The following letter was written by Mt. Lebanon resident, Steve Diaz.
Sat, Aug 20, 2011 2:07 pm
Members of the school board: Well, another interesting unanimous decision has come down from you disposing of our money. Apparently you have now, cumulatively over the past 2 years, given a total of some 11% of salary increases to the district superintendent, and given him more time off as well. Given the state of the economy in general, and of the finances of our school district in particular, it bears some analysis as to what might be the basis for such a decision. I suppose there were objective professional criteria used to justify such a decision, but in examining those I personally think might be pertinent I find myself once again baffled by the seemingly careless way you dispose of other people's money (in this case, the money of the taxpayers of the Mt. Lebanon School District.)
Among the criteria I would expect the school board to consider in determining any potential increase in compensation might be: (1) academic performance of our schools; (2) management of the school renovation process; and (3) our general fiscal condition. By any of these objective standards, your decision is unwise and unfounded. First, with regard to academic performance, since the superintendent was hired we have realized a steady decline in our standing against other competing local districts, including the currently No. 1-ranked district in Allegheny County, which it may recalled "lost" our current superintendent (many residents of that district tell me due to his performance there, while others say he left to find a new construction project). Second, in view of the incredible fiasco we have had with bids, consultants, estimates, failed and mismanaged public hearings and processes, ineffective permit presentations (including a lost lawsuit against the municipality for which the taxpayers had to pay the costs of both sides), the school board seems to have completely exculpated its chief manager, the superintendent, from any performance responsibility for the results (which is curious, given that you don't accept any responsibility either, leaving no one accountable for the waste and failures in that matter to date--oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that it is the outside consultants, whose contracts you have also not terminated, who bear all the political blame, but none of the performance responsibility for that). And lastly, there is the matter of the fiscal shape we are in. You have significantly raised our taxes this past year, and but for the tradition of no tax raise in an election year, you will certainly to do so again next year, regardless of public input and pressure against it (most of those of us who pay the bills have not enjoyed 11% increases in the past 2 years). We are hopelessly undone by the likely costs of our ever-shrinking "renovation" project, and we have had no special insight or leadership from our top staff member, who you generously reward financially. We have a massive coming pension obligation that will have to be paid for, somehow, but I guess you are prepared just to raise taxes as much as "necessary". Nonetheless, money is an object in this district at this time. Do you have any idea, from the earned income tax or otherwise, whether the taxpayers of this district have, on average, had such a generous increase in income? Did you measure your generosity with our money against our ability to pay? Is there some rational fear of losing a uniquely qualified employee or other "special" reason to ignore the fiscal facts of the day in setting the pay for the superintendent? Once again, your judgement in fiscal and oversight matters is demonstrated to be callous to the needs of the community you serve and to the efficient and economical use of our money.
The first time I ever addressed the board I told you that "now is not the time" for lavish expenditures and tax increases. You did not heed my advice. Since that time, not only has the financial situation deteriorated to Depression conditions (I remind you that there is an effective unemployment rate in excess of 16% according to all mainstream economists, and there have been more home foreclosures in the US in the past 3 years than in the 1930's), but the situation has only gotten worse, worldwide. We now find that all of your contrived "planning" to allow our valuable school assets to deteriorate by a deliberate policy of not maintaing them in a cynical attempt at self-justification for building a new high school, regardless of need or affordability, has come to a dead-end--unless you tax us even more (the limit to your willingness to borrow, however, seems to be reached at your desire to do anything to avoid a public choice, that is, and election, as would be necessary if more borrowed funds are required, apparently because you understand that you would lose such an election). I have yet to mention the underlying inconvenience (from your perspective) that our already small school district of a mere 5,000 or so students, is on a downward population spiral, according to your own figures. We simply don't need to ruin this community financially to educate our kids. Have you forgotten that this is about the quality of education we offer in Mt. Lebanon? The strongest argument can be made that you are not only tax-insensitive and arrogant, but that you are pursuing policies that inexorably lead only to the destruction of quality education in this community. If all the points are ultimately about the children and their education, then your misuse of our assets is a true man-made disaster of intellectual dishonesty. Your decision to grant an economic reward for the kind of leadership under which this school district currently strains is merely an indication of how education unfriendly you truly are.
I would be disappointed, but, being a rational man, I have come to expect the irrational and the irresponsible from this school board.
With Due Respect. Steve Diaz
9 comments:
Steve-- Cissy Bowman comments: "Our supply budget's gone down; it keeps getting sliced and sliced," she said, but parents haven't been expected to pick up the slack yet."
Damn slackers, those parents!
Get off your duff... put your shoulder to the grindstone and send the district some more money!
It's for the kids.
Dick Saunders
Increase in compensation based on academic performance? Whose academic performance? It starts at the top - THE VERY TOP. It is painful to listen to the podcasts of the monthly reports.
Jerry Weber
Steve, you have another well-written letter. Thank you.
