Dan Remely is incorrect about the time needed to replace a school board director. As with finding a replacement for James Fraasch, the process must be completed in thirty days, not two or three months as he first claimed. David Huston was correct. Another thing that bothered me when I watched the meeting this morning, the school board directors reacted inappropriately towards Mr. Huston's comments. Personal attacks were made towards Mr. Huston, and that was uncalled for. He was merely pointing out policy and tried to handle the situation as delicately as possible. I see it as another example of bullying, which the school board does so well. It is unfortunate that Director Sue Rose has been out of commission for as long as she had been, but there was no communication until last night's agenda about her status. We were due an explanation, don't you think? And for school board directors to be insulted, was not necessary or appropriate. The community was uninformed again.
Steve Diaz's ongoing conversation with Dale Ostergaard has been fruitful. It will be a topic of future discussion. Thank you, Dale. Here is another letter from Steve Diaz.
Bond restrictions?
Dale and Members of the Board: I have been advised that the bonds you sold on behalf of the district for the "renovation" project, commencing in the Fall of 2009, may be restricted to construction and renovation purposes. Such restrictions may now limit your options given the failure of your effort to move forward with the project as proposed. Given this fact, what are you doing with the money in the interim? We are certainly paying interest on it. Are you drawing any income off the idle funds? If you are drawing such income, is the district subject to IRS arbitrage penalties if the funds are not spent within a certain time (say, two years)? What is the full scope of permitted uses of the proceeds? What do you intend to do under the obligations of the bonds as issued?
If you can only spend the money on "renovation" and construction, what happens if you cannot deliver the project you promised to the public as reflected in the Act 34 Handbook and the glossy brochure you mailed out to all of us? Or, what happens, as now seems quite likely, if you cannot even commence construction before the end of October of this year? Do you have any constraint of law or policy to revisit major changes in the scope or nature of the work with the public, or anyone else? I realize that you, as a collective body, feel absolutely no obligation to advise the public of your plans or activities (I think one of your number put it most accurately at the public meeting when you passed the "no release of email without the author's consent" rule, saying: "If they don't know we have it, they cannot seek it under the Right to Know")---but will you tell me, now that I ask, how you plan to proceed? The current hearings and agenda items seem a jumble of posturing and confusion, with no clear approach. You seem just to want to build anything, to prove you did something. It is actually amusing (but for the devastating financial and educational results) to watch your members scramble for "solutions" that entail back-tracking from everything you formerly said was "essential" to the project, and now trying to claim as your own the very criticisms of the original proposal The 4,000 put before you time and again only to be ridiculed and bullied by your undemocratic antics.
All the while, not the board corporately, nor any individual member has stepped forward to take any measure of personal responsibility for your stewardship or oversight of the project. For example, how about the chairman of the renovation committee, Mr. Remely, and his erstwhile side-kick, Ms. ("it's only a latte a day") Cappucci, or other board members, such as Mary Birks, who rather than listen to the public at the Act 34 hearings, first told the public that those hearings were "too late" an occasion to raise any objections (have you actually read Act 34?), before lecturing the public on why only your now discredited and failed plan was acceptable to you. Does it occur to any member of the board that the "buck stops here"? If the public is not to hold each of you personally responsible for your project, to whom do we turn? Why do you think the school board is elected by the people? The members of the board need to demonstrate the courage of their convictions, to accept the consequences of their own public acts, and to admit that "Sun Gods" they are not, nor do they enjoy a Divine Right to rule over us. If you are responsible, you should at least be mature enough to say so, admit error and arrogance, apologize to your constituents who have placed a public trust in your hands - but whom you have failed.
You can certainly continue to "stonewall" and hope the scandal will blow over. You can tough it out. Hide behind your secrecy and your bullying (and the bullies you send out to intimidate your legitimate critics). But, you cannot face your neighbors walking through Uptown, or at the dry-cleaners or the grocery, with any assurance that behind the polite greetings, or the discrete evasion of face-to-face contact that the old admiration and support is still there. Sometimes, on the other hand, you do show symptoms of shame by avoiding contact with your local critics, as, yes, has been noted in recent select table-hopping by Ms. Cappucci and Mr. Remeley, for example. The point is that you have not only lost respect in this community, you are dividing us and causing deep social and economic injury. Is that why you "offered" to serve? The best service you can do at this time for Mt. Lebanon is to show your own respect for the people who live here, who parent the students you are supposed to be educating, and who pay the bills you rack up, even when the interest we pay is for money that you leave laying around for years with no legitimate use, by taking responsibility for the taking and use of our money and the education of our children. Your cavalier and ineffective stewardship has degraded the effectiveness of this school district and threatens our strong and proud academic tradition. You cannot substitute intrigue for policy, or bullying for leadership.
