Here is an eblast sent from Dave Franklin. His wife is head of YSA.
From: "Mt. Lebanon Baseball Association - LEBO BASEBALL" <mtlbball2012@gmail.com>
Date: May 7, 2012 10:04:56 PM EDT
To:
Subject: MLBA - Field Signage Amendment Proposal
Friends:
Tomorrow night the Commissioners will vote on a proposed amendment to Mt. Lebanon’s current signage ordinance. The purpose of the amendment is to allow tasteful signs to be placed at our municipal fields, the stadium and at similar venues. This amendment will allow for the solicitation of sponsors (local businesses, larger companies, etc), who in turn will be featured on these signs. Importantly, these sponsorships will allow the municipality and/or the youth sports associations to raise much needed funds for field maintenance and improvements.
If you support this proposal, please take 3 minutes out of your day to send a short email to the Commissioners (commission@mtlebanon.org) expressing your support for an amendment to Chapter XX (Zoning) of the Mt. Lebanon Code, Part 8, Section 823.5 (Authorized Signs).
Thanks,
Dave Franklin
********
Here is my letter to the Commission.
Commissioners,
I see that you will be approving http://www.mtlebanon.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/8864 tonight. There is nothing stipulated in the ordinance that any revenue generated from the signage will go to the municipality. You are changing an ordinance to help the sports groups. That is not OK in my book.
Elaine Gillen
Does anybody read or pay attention to the Zoning Ordinance ? This applies to all Lebo residents, public and private.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone see that a specific section of the proposed sign Ordinance conflicts with and would violate an existing Ordinance provision ?
Anybody find it ? Maybe the proponents of the Ordinance should take 3-minutes to check it out.
Bill Lewis
Anyone interested in starting a non- profit group called We Like Picking Dandelions On Public Property?
ReplyDeleteThis group would serve senior citizens, adults and the occasional grade school daydreaming outfielders that just aren't that into baseball yet.
There won't be any dues as we expect that once the commissioners pass tonight's sign ordinance there should be enough revenue from the sale of field signs to fund the group's activities. Of course we will need to diligent in petitioning the commissioners for a fair share of the advertising revenue. Hey, why should the YSA get it all?
Excess money will be used to help seniors on fixed incomes and poor health maintain their propertie. Thereby keeping Mt. Lebanon property values high.
So if your interested express it here and send a "HELLO" to the commissioners.
Mother Nature's Son
I'm in! The library could use the extra money to landscape, Bird Park could use some to fight the invasive plants, seniors could have sidewalks fixed or get a break on the rain water fee.
ReplyDeleteWhat a great idea!
Hope you're listening commissioners!
Let me know when the first meeting is scheduled.
A Senior
I'm not opposed to a modification of the sign ordinance that might allow some revenue generation. But, it needs to be clear who and what can advertise, it needs to be clear how BIG (see Castle Shannon!) the sign can be, and who can advertise.
ReplyDeleteMt. Lebanon has a good number of new massage parlors. Perhaps we can have a Golden Middle Fingers Field? What in the ordinance being voted on tonight would stop such a thing?
Seriously, though. Make sure we know where the money goes and make sure we have some control over who can hang signs.
Albert Brenneman
I am not crazy about posting anonymous comments, but since you insist, please do something for me. Send an email to the commissioners at commission@mtlebanon.org and let them know how you feel. Posting it here doesn't make it official. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteElaine
Didn't the School District already sign a deal with UPMC agreeing to post advertising signs in the stadium?
ReplyDeleteToo bad they didn't look at the zoning ordinance before signing the deal. Now it will be done retroactively to make the fearless 9 look good, with the legwork being done by athletic organization parents.
David Huston
Albert, every time the question has been asked about who gets the revenue, we could never get a straight answer. I am not in favor the sports groups getting any of the money. They have cost the community so much already with the high school, McNeilly and any other park we seemed to buy for fields and now turfing fields.
