Private Joint Steering meetings need to stop

The following email exchange was sent to me for posting on Lebo Citizens by David Huston.

From: David Huston
To: bvankirk@mtlebanon.org
CC: dbrumfield@mtlebanon.org; commission@mtlebanon.org; schoolboard@mtlsd.net
Subject: RE: Your quotes in the trib
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 13:07:07 +0000

Bonnie,
  Thanks for getting back to me and asking a key follow-up question. Mt. Lebanon has a long history of private Joint Steering meetings. Private Joint Steering meetings may have been allowed before the Sunshine Act was enacted, but they are not permitted now. I will attempt to shed some light on the history with newspaper reports, blog posts and school board minutes. I have included the commission and school board on this for full disclosure. Members of the public are welcome to review this message and comment.

From http://www.post-gazette.com/neigh_south/20030507s19bigbucks0507p2.asp P-G 07-MAY-2003:

"Leaders of the two boards meet quarterly in a private session called a Joint Steering meeting
at which finances are always a topic, school board President Skip Kasky said."

Don't you see something fundamentally wrong with the quote? If taxpayer money
is a topic of discussion, the public must be allowed to comment and attend the meeting.

From http://www.postgazette.com/pg/06292/731034-55.stm P-G 19-OCT-2006:

This quote highlights the way the school board does business.

"In March, the commission decided not to pursue any more such appeals and not to fight any
appeals filed by residents or Mr. Onorato's office seeking to lower those assessments.

Even though the commissioners' decision was reported in the Post-Gazette in March, school

directors said they were not aware of it until a Joint Steering committee of the school directors

and commissioners was held in late August. Shortly afterward, the school board decided to hire

the firm Diversified Municipal Services to represent the school board at appeal hearings."

The school board used taxpayer money to fund a legal attack against the taxpayers for
higher assessments to collect more tax money. Theoretically, this approach could be used in an iterative technique to challenge assessments indefinitely even if the assessments are ratcheted up beyond what is reasonable. Clearly, the school board attempted to use the private joint steering committee to strong-arm the commission into approving the use of municipal funds to help finance the services of Diversified Municipal Services. When the municipality announced their decision not to appeal taxpayer assessments, the school board ignored it, then moved to appeal taxpayer assessments on its own after meeting privately with the commission.
This maneuver enabled the school board to fabricate a story that the commission would
not cooperate with funding the appeals but the same municipality would benefit from
the windfall generated. The school board could say it came to the table in good faith,
but the commission stepped away from the talks, and the public would be none the wiser.
I am worried this scenario could happen again with the 2012 assessments, aren't you?

From http://www.mtlsd.org/district/stuff/october%2020,%202008%20board%20meeting%20summary.pdf SBM 20-OCT-2008:

You may be aware that the high school small-bore rifle range is not suitable for police use.
If the joint steering committee meeting was public, the commission could have been advised
by members of the public the rifle range could not be used by the police.
The range has been in place for decades, yet Mr. Silhol presented his offer for sharing the range
at the joint steering committee meeting not open to the public. Mr. Silhol should have known better because he graduated from Mt. Lebanon high school some years ago, and was familiar with the high school facility. Currently, the rifle range for just small-bore rifle use is a delete alternate with the high school
renovation and may not be included in the final design at all. It is a good thing the municipality didn't promise to fund the range because the school district would have diverted that money to something like off-budget kitchen equipment instead. I would have liked to see the commission's presentation for the sports fields. More details regarding the McNeilly property discussions would be helpful at this time.

From http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_717864.html T-R 13-JAN-2011:

"Joint Steering – Mr. Silhol reported that he and the superintendent attended the Mt. Lebanon

Commissioner’s meeting in October where they spoke in support of an office for a police officer

in the high school, and shared use of the rifle range with the Mt. Lebanon Police. A presentation

was made by the commission of various alternatives for baseball and soccer fields."

Clearly the public was kept in the dark about this matter that should have been
subject to sunshine review. Tax dollars are used to maintain both municipal and school
district properties, so the taxpayers should have been able to comment and attend.This quote by Ms. Posti indicates the private meetings were not effective in hashing
out all the details, and she would have preferred additional private discussions.
Ms. Posti also discounted the public comment made at the commission meeting
as interfering with government actions. She neglected to mention that she could
have commented at the same municipal meeting, representing the school board as president.
Allowing the public to comment at the Joint Steering committee
meeting would have permitted the district to respond to public comments.

From http://www.yoursouthhills.com/newslinks/mt-lebanon-officials-wont-agree-closed-meetings SHR 17-FEB-2011:Why did Mr. Brumfield, against the solicitor's advice and commission vote, go ahead and participate in the Joint Steering committee meeting? The article states Joint Steering committee meetings are executive sessions. When did the commission announce Brumfield had the executive session, as required by the Sunshine Act?
Even the school board failed to announce the Joint Steering committee was held in
executive session and provide the exceptions as required by the Sunshine Act.