Dale, you recently asked me why only one "outsider" is running for the school board, given all that I have raised. It is a good and telling question, the answer to which is as sad as it is obvious: the school board has created an atmosphere of fear and intimidation in which people are afraid of what the board members and their cronies will do to harass them and their families. It is very troubling that 4,000 people would sign an historically unprecedented petition in opposition to your center-piece policy, but then give rise to only a single candidacy at the next election for multiple directors. You decry student bullying, as you should, but how can you not see the impact of your own bullying on the social and political life of our town? So, the ball is in your court: will you engage the authors of what you now concede are very practical concerns with your program, or will you continue to demonstrate hubris and arrogance beyond sufferance? It is your decision as to how you want to engage the public and how you will comport your duty of public responsibility now that you have committed to pursue the authority of elected office.
Respectfully. Steve Diaz
Jan Klein reported at last night's meeting, that she was having a conference call with the financial advisor this morning. I hope the issue of IRS penalties is discussed, as well as bond restrictions. The podcast is online at 7/11/11 School Board Discussion Meeting.
48 comments:
I'm sorry to disagree, but this was not a "delicate" discussion by any means!
To Ms. Rose, best wishes for a speedy and full recovery and a sincere thank you for your dedication to your office.
- Giffen Good
It wasn't a delicate matter when members of Ms. Rose's campaign committee bullied two senior citizens with a lawsuit in court because they asked questions at school board meetings.
Mr. Frasch was not treated in a delicate manner when he was bullied in executive sessions by board members to the point that he refused to attend.
A Mom wasn't treated in a delicate manner when she was sued in court for filing a Right-to-Know Request.
It wasn't a delicate discussion when Ms. Birks attacked Mr. Hart, his family, and his children in a public meeting with a cowardly question.
It was not a delicate lawsuit against the zoning hearing board. Worse yet, the board could not have done that without the help of the Solicitor and his associates.
Ms. Rose's vote to fire Dr. Sable was not delicate and probably damaged student outcomes and set this district on a downward course that can't be cured by sticks and bricks.
Ms. Rose also voted for TWO UNEXPLAINED teachers 'contract extensions. What are the contract extensions about? The details have been withheld from the public and the public questions were ignored by an insensitive and insular school board.
Lastly, the latest 2010 Satisfaction Survey results FAILED to show improvement in any area over the 2007 base year. The "School Board's" satisfaction survey result was entirely ignored in the 2010 report. So tell me why any board member or any resident should be happy with Ms. Rose's contribution?
John Ewing
Ms. Posti, the difference is Dale Colby showed up at meetings.
God rest his soul.
David Huston
Steve,
It looks like they have chosen to "continue to demonstrate hubris and arrogance beyond sufferance."
Elaine
Last night, I watched the discussion meeting on TiVo. I had two thoughts.
First, let’s pray for Mrs. Rose’s speedy recovery. I didn’t know she had been through such an ordeal, and everyone in that situation deserves our prayers and support.
Second, the whole heated exchange between David and the school board was unfortunate and terribly awkward. It’s doubly unfortunate because it was probably caused, at least in part, by information asymmetry.
When David made his initial comments, each person listening on the school board was probably intimately aware of the full extent of Mrs. Rose’s recent ordeal, whereas David (and the public in general) probably was not. So while David commented in ignorance of this knowledge, his comments were interpreted in painful awareness of it. To the school board, then, it looked like David was kicking a dear friend while she was down, and they, being human and in an emotionally charged state, responded with emotion and condemnation.
For his part, though, David should have realized the social implications of what he was doing. You don’t kick people when they’re down: you help them up. So if you’re going to do something that could even remotely be interpreted as kicking someone, down or not, you ought to make sure you understand the situation and whether it’s best to hold out your hand instead.
As I said, it was an unfortunate and terribly awkward exchange. Nobody looked good. But it happened, and all involved ought to ask themselves what they can do from now on to defuse such situations.
Mr. Ewing is wrong again. The actions of a committee (which included the two gentlemen he's referring to) were investigated because of questionable election issues involving at least one sitting school board member and the sitting Allegheny County Controller.
It was not because of questions asked at a school board meeting.
Mr. Huston is out of line. You have no idea what Mrs. Rose's physical condition is or isn't and should just stop.
I just listened to the recording and it is very clear Ms. Posti violated policy BEDL:
"At the call to order of the meeting, the presiding officer shall inform all Board members and all
others in attendance at the meeting of the identity of the absent Board member(s) who are
participating by teleconference."
