I emailed the Collective Bargaining Agreement to the Commissioners last night and received this response from President Brumfield this morning.
Elaine,Thanks for clarifying that, Dave. I wish we could try. You never know until you do.
Under any CBA, like the teachers contract conditions of employment cannot be unilaterally changed by the employer without the negotiated consent of the union. The courts have held that such changes can constitute a grievance. I apologize for giving the misleading shorter answer, the fact is the SD labor counsel should vigorously warn against taking the steps you recommended.
Dave
Update 01 25 12 A resident/blog reader sent an audio clip of Bill Lewis' comment from the 01 23 12 Commission meeting. The reader wrote, "The exchange between Mr. Lewis and the Commissioners concerning off-site parking during the HS construction is one of the best clips I've heard for a while, because it illustrates the arbitrary nature of local government enforcing its own laws." The first voice is that of Bill Lewis, followed by President Dave Brumfield and Solicitor Phil Weis.
Bill Lewis' comment
Bill Lewis' comment
25 comments:
Maybe the students have a grievance under their "collective bargaining agreement" with the district!
See #10 and #13 of the 15 Design Criteria.
One would think parking off campus, darting through traffic, trudging up and down hills in the cold, rain and snow would constitute a major disruption in a students academic day.
I mean, if it's a hassle for the staff, one should logically think it is as well for the students. All for the kids... right!
Why not first come, first served for everybody?
As a result of continued School Board discussion, community and staff feedback, and the work of the DeJong study, 15 Design Criteria were established to guide the architects in the schematic design of the High School:
1. Create an academic center to improve student access to resources
2. Meet MTLSD educational goals for 21st century learning
3. Replace learning spaces for arts
4. Improve athletic spaces
5. New pool
6. Clear circulation
7. Create a center to strengthen the Mt. Lebanon High School community
8. Reuse buildings B, D, E, and F, “like-new” renovation
9. No temporary classrooms
10. Minimize disruption to students during construction phase 1
11. Minimize site work
12. Improve vehicular circulation
13. Improve proximity of entrances to parking
14. Drop-off plaza on Horsman Road
15. Maximizes State Reimbursement
Andy Bradford
I know I am showing my age, but we would have just protested the whole thing. ;)
Elaine
So that no one thinks that I plagiarized the district because I forgot quotes, the copy starting from "As a result... and ending... 15. Maximizes State Reimbursement" can be found on the school district site.
I don't know how else you discuss school business without showing the evidence or putting it in context?
Andy Bradford
Anyone remember the teacher/staff parking fiasco during the Mellon renovation & conversion into a Middle School in mid-19990's ?
After I return from a meeting later tonight, I'll try to recount it, Elaine, if you wish. It's a real *doozy* (did someone copyright that term ?). I don't dare infringe.
Bill Lewis
I think we could learn from that fiasco, Bill, if you don't mind. Thanks for offering.
Elaine
Yes Elaine, the Mellon Middle School Project during the mid-1990's and following.
The limited Mellon onsite, off-street parking places for teachers & staff had to be reassigned to contractors for their cars, trucks, office trailer and equipment because they were not permitted to park on residential streets. In order to accomodate the District during normal time periods for less than adequate onsite parking for both Washington and Mellon teachers and staff, the Muni had allowed weekday parking priviledges along both sides of Castle Shannon Blvd., which downgraded what had been a 4-lane arterial roadway to essentially a 2-lane residential brick street. The Muni also allowed teacher/staff parking on one side of narrow Cornell Place down behind the Mellon field.
The teachers affected by loss of Mellon off-steet spaces demanded comperable parking. There really was none, but the Muni coaxed the Parking Authority into offering South Garage spaces at significantly reduced fee rates. The teachers apparently refused to pay anything for their parking and filed a grievance.
The District pressured the Muni to obtain spaces in the Library/Southminster Lot, which was signed as reserved only for Library and Church use. This lot had been used by school employees and visitors in open disregard for its reserved use and objections registered by the Library Board & Church officials for some period of time. The District did not receive approval for spaces, but are still using some without approval.