It is obvious that the school board is suffering from groupthink. The symptoms of groupthink can be divided into three main types of groups:
Type 1: Overestimations of the group's power and morality
1) an illusion of invulnerability, shared by most or all of the members, which creates excessive optimism and encourages taking extreme risks.
2) An unquestioned belief in the group's power and morality, inclining the members to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions
Type 11: Closed-mindedness
3) Collective efforts to rationalize in order to discount warnings or other information that may lead them to reconsider their assumptions before they recommit themselves to their past policy decisions.
First Part Continued
-Type 111: Pressures toward uniformity
5) Self-censorship of deviations from the apparent group consensus, reflecting each member’s inclination to minimize to himself the importance of his doubts and counterarguments
6) A shared illusion of unanimity concerning judgments conforming to the majority view (partly resulting from self-censorship of deviations, augmented by the false assumption that silence means consent)
7) Direct pressure on any member who expresses strong arguments against any of the group’s stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, making clear that this type of dissent is contrary to what is expected of all loyal members
8) The emergence of self-appointed mind guards - members who protect the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality of their decisions
Consequences:
When a policy making group displays most or all of the symptoms in each of the three categories, the members perform their collective tasks ineffectively and are likely to fail to attain their collective objectives as a result of concurrence- seeking.
Quoted from the book “Groupthink” by Irving L. Janis
Posted by John Ewing
Elaine/"Dick Saunders":
As you can note from the punctuation of the paragraph you quoted from my school supplies story, the second part of it is not a quote. Ms. Bowman and I talked at some length about the diminishing supplies budget and that the district has not asked parents to provide considerably more in the way of school supplies.
The phrase "parents haven't been asked to pick up the slack yet" is my own, paraphrasing that considerably longer conversation; therefore you and your commentors shouldn't think she was implying Mt. Lebanon parents were slackers or that a huge increase is right around the corner.
My word choice could have been better (and Ms. Bowman was sure to call and remind me of that!), but such is the price of condensing these long conversations into an attempt at a punchy news story. Thanks for reading and linking!
John: How can we prize creativity, initiative, diversity or even simple insight if we do not tolerate dissenting views? How can the school board claim that mere unanimity is a virtue or a prize if in the process of attaining it they suffocate all thought, individualism, critical analysis and personal independence? It seems to me this school board stands for everything that is contrary to the underlying principles of education and scholarship--let alone our most valued commitment to democracy and pluralism. This school board is comprised of sycophants who lack the courage and the inspiration to act according to any inner light or moral compass. Moreover, they lack the common decency of admitting obvious error or considering the mere possibility that others who disagree with them just might be right. Given such closed minds, why would they ever want to become involved in the challenging and intellectually rigorous business of public education? It seems to me they are disqualified from the positions they hold by their very natures and inclinations which are anti-intellectual and anti-democratic. It is just my personal view that they should resign as a matter of integrity and as a contribution to improving our schools.
I've been informed that Cissy Bowman never said "but parents haven't been expected to pick up the slack yet." So, apparently I owe Mrs. Bowman some sort of - I wouldn't say apology- as the comment was based on what was written. So, Ms. Bowman I stand corrected for my comment.
What I won't correct though is the inference that we need to send the district more money.
I find it insulting that some pretty hefty raises have been granted while supply budgets keep getting reduced. They been cut for years on a regular basis. We're not talking about xerox supplies, light bulbs, but art materials, sheet music, chalk, classroom aids. Fortunately, we do have some dedicated teachers that take it upon themselves to suppliment their classroom supplies from their own pockets.
They shouldn't have to do that. Nor we should we be blaming a governor for taking school funding back to 2009 levels when he leads a state with billions in debt.
Dick Saunders
You know, Dick, this thread is about the pay raise, not other matters you may wish to discuss under another topic. That said, I would like to ask for opinion as to whether Dr. Steinhauer thinks his teachers are worth a pay raise equal to his own? If not, why not? If so, how would such a raise be paid for? It also remains unanswered by the school board as to how the cost of teacher compensation and benefits, including the retirement fund underfunding, is used by them, if at all, in deciding that this district can afford to spend 113 million for rebuilding instead of maintaining and incrementally improving our high school?
Steve Diaz, I think cuts in supply budgets that have been getting sliced and sliced (at the same time prices for supplies have been rising and rising) and compensation can be discussed in the same breath.
You can't distribute generous raises, then make an abrupt about face and cry that money for supply budgets are down.
All the while attempting to divert blame on the newly elected governor for school district budget shortfalls, when he needs to fill a state $4 billion budget shortfall.
The district's supply budget and payroll don't exist in a vacuum, they are related. Raise salaries and that leaves less money for teaching materials and equipment. Less money for maintenance. Less money for construction.
Raise salaries and that places a bigger burden on an already underfunded pension plan!
Dick Saunders
Post a Comment