What is the penalty?
David Huston
Franci,
I'm not interested in your excuses. Your conduct is not excusable nor is that of Karen Cullen or your husbands who participated in the lawsuit.
As far as Sue Rose is concerned, I don't wish her ill health but the sooner she is off the school board and takes her "friends" with her, the better for the community and our children!!
David Huston was bullied by several board members when a polite explanation would have been respectful. But we can't expect too much from this school board or their "friends"! Right Franci?
John Ewing
Tom, you said it in a nutshell. "First, let’s pray for Mrs. Rose’s speedy recovery. I didn’t know she had been through such an ordeal, and everyone in that situation deserves our prayers and support."
Back when this ordeal started, in my opinion, Jospehine Posti should have announced that Sue Rose was in critical condition and that our thoughts and prayers are with her and her family. Instead, Sue was MIA and nothing was ever said. I am sure David brought it up because it was an action item on the agenda. That was the first time anything was ever mentioned. But like everything else, the community was left in the dark. Any decent human being would have hoped for Sue to have a speedy recovery, no matter what she did or didn't do. To an outsider, Sue was not at meetings and then all of a sudden, sounded great on the phone, not knowing that she had been in the ICU. It is real easy to make David Huston look like the heavy, but he was going strictly by what was presented to the community and what is policy. Even when the President of the US is too sick to serve, we have the Vice President step in. And then it is business as usual. It isn't a matter of how hard he worked in the past; it is just "Life goes on." We deserved an explanation, Josephine.
Elaine,
Just because someone sounds "great" on the phone doesn't mean they are well enough to attend a meeting.
Do you really think it is anyone's "right" to know the health status of a school board member, regardless of their physical presence?
Did you equate a School Board Director with the President?
To Mr. Ewing...that was not an excuse...and sorry to inform you but the "friends" of Sue Rose will still be active participants in this community even when her term is complete.
Franci,
First of all, thank you for commenting.
Let's try this, if you think is more appropriate. A teacher is very sick and can't teach a class. Do the students deserve a substitute teacher? Are the parents expected to have the teacher teleconference after being absent for an extended period? Do they deserve an explanation? They don't have to get a medical report, but should be given some sort of status report. Or do the students just sit there because of all that the teacher contributed in the past? I am not comparing Sue Rose to the Presidency. Do I really need to do this, Franci? Really? And if a person is not attending meeting after meeting, it is our right to know why or at least get a status report, don't ya think? When Jan Klein was having health issues, we were informed she was having health issues. Period. We didn't ask for details, but just saying that she was having health issues was enough. Same thing here. Even the Almanac said, "pending her recovery from recent health issues."
Josephine Posti is never wrong. She belittles and insults. The Board chimes in. We deserved an explanation. What I say or how I say it isn't the issue here. It is how this was situation was handled is the issue. And it was handled poorly.
Franci,
You missed Elaine's point. If Josephine had used her communication skills to explain Ms. Rose's absence the entire problem would not have happened and no details of Ms. Rose's illness would not have been an issue. The Agenda item would have been unnecessary.
And speaking of communication why won't Josephine or the friends of Sue Rose tell us about those two Contract Extensions that Sue voted for are all about?
John Ewing.
Elaine,
I don't think a classroom teacher's illness is the same as a School Director's so I don't get that comparison.
When Sue first got unexpectedly ill I don't think it was up to Jo, or any Board member, to make any announcement or "status report." I think they were most likely waiting to see the course of her recovery.
Given that, I think the point of the last meeting's policy vote partly was to say to the public "Sue is participating by teleconference."
How does that announcement qualify Mr. Huston to ask for her resignation? How does that "allow her to leave with her reputation intact?"
That was an insulting comment no matter how you put it.
I can appreciate that you wanted to know sooner about Sue's "status" but I think that the time was appropriate.
Mr. Ewing,
As a "friend of Sue Rose" I am not privy to teacher contract issues any more than any other resident.
I have no idea what you think is "the secret."
P.S. Do you think it to be insulting/snarky/mean to keep referring to me as a friend of Sue Rose?
You should be so privileged.
I guess there is never an appropriate comparison. I found an article about a school board director in Arizona who missed several meetings, but I suppose that wouldn't be an appropriate comparison since she was from Arizona.
I have been in situations where someone was critically ill at work, and welcomed the outpouring of support and well wishes. But I guess that is comparing apples to oranges since I am comparing a paid employee to a volunteer.
As far as Mr. Huston goes, he has the right to ask for any or all of the school board directors' resignations. In fact, it has been done by many in recent months.
As I said, we deserved to hear something. Four months is an awfully long time to keep the community in the dark.