The District back then offered reserved spaces in the High School's South Lot for Mellon teachers. There were reports that some/most/all teachers apparently felt the distance from Mellon was too great and declined the offer.
I have no idea how it all turned out. However, signs in the South Lot signifying reserved parking spaces for Mellon teachers were only removed in 2010 or so during the period when parking space requirements & counts were being debated.
"And thats all I'm going to say about that" (Forest Gump)
Bill Lewis
Here's a suggestion!
Why not designate the South Parking lot High Occupancy Parking (HOP) only.
Serving a number of useful purposes.
1) it puts the greatest number of bodies in the closest proximity of the building in the fewest number of cars.
Thereby alleviating traffic, reducing the number of pedestrians.
2) ITS GREEN! Fewer green house gases from all those single passenger cars!
Andy Bradford
A fundraiser could be selling bumper stickers for your idea, Andy. They could say IHOP. Wait, that won't work. That could result in MTLSD sending International House of Pancakes a cease and desist order.
Another idea could be raffling off Dr. Tim's parking space every week. Or having a Student of the Week or Month contest for his parking space.
Elaine
Is anyone aware that the Muni Bird Park parking lot on Beadling Road, across from Markham School, is filled on weekdays during the school year with Markham teachers and staff automobiles ? There is no Zoning-required Commission-approved Alternative Parking Plan/Shared Parking Agreement & Conditional Use for that either !
It's as if the District is a spoiled problem child and the Muni an overly protective parent who is lax on enforcement and receives no respect from its child.
There seem to be too few *lessons learned* in Lebo governance overall - we seem to be unable or unwilling to learn from historical errors & omissions, and we therefore tend to repeat them.
The Muni claims we cannot now require or force the District into Shared Parking Agreements for the Lutheran Church & Dixon lots because we have allowed other corporate entities to make arrangements without such Zoning-required, Commission-approved Agreements in the past. This argument would seemingly also be made for the Bird Park Lot as well. Why then did we require a detailed Shared Parking Agreement for the District use of the Commissioners Lot, and the District complied ?
Why not formally ask the District to voluntarily agree to Shared Parking Agreements for the Church, Dixon and Bird Park Lots ? If the District refuses, it would be on the record if liability and/or repair, maintenance and replacement issues arise. One of the other apparent arguments for not having Agreements is that the Muni can revoke parking permission at any time...the *understandings* are not for permanent use. This is an interesting argument because the Agreement for the Commissioners Lot has no permanent use provision, and in fact, I believe, has a revocable provision upon notice with the added requirement that the District has to pay for Muni construction of an alternate Lot on Muni property nearby.
It's as if the unofficial Muni attitude and policy is towards the District is to *go along, get along...we'll make it work regardless of what the rules say*, while the District thumbs its nose.
Bill Lewis
One other benefit Elaine, it's equitable and it spreads the inconvenience of the project fairly throughout the high school "community."
I mean seriously the Enviromental Sustainabilty Board wants to spend several thousand dollars to put up "NO IDLING ZONE" signs in the name of reducing green house gases and dependence on oil.
By getting staff AND students to carpool we achieve ESB's, goal and cut down on traffic/pedestrian congestion without spending a dime.
Didn't one contributor earlier suggest that if parking was inconvenient we might be rewarded with more carpooling and walking?
Andy Bradford
Elaine, I absolutely love the "I HOP" sticker idea!
Why not make this an ongoing revenue generator (listening Mr. Lebowitz?).
For now during construction, purchase of the $10 or $20 sticker (by staff as well as students) gets you preferential parking in the South Lot.
Once the project is finished retain it to generate funds for new technology or student trips, uniforms, flagpoles or whatever.
Seems to me the teachers really couldn't mount a grevience since the district is spending money to provide convenient parking at the church and the Dixon lots.
Hey, if it's safe and convenient for the students they serve, how could they argue it isn't for them. Or fight against a environmentally sound solution to parking at the high school!