From http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/s_723014.html T-R 17-FEB-2011, http://bloglebo.blogspot.com/2011/02/trib-mt-lebanon-officials-wont-agree-to.html 27-FEB-2011:

"Because the meetings would often involve legal agreements between the two bodies, [Ms. Posti]

said they'd be closed to the public until their recommendations are brought to

the respective boards for public discussion and approval."

"Though both sides worked together behind the scenes on the agreement,
some questions raised by the commissioners came just before they voted
on it, leaving no time for the district to respond"

"Commissioners Joe DeIuliis and Dave Brumfield initially agreed to serve on the "joint steering committee" with school board President Josephine Posti and Vice President Dale Ostergaard, who would meet in closed-door executive sessions to facilitate more freewheeling conversation and protect discussions of legal matters, Posti said. But commission President Dan Miller said last week the commissioners wouldn't join the meetings unless they were open."

How can Mr. Peterson justify saying members of a committee composed entirely of elected officials "lack any power to make ... recommendations?"
Clearly elected officials make recommendations all the time. It is their job. Does Mr. Peterson think he has more power than the school directors, so as long as he is present, the "Cones of Silence" are OK?What is worse, he overstepped his bounds and offered legal advice to the municipality. What other legal advice does Mr. Peterson give the municipality during closed-door meetings?
Is he saying current administrations are allowed to do something prohibited now, just because it was permitted in the past? 

"School district Solicitor Thomas Peterson said Sunshine laws did not apply

because the joint steering committee didn't represent a quorum for either the

municipality or the school district, and it lacked any actual power to make

legislation or recommendations. Since past administrations did not have to

make the committee meetings public, they didn't, he said."

"No meetings have been scheduled while the two sides work out the issue."

Mr. Santoni reported no meetings have been scheduled, even
though the meetings have occurred since he published his article.

From http://danmillerward5.com/joint-steering-meetings-with-school-board DMB 05-MAR-2011, http://bloglebo.blogspot.com/2011/03/will-school-board-choose-secrecy-or.html B-L 06-MAR-2011:
Why is Ms. Posti, who represents the school board as president,
conducting private Joint Steering committee meetings with
Mr. Brumfield after the commission voted not to participate in them?

From http://lebocitizens.blogspot.com/2011/03/update-on-joint-steering-committee.html LCB 09-MAR-2011:

"Upon hearing the Solicitor’s opinion in executive session, the

Commission decided unanimously to rescind our offer to participate

in private joint steering meetings and instead extended an offer for

public meetings to begin asap. Four Commissioners were present

at that time of this unanimous decision." - quote from Dan Miller's blog

Why did the Commission approve the Joint Steering committee meetings after the same Commission voted not to participate?

David Huston
 

"Commissioners DeIuliis and Brumfield are on board to represent the Commission once the School Board agrees to public Joint Steering Committee meetings."

> From: bvankirk@mtlebanon.org
> To: David Huston
> CC: dbrumfield@mtlebanon.org; Commission@mtlebanon.org
> Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 13:02:23 -0400
> Subject: Re: Your quotes in the trib
>
> David
> As I told you at the mtg last nite I didn't receive your original email.
> Thank you for your comments. They are always appreciated.
> Please clarify what you mean in your last sentence about the "private
> joint steering committee meetings". Don't know what you mean.
> Bonnie
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 22, 2011, at 11:46 PM, "David Huston" wrote:
>
> > This is the email that did not get a response from anyone.
> >
> > From: David Huston
> > To: dbrumfield@mtlebanon.org
> > CC: commission@mtlebanon.org
> > Subject: Your quotes in the trib
> > Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 13:33:49 +0000
> >
> > Mr. Brumfield,
> > Regarding McNeilly park, your quote "The time was eight years ago"
> > does not factor in the previous Commission's vote against a bond to
> > improve the McNeilly park grading. You were not on the commission
> > then, yet you have the audacity to second-guess their decision now.
> >
> > Your other quote "The people who are the most hurt by a tax increase
> > are the same ones who would benefit most from increasing the values
> > of their homes."
> > is an insult to your constituents.
> > Are you guaranteeing my property value will increase after you decide
> > to increase my taxes and squander public money leveling a
> > public property with hilly terrain and a pool of standing water?
> >
> > In reality, the people who are most hurt by a tax increase are the
> > same ones who moved into Mt. Lebanon years ago, thinking they could afford the cost
> > of living based on the taxes at the time. Please explain why you think
> > we should pay tax increases that will exceed the rate of inflation.
> >
> > Please demonstrate, showing the arithmetic, that no money currently
> > used to fund storm sewer maintenance will be used for other purposes
> > after the rain tax is implemented.
> > I want to see the numbers.
> >
> > Please stop conducting private Joint Steering meetings against the Commission's wishes.
> >
> > David Huston