Elaine
Right off the bat I'll reiterate - best wishes for Mrs. Rose's speedy recovery.
And no, I don't need to hear the specifics of her illness, it sounds serious and apparently is so to keep her away from board meetings.
While Mr. Huston may or may not have been delicate, I blame the board for this whole discussion and it lays squarely at the feet of the board president. Mrs. Rose's absence was apparent and not to address it with her constituents was negligent.
This whole discussion could have been avoided had a simple announcement been made that Mrs. Rose needed some personal time and would be absent. End of story.
But as usual the board as it does in so many things failed to include their constituents. The absence from duties by any public official would be questioned by a diligent press and public. It happens often and usually includes questions as to whether the official can perform their duties.
While I doubt that I'll read an honest response here, I'm left to my own speculations as to what would have happened had James Fraasch or Mark Hart experience a similar health problem?
I can only imagine who would've crawled out from the woodwork.
As an example, we had public cries for Fraasch's resignation and he wasn't absent, only expressing his legitimate opinions! But, hey it was OK to crucify him, and it was OK for board members to sit on their hands and let it happen. Same thing happened to Dirk Taylor, certain board members cast aspersions and innuendo regarding his qualifications and experience, but not one board member stood in his defense! An absolutely disgusting performance I won't forget!
And if memory serves me, I believe there were more than a few scornful remarks made that Mr. Hart wasn't diligent in his duties after missing an occasional meeting or two.
So once again, best wishes for a speedy recovery Mrs. Rose! Its a shame and you surely didn't need this.
Perhaps you might serve your constituents better and recover faster without some of this nonsense hanging over your head, but that is your decision to make.
To several of the self-righteous board members - people that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones!
- Giffen Good
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell," seems to be the Board's new motto.
Bill Clinton
You can’t lay this one at the feet of the school board. Both David and the school board come to those meetings with their guns cocked and ready to draw on each other. Both seem all too confident of their own righteousness and the other’s wickedness. Both seem all too eager to believe the worst things about each other. Both seem all too willing to pull the trigger rather than to ask forgiveness or seek parley.
Mrs. Rose and the resolution on teleconferencing had little to do with Monday’s performance. Other reasons would have triggered the shooting just as easily, and have done so in the past. Both parties had opportunities to defuse the situation, but neither seemed interested in taking them. Instead, both were driven deeper into conflict by their stubborn, mutual belief that the other was Up To No Good and Must Be Stopped.
At all costs, apparently.
Tom,
That is unfair to say about David. He goes to every meeting except for one which he asked you to record and many times never says a word. He goes to record meetings for you to hear at your convenience. Because of David's recordings, you were able to take advantage of that in your two page MLAO article in InCommunity Magazine.
We had heard nothing about Sue Rose for months. Months. As you said, even you had no idea how serious things were, Tom. Didn't you ever wonder how Sue was doing?
Do you really think it was up to David to diffuse the situation? I thought that was up to the one presiding over the meeting, but maybe I'm wrong. Do you remember how nasty Josephine Posti was on TV when that Baldwin house burnt down in December and 3 pets died in the fire? Oh, maybe you're right.
Tom, sometimes you have to call a spade a spade!
I still have no idea what Mrs. Rose's medical problem is, though she did say she was in ICU for 21 days. That sounds pretty drastic and I'm sure she doesn't need all this tension right now.
That's why I believe had the board dealt with her absence upfront, guns wouldn't have been drawn and we wouldn't be discussing it in this indelicate manner now.
Taxpayers still have a right to ask questions if she is fulfilling her board obligations in a polite and considerate manner.
I'm done on this topic. Get well soon, Mrs. Rose.
- Giffen Good
Elaine, please understand that I didn't offer criticism of David's record of attendance, or of his record of recording meetings, or of his record of speaking or not speaking at meetings. I offered criticism of his, and equally of the school board's, apparent mutual lack of interest in finding a peaceable way to express their differences.
If you choose to believe that David (or equally the school board) didn't have opportunities to defuse the situation, or at least not to escalate it, you didn't watch the same video I did.
I'll make my claim clear, so there can be no further misunderstanding: For something like Monday night to happen, both parties involved have to let it. And, Monday night, they did.
Cheers,
Tom
Shooting at a school board meeting, Mr. Moertel? Your choice of words is disturbing. Wasn't Mr. Huston given an allotted time to get his point across? Now he is required to defuse his comments during that time? Ms. Gillen and Mr. Good are right. Ms. Posti should have been upfront with us from the beginning.
Ms. Rose, my best to you too.