Also no way anyone could charge copyright infringement on I HOP!
Andy Bradford
Bill, I never thought about the Bird Park lot. Who cleans the snow off that lot? It was agreed that the District provided that service for the Commissioners Lot. The Shared Parking Agreement is posted on my website under "The Facts." Article 11 states that the agreement can be revoked at any time by either party. So who is policing these muni lots? Does the Muni assume any responsibility? The lawsuit happy person is no longer a school board director. What is really holding the muni back?
Elaine
No one is policing the Muni lots in the sense that you mean...I'm sure Public Works does for routine R&M purposes, and that the Muni pays, including snow removal in all likelyhood.
What's holding the Muni back ? There are undoubtedly a combination of both intentional by design and what I'll term inattentional reasons and people, both elected and appointed, at any point in time...you probaly have a good idea of the present based on the players.
Bill Lewis
Please check out the update on this post. A reader made an audio clip of Bill Lewis' comment for the readers of this blog. It is 4:50 minutes long.
Thanks!!!
Elaine
You don't mean the Queen Mum is at work again, do you?
Elaine
Thank you for the update and link on the post, Elaine.
The Solicitors opinion that past practices (which violated the Zoning Ordinance and were done without specific public disclosure, behind the scenes)justify repeating those improper practices might raise all sorts of *red flags* in the minds of Lebo citizens and taxpayers, and perhaps should. The stated reason why the past practices have been repeated and applied in the current High School project with regard to the Church and Dixon parking lots is to avoid being sued by the District because (a) we did not require similar compliance for the Galleria, Dollar Bank and St. Clair Hospital projects (i.e.precedents), and (b) requiring Agreements would now delay and add to the cost of the project.
Who were the Municipal persons and officials responsible for the Galleria, Dollar Bank and St. Clair Hospital decisions on governmental non-enforcement of its very own Zoning Ordinance (nonfeasance) ? Where are the public records and documents associated with those considerations and decisions...between Muni, building owners, contractors, architects, consulting engineers. And, identical questions regarding the current High School project should be answerable in response to public inquiry. Are the facts and circumstances associated with the previous projects identical to those associated with the High School project ? Are the off-street parking particulars identical or even similar; or, are they uniquely different. The public is being told to accept the Muni explations without the benefit of all necessary and associated facts.
Again, from one of my previous blog comments, how is this bob & weaving non-enforcement explanation by the Muni believable when the Muni required and the District complied in an Agreement for the Commissioners Lot ? But not for other alternate lots for the High School project...Church & Dixon ?
Bill Lewis
For what it's worth, my high school aged daughter says the new parking arrangement is "no big deal".
Dave Franklin
Got this one emailed to me:
I had to run up to BestBuy for a computer component and forgot about HS traffic. Hit just as kids were arriving and leaving church parking lot at Washington & Cochran. Sat thru 4 lights to get thru. Traffic going north was backed up almost to Beadling.
If I used that route every day I'd be PO'd!.
Dave, walking up hills in the rain and snow and getting salt stains on their new $100 UGG Boots is "no big deal" to a high school girl.
Sorry, I find that highly suspect considering my experience with girls that age, but maybe your daughter indeed has different priorities.
What's her opinion of the municipal fields or lack thereof?
Andy Bradford
01-24-12 From Mrs Posti's Blog:
Yesterday morning (1/23), traffic was completely normal, despite the rain and today normal (1/24) as well. There wasn't any congestion at all on Morgan, Stadium or Horsman Drives. Student pedestrians crossing from the Lutheran church were observing police and traffic signals...
Traffic was better yesterday and today - but these are not the days Mrs. Posti cites on her blog. In particular, on 1/24 my morning round-trip to the High School took 30 minutes, compared to a normal 15.
This is nothing compared to the first day of classes under the new system when traffic northbound was backed up to about Sunnyhill. But that day we learned there were other gremlins at work, a couple of barges taking aim at some bridges on the Mon.
