things have proved ineffective at moving us forward so far.
Moving forward will require something new: getting more of Mt. Lebanon involved. Bill, John, Elaine, and I (and probably you) have thought the current high-school plans were seriously flawed for a long time. But our pleas to the school board have not persuaded them to make any meaningful change in their plans that I’ve been able to observe. If we want change, then, we’ll have to persuade more of Mt. Lebanon to come forward with us, for our voices alone are not enough.
But to get more people to come forward, we must give them a reason to do so. And that’s where I start to differ with many of the fine folks I chat with here on the Lebo Citizens blog.
I believe that to get more people involved, we must explain things to them more clearly than we have so far, because what we’ve said so far hasn’t given them reason to get involved, at least not in the numbers we need. Hence my constant pleas with people not to jump to conclusions but to always lay out their evidence clearly enough that everybody can follow their reasoning.
I’m afraid that many of us are so caught up in the high-school debate that we’ve forgotten that most people aren’t, and that most people don’t know what we know about the project. If we want to reach those people, then, we’ll have to remember to slow down, to put things in context, and to be clear about why the things we claim are “BIG” are indeed big.
If we don’t make this extra effort, why should we expect anybody take us seriously?
Cheers,
Tom
We might be getting close to a consensus Tom.
Realizing we-- no actually it's the board-- is doing the same thing all over again.
Tom I'd like to read your suggestion(s)on how they should move the project forward.
Dick Saunders
John Ewing -- I'm not sure what type of comment you're trying to make about Tom and I regarding the creation of Blog-Lebo, but you are incorrect regarding who created it.
Michael Madison created Blog-Lebo in August of 2005. I was one of a few authors that joined in after its creation. Please do not attempt to lump me in with any previous contributors to the blog (and their ideologies) since Tom and I are the only ones that currently maintain it.
Tom, I would think the folks who showed up at the April 28 3:30 PM EDT groundbreaking should want to get involved because it was postponed indefinitely.
They were excited about the project moving forward, but left with thier heads hung low not only because of the project, but also because nobody communicated to them the groundbreaking was "postponed".
Bill, John, Elaine and you don't need to do anything to get people involved. David Huston
Joe, I'm not interested in your lies. Jo and Steve Posti both had their names on the masthead when Blog-Lebo started. If you are saying that is wrong, then your credibility is lower than Tom's.
John Ewing
John,
You're a former school board director, right?
So...
Post a Comment