~Therese McDowell
Giffen & Therese,
Do you believe that David’s conduct Monday night was forced upon him by the school board? They may have forced the issue, but he alone is responsible for how he addressed it. (Or do you believe that the school board is now responsible for other people’s conduct?)
Likewise, do you believe that the school board’s conduct Monday night was forced upon them by David? David may have provoked their response, but they alone are responsible for how they responded.
That’s the point I’ve been trying to get across: After accounting for the initial misunderstanding, both David’s and the school board’s conduct Monday night was embarrassing. They both would be well served by asking themselves what they can do to avoid such flare-ups from now on.
Which brings us to the real problem: Right now, on the school board, people are justifying their conduct in Monday night’s verbal shoot-out by blaming David. And, just the same, right here on the Lebo Citizens blog, people are justifying David’s conduct by blaming the school board.
Each side is so convinced that the other is wrong, that they can’t bring themselves to consider that maybe, just maybe, they’re part of the problem.
And that’s the real problem.
Right off the bat Tom, I wasn't justifying Mr. Huston's comments to the board. Nor was I criticizing him either. There may have been a more discreet or for lack of a better term "polite" means of questioning Mrs. Rose's absence. The board idn't make one available.
All I'm saying is this board created the situation.
Since the Sable fiasco thru the high school FAQ, to the present HS design and bidding process the board continues to relate to the community with only "their side", fairy tales or avoidance of uncomfortable topics.
Last year the board gave the community a substantial rate hike. Of course, we were told they absolutely had to do it. Just as they just had to increase administrators and teacher salaries.
This year, an election year of course, they managed to freeze the millage rate despite a $1.2 million cut from the state. That tells me they really didn't need all the rate they took last year, otherwise some furloughs or cuts should have been necessary this year. No, the board wants voters to believe they are being frugal with our money. Don't ask how, just be a believer and we'll all get along!
Aak an uncomfortable question, they'll avoid it, if they can't they'll cry foul.
Should there have been an explanation for Mrs. Rose's absence - yes, right from the start.
How long is it acceptable or how incapacitated does a board member need to be before they should resign or be dismissed - a legitimate question!
If there is a policy in place, what is it? Mr. Huston asked and I never heard them give him an answer. Did you Tom?
I'd like to know when that "LESS THAT $95 MILLION" high school project starts that was presented in the Act 34 hearing?
The one the board floated a bond for! The one we're currently paying taxes for! The one we absolutely had to have!
I don't want to sit through one more idiotic power presentation with meaningless bubble diagrams that mean absolutely nothing defining "someone's" BEST PLAN DU JOUR for the high school. Do I need to show up at a meeting with triggers cocked to get an answer? And when I do will I be castigated for my indiscretion?
There are countless reason why the community is at odds with the board and they need to get the message.
Tom, you round-about made that point on the recent legislation on exemptions over at Bloglebo, as I read your thoughts.
- Giffen Good
Giffen, we don't know about policies like we used to. The Policy Committee meetings were moved to 4:30 so that Larry Lebowitz can spend time with his kids. What confuses me is, if he can get out of work early for the meetings, why doesn't he spend it with his kids and have the meeting at a normal time? We all have to get out of work early or change our schedules so that Larry can see his kids. I would love to see the meetings moved back to 7:00 or 7:30 again in the fall when they return. Nobody was able to record the last policy committee meeting because of conflicts.
All of the school board directors read this, so as Giffen Good asked...
How long is it acceptable or how incapacitated does a board member need to be before they should resign or be dismissed?
Ms. Gillen you are forgetting Larry Lebo-Lips was selected to mouth the Board's opinion. He has the same respect for the opinions of others that other board members exhibit.
Tom, you are forgetting nothing in the Sunshine Law restricts free speech. Not all opinions will suit everyone's taste but it is a law that residents and taxpayers have a right to speak at public meetings. If the board members don't like the law they can speak to State lawmakers.
What separates a good board from a bad board is respect shown by the president in answering comments she doesn't like. Both the president and other board members were ruse, crude, and socially unacceptable in their response to Mr. Houston. Sarah Morris
I'm not as concerned with board member absence as I am with where is the "ACT 34 "less than $95 million" building the district has been billing me for? Ground breaking was set for what - last spring!
Not the "THIS NOW "THE BEST" BUILDING PLAN DU JOUR - BUT WE STILL DON"T KNOW WHAT I'LL COST! - the one they raised my tax bill to pay Celli for those awe inspiring color renderings and the bond holders for.
- Giffen Good
Sarah,
What did I say that even hints at restricting freedom of speech? I support and defend freedom of speech.
Is it really so hard to understand that what people say and how they say it matters? Maybe the following questions will make it clear.