The gremlin for north-bounders now appears to be the use of the crosswalks on almost every traffic signal cycle, beginning around 7:25.
This frequent use of the crossing was - no doubt - absent from any traffic engineering at the Cochran/Washington intersection.
The Municipality could have had the intersection re-engineered for the substantial increase in crosswalk usage - but it didn't.
And it didn't because ....... it didn't do it for other projects.
We have heard this before from the Municipal process defenders. "We have to be consistent. If we don't enforce the regulations for one project - we can't enforce the regulations for another project."
What?
PS: My Word Verification for this post is "weedles"
Weedles: weedles wobble but don't ...... enforce codes
Continuing my prior comment,1/25 @ 6:09 PM :
The Muni defends the absence of APP's or Shared Parking Agreements for the Church & Dixon Lots on the basis that "previous practices" by the Muni for a select few construction projects did not require Agreements because they were short term ("temporary") construction projects and not permanent. The Zoning Ordinance makes no such distinction or allowance ; and, the Zoning Hearing Board was/is the required body to hear and make such a determination in a public process, and they did not or were not involved. The Planning Board has no such authority, nor does the staff under their frequently referred to SALDO Section 609, or even the Manager under Section 502 of the Home Rule Charter. The Commission has the authority in a totally public process, which was not the case...APP's also require Conditional Use approvals, which are a big deal.
My counter to "previous practices" also included the facts that the school project is not "temporary" in that it is not the typical 6-12 month construction project, but a 4-year project, the longest & largest project in Muni history and affecting the entire community....the Zoning Officer and Zoning Hearing Board references to "temporary" in the Zoning Ordinance are only 6-months and 12-months, relating to only minor or less significant considerations.
The next reasons cited by the Muni in an attempt to justify their actions were that they did not want to enforce the Zoning Ordinance because it would/might (a) delay the project, and (b) increase the cost of the project. Think about that for a minute.
First of all, the parking lots in question are not located in/on the construction site and have nothing to do with site construction or delay as such. Secondly, the Commission can permit construction to proceed while appropriate APP's are arranged, which would result in no delay or OOP contract cost increase except for legal costs for drafting Agreements.
Again, a precedent has seemingly been set on APP's with the District with regard to the Commissioners Lot, the use of which has been designated by the District to be used by teachers & staff offsite during construction.
I think that Commission President Dave Brumfield might agree that prior Commissions should have amended the Zoning Ordinance to provide clear and specific requirements of APP's for construction projects, large & small, temporary & permanent, affecting large & small portions of Lebo, etc. and that such considerations will probably be made by the current Commission. At least I hope so !
Bill Lewis
Mr. Franklin:
For what it's worth, my school aged daughter says the condition of the municipal athletic fields or the lack thereof -- is "no big deal".
Andy Bradford
Mr. Bradford,
1. That's a pretty chauvinistic response.
2. The walk from the church is pretty much the same as the walk from the student parking lot.
3. No one carried me to and from elementary school or middle school. It's a walking community.
4. I play field hockey so I wish we had more turf.
Mackenzie Franklin
Mackenzie, sorry to disappoint, but nothing chauvinistic. The Online dictionary describes chauvinistic as: "Adj. 1. chauvinistic - of or relating to persons convinced of the superiority of their own gender or kind"
Nowhere in my comment do I claim superiority of my gender. Just an observation that the girls in your age group I've been acquainted with pay close attention to their appearance and apparel.
Actually, I would take that sort of comment as a compliment! FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH.
Nice try though to deflect the traffic/parking conversation though... Dave!?
Mackenzie... one other point. You say: "2. The walk from the church is pretty much the same as the walk from the student parking lot."
So, I can assume if we made parking equitable for students as well as staff, the teacher's union would have little grounds for filing a grievance based on your analysis of the walk from the available parking lots!
So, Commissioner Blumfeld's rationale as to why teachers get preferencial parking privileges is full of hot air.
Andy Bradford
Post a Comment