Do you have the right to say something that’s hurtful? Of course.
Do you have the right to expect that, when you say something that’s hurtful, it not be held against your character and credibility? No.
Go back and watch the recording of the meeting. Now tell me: Who comes out looking good?
Nobody.
That’s the point.
Cheers,
Tom
P.S. For what it’s worth, when I suggested to the school board recently that Policy Committee meetings be recorded and shared with the community, it was Mr. Lebowitz, himself, who leaped to support the idea.
Tom,
Yes, I remember the recorder suggestion. But let's think about this. If the policy committee had access to the equipment just upstairs to record the meetings and didn't, why would they want to buy a little recorder to record the meetngs? And if they did take advantage of your suggestion, what would have been done with the recording? Nothing. The right answer was to support your idea. I had suggested that they move the Policy Committee meetings into the Library so that they could be recorded. I had requested that the meetings be moved back to their original times. They said they would consider my requests. Again, the correct answer.
Do you know how long it is acceptable or how incapacitated a board member needs to be before they should resign or be dismissed?
I am still waiting hear from the School Board.
Elaine
Just out of curiosity, I checked the timeline of the time change of policy meetings. Sue Rose's last school board meeting was March 21, 2011. The first policy meeting at 4:30 was May 3, 2011.
It was originally scheduled for 7:30, but the time changed somewhere between April 11 and April 18. I am sure it was just a coincidence.
Elaine
Elaine,
I would like to answer the questions in your first paragraph or so but have no idea what you’re trying to say. Is “the correct answer” good or bad? Did the school board do the right or wrong thing this time? I can’t tell. Your intended meaning is indecipherable. Can you put what you’re trying to say into a clear, direct statement?
Regarding your final question, I do not “know how long it is acceptable or how incapacitated a board member needs to be before they should resign or be dismissed.” I can, however, say that your question seems to overlook, if just a teensy bit, that we live in a democratic society, and, when voters put somebody into office, their choice is – and ought to be – hard as hell to undo.
So if you’re thinking that a duly elected representative can be driven from office just because you think she’s unfit, good luck with that.
Cheers,
Tom
Whew. Tempest in a teapot. :)
1) I was not at the meeting.
2) I haven't watched the broadcast.
From what I gather from just this comment thread, Ms. Rose has been conspicuously absent from board meetings.
That's cause for concern, and it's a fair question to ask why. Likewise, medical or extenuating personal circumstances are a reasonable (and justifiably non-public) explanation.
So that's that.
Now then, it sounds like what actually happened was:
A) nobody thought to mention that
B) so somebody asked about it
C) people leapt to wrong conclusions or suspicions of bad intent
D) the whole thing got way out of hand.
I think what Tom is trying to say here is that when you have A and B, if you're not careful about avoiding C, you get D. And D sucks. D makes everyone look bad. Don't do D - ergo, avoid C.
I believe Tom's remarks are best interpreted that way. Furthermore, I think he is making the point that after D happens, C becomes easier, resulting in further D... vicious death spiral. And nobody likes a vicious death spiral. :)
So - questions we may ask ourselves:
* Do we agree that A and B will naturally occur when there is unshared information?
* Do we agree that C could have been avoided?
* Do we see where we, each personally could avoid C in the future?
Tom,
How's this?
Correct answer = what you want to hear.
I hope I have taken my indecipherable paragraph and made a clearer, more direct statement for you to understand.
And guess what, Tom? You are doing exactly what the SB did the other night. I think it is a reasonable question that Giffen Good raised, but you twist it to make me sound like a terrible person for questioning the policy. Now, according to you, I am trying to drive Sue Rose out of office and I am some kind of Communist?
And the question still goes unanswered.
Matt,
You got it.
In answer to your parting questions: Yes (although I’d say “is more likely to occur” instead of “will naturally occur,” yes, and yes.
Elaine,
Please, let’s not fight. I’m trying to help. (And please accept my apologies for the final line of my previous comment; it does indeed seem snarky.)
Please understand, however, that I haven’t said anything here because anyone questioned policy. Rather, I am trying to help you understand that how you question policy (or do anything else) affects how everyone else sees you; it affects your character and the credibility of what you say. And, when you are willing to read ill intent into the motives of the people you disagree with, it becomes all too easy to say and do things that make you look unreasonable. (And, just so we’re clear, I’m using you in the sense that means “any person in general,” not you personally. What I’ve written here applies equally to all participants in Monday night and to the people taking sides over it.)
On your final statement, the reason the question goes unanswered is that it probably doesn’t have an answer. Please consider the democratic context in which such questions must be considered. Removing a duly elected representative from office is an extraordinary event. There probably aren’t rules for cases like these. Don’t you think something like this would go before a judge, who would have to make up the rules based on the specifics of the situation?
So just asking the question, and expecting an answer, suggests you aren’t considering the bigger picture. What I’m trying to help you (and others here) do, is step back and see it.
Cheers,
Tom
Tom, I thought I was opting out of this discussion on Sue Rose, and for the most part I think I am.
If she stay or goes makes no diffence to me at this point.
My question which you've manage to turn into one more fight was- at what point does a school board member become unable to perform the duties of their elected office and what are the proceeds for dealing with that problem.
Are you telling me that if a board member starts to show signs of dementia or alzheimers or suffers some sort of mental incapacity ( and I'm not inferring that Mrs. Rose is exhibiting either or suffering one) they continue in office just because they were elected?
I agree with your comment: "So if you’re thinking that a duly elected representative can be driven from office just because you think she’s [he's] unfit, good luck with that."
You are 100%, absolutely, positively right on that point.
I hope people including several board members that asked for Mr. Fraasch's ouster or censure get that message too!!!
Matt Wilson gets the point, by the way.
Now that we've beat that issued to death, where's the Act 34 "less than $95 million high school" we've been paying for?????
- Giffen Good
Matt as so you eloquently commented: "Now then, it sounds like what actually happened was:
A) nobody thought to mention that
B) so somebody asked about it
C) people leapt to wrong conclusions or suspicions of bad intent
D) the whole thing got way out of hand."
Which is why I laid fault at the feet of the board. No one took step A! Had they done so, (and had a policy in place should a member be come unfit or unable to serve) there would be no reason for steps B, C, and D!!!
I don't understand why Tom continues to add powder to the pan???
- Giffen Good
Let's face the facts folks! James Fraasch voted his conscience and was driven from the board by the directors and their Mafia.
Rose voted withe the Group and got special treatment from board members; we now have the Rose Amendment to Policy.
The board even elected a new member who thinks like they do. The recording of the screening meetings is posted on lebocitizen.com.
The bottom line is the board writes policy then ignores policy when it is convenient for THEM. If you don't believe that, Tom, run for school board and find out yourself; see how you enjoy living with hypocrisy, closed minds, and ignorant behavior.
John Ewing
Giffen,
I’m not trying to add “powder to the pan,” but only to get you and other readers to consider that A does not fully explain B, nor does it lessen responsibility for C and D. To suggest, then, that A caused B, C, and D, and to “lay fault at the feet of the board” for Monday night, is to ignore an important part of the story.
Cheers,
Tom
Tom, I'm didn't suggest that "A caused B, C, and D!"
You obviously missed the point Matt and I were making. Nobody on the board thought to mention that Mrs. Rose would be (A) - absent.
Had they dealt with Ms. Rose's absence up front the only issue then would've been - can MAJOR school board matters be resolved without a full board.
We've had several 8-0 votes already in which Mrs. Rose didn't PUBLICLY participate in the discussion or the vote. (There could be possible violations of the Sunshine Act though if she privately participated in deliberations or discussions on the issues with other board members which were subsequently voted on by the board, by the way!)
Are you also suggesting her participation or any missing members participation in district matters is of no consequence?
The board is supposed to be comprised of nine members... not 8, not 7, not 6, not 5, not 4, not 3, not 2, not 1... 9! That's N-I-N-E... 9!
A taxpayer is entirely justified to question how long a board seat goes vacant or for how long a board member can participate by phone.
Here's an issue. How does Mrs. Rose [or any member] in a phone link SEE documents or visual evidence (as Mr. Matthews often does) presented to the board? Does she cast her vote missing that relevant information?
Reminds me of one board member announcing their decision on the high school project prior to the Act 34 hearing! The message was clear.... I don't care what residents are going to tell me, its unimportant!
They were suppose to listen to evidence and feelings of their constituents towards the project, that's why its called a "hearing"!
So tell me, Tom... what is the rest of the story?
- Giffen Good
Giffen,
With all respect, I think the rest of the story is... well, let me use an analogy.
Folks who know me know I have a lot of kids. So I've learned a couple things about them. Kids have short tempers, and kids don't always tell you all the facts.
Now, when it comes to light that you haven't received all of the facts from a kid, you may start suspecting them of having done wrong. It's natural, and the not knowing makes us grown-ups go to all manner of worrying about disaster scenarios.
Sometimes, though, the kid doesn't want to talk about it because it's just personal. And in those moments it takes a lot of character to be able to say: you know what - I get that. You have your privacy rights like any other human being, and I need to accept a degree of necessary distance and ignorance.
So - while I do agree that all this could have been forfended with a simple: "Attendance status: Ms. Rose is absent, and will remain so for an indeterminate time, due to personal matters." ... it didn't happen.
Now, I'm not going to stretch so far as to call that wrong, but it's certainly regrettable given the outcome. Nonetheless, as I pointed out: when B isn't yielding the answer you want, you gotta avoid C.
Finally, and regardless of the above: I'm curious about what the statutory guidance is myself. Not because I think we're running close to any kind of threshold, but just to understand how such matters are handled, because I really don't know.
My supposition is that it would need to be acted on first by some sort of board resolution, or by petition in the absence thereof. But if anyone actually has the appropriate legal citations... let's hear 'em :)
Matt, what I see happening here is that it will be handled case by case. In other words, different rules for different people. Why not handle all the policies this way? If a student violates a policy, the Board will base their decision on who that kid is first and then take a stand.
Not fair, is it? Why have policies?
Elaine
Matt, I agree with you and your analogy. Just because A didn't happen and B didn't yield the answer you expected, it doesn't automatically mean something is going on or being hidden. Exactly the reason I'm not overly worried there is funny business regarding Mrs. Rose.
Unlike kids though, the board manages a rather large public entity paid for by taxpayers.
Lets look at a different angle, a board member goes absent for whatever reason very early in their term. No telling when or if they'll return to full functionality.
Does the board wait until the next election to fill the seat?
How about if the member recovers just enough to communicate by phone, but can't read documents or see say, high school architectual drawings or resident's evidence?
Suppose the absent director is a known proponent of the previous HS plan or spending.
Is it in the remaining board's interest to keep that seat intact to avoid opening that seat to possible opposition to their plans?
Certainly seems plausible.
- Giffen Good
And while we on the topic of office holders... in Ward 3 the current commissioner has his house for sale.
Lets suppose he buys a new house, in another ward or maybe outside Mt. Lebanon, before his current residence is sold.
Where he declares his primary residence I imagine determines whether he retains his seat, but is he serving his constituents best interest if his future lies in casting votes that may benefit his new neighborhood over his former?
Giving say - Ward 1 two commissioners and Ward 3 none. Just curious!
- Giffen Good
Giffen,
Point well taken. The board members are (or ought to be... ;) grown-up enough to acknowledge a failure in communication before it goes south.
But, again to Tom's point as I understand it - that cuts both ways.
As to the notion of a "strategic absence" - that is an interesting concept. But I'm not sure I see as how it would matter in our case were it to be true (and that is totally a subjunctive were there!)
If the (hypothetical) board were collusive enough to employ and succeed in such a strategy, they're presumably collusive enough to simply win by majority in the face of any opposing voices.
Matt:
A friend just sent me this link to a letter published in the Almanac last year.
http://bloglebo.blogspot.com/2010/08/ml-board-member-sets-record-straight.html
They highlight Mrs. Rose's record straightening comment: "Mr. Taylor's assertion that the deduct alternatives were developed to "cheapen the bids" conflicts with his ongoing criticism that the cost is too high."
My friends assertion is that indeed the alternatives now being looked at by the board are designed to "cheapen" the bids. Cheaper roofing, cheaper loading dock design, cheaper glass, cheaper flooring. Cheaper lighting controls, cheaper wiring, etc. etc.
OK I know, Mr. Celli calls the clear glass and metal panels for instance, "less expensive" not cheaper. Same diffence in my opinion.
By not being present as these plans are presented and discussed is Mrs. Rose missing out on pertinent information? Would she lobby her fellow board members not to accept the changes in discussions?
- Giffen Good
"If the (hypothetical) board were collusive enough to employ and succeed in such a strategy, they're presumably collusive enough to simply win by majority in the face of any opposing voices."
Matt, thats true!
- Giffen Good
Matt,
If you want the rest of the story, you probably ought to watch the recording. Having just reviewed it myself, it’s hard to ignore the evidence suggesting that, at the time the speaker approached the lectern, it was already known to him that “Ms. Rose was absent, and would remain so for an indeterminate time, due to personal matters.” For example, in his initial comments he tells the school board that “she can get a medial leave.”
In other words, reviewing the recording makes it harder to believe that A truly explains B.
Watch (or listen to) the first few minutes of the recording and let me know if you still believe that all this could have been forfended with a simple announcement like the one you suggested. (Giffen, you might want to do the same.)
Cheers,
Tom
Tom that is why I made my very first post in this chain. I believe the subject could have been braoched more delicately. Though the questions weren't totally out of line.
-Giffen Good
Post a Comment