ReplyDeleteI like your idea about Golden Middle Fingers Field. Why not? We're hoping to have Dick's all over the place.
Elaine
Silly David, "On April 19, 2010, the Mt. Lebanon Board of School Directors approved an agreement with UPMC Sports Medicine for athletic training services and physician services for the 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 school years at our cost of $154,000. UPMC will be needing designated parking, which is something that was never indicated by the School Board at any municipal meeting. Besides paying UPMC $154,000, MTLSD will agree to serve as a regional center for UPMC by providing auditorium, gymnasium, classroom or fields to UPMC so that they may have sports medicine and/or sports performance programs up to four times per contracted year. By the way, UPMC will have the right to charge a participation fee to attendees of these programs. We also have to display four UPMC banners throughout the year at various MTLSD sports venues." I got this from lebocitizens website where I have the link to the agreement. We're paying THEM for their advertising. Silly David, it is not the same. ;>)
ReplyDeleteElaine
How about "Bottom Dollar, Dot's Dollar and Family Dollar - Making Lebo Livable!"
ReplyDelete-Wilma Zellers
Don't forget the immortal words of our fearless leader, "Dollar General - Ugh"
ReplyDeleteElaine
Glad to see all of you show your snobiness by mocking all of the "Dollar" stores in town -- you know, the ones that a lot of people in Mt. Lebanon shop at. Clearly there is a need for affordable shopping in town. Otherwise the stores would close up from a lack of business.
ReplyDeleteGet over yourselves.
It wasn't "Ugh". It was "Ugh--how ghetto".
ReplyDeleteAnd if they modify the zoning ordinance to allow signs on the ball fields, I'm calling Blush downtown and asking them to put one in. Can't be exclusive when it comes to that sort of thing..
I hesitated about approving this comment. It is Josephine Posti who was the snob when she said, "Dollar General - Ugh." We shop at all the stores mentioned.
ReplyDeleteGet over yourselves? Are you kidding?
Elaine
http://old.post-gazette.com/pg/05293/591387-55.stm
ReplyDeleteElaine
Albert, how much do you want to bet that the five - yes five- commissioners will approve the sign code change in the form presented?
ReplyDeleteI'm betting there will be NO definition on who will manage the allowed spaces, allocate the contracts for the sign generation and Especially NO audit of revenue or expenditures.
Just who has the right to sell advertising space in our municipal parks and on our sports fields???????
Mother Nature's Son
David & Elaine,
ReplyDeleteNo one reads or respects the laws of the community ! The banners the School District and UMPC have agreed to represent blatant violations of the Mt. Lebanon Zoning Ordinance, Section 823.5.3.6 and all applicable subsections. In simple words, banners are allowed in only C-1, C-2 and CBD Districts (all Commercial Districts), and then only in connection with community special events.
There are no District buildings in any Commercial District ! The District is absolutely beyond belief. Of course the Municipality will have to enforce its Ordinance, because the District & UPMC might well proceed anyway.
Will this become another lawsuit ? Or will the Muni cave and/or not enforce ? For instance, Lincoln has violated this Ordinance for years.
Bill Lewis
The ordinance passed 4 to 1 with Matt Kluck opposing the ordinance. I understand that a sunset provision was added with the date 2014.
ReplyDeleteElaine
And you expected a different result? You have one R and four Ds, none of whom can think for themselves.
ReplyDeleteThe question still remains.
ReplyDeleteWHO HAS THE RIGHTS TO SELL AND PROFIT FROM THE SIGNS? THE SD, THE MUNICIPALITY OR SPORTS GROUPS?
Do individual groups be it YSA or some other get to contract with advertisers and keep the revenue for their own coffers?
If so, since each field is limited to 10 signs, can soccer take down baseball's 10 and put their's up. Then baseball, softball, soccer doing the same each time they play at field? Or are the signs permanently in place and managed by one entity?
This is the same sort of municipal management that bought Twin Hills and McNeilly!!!
Idiots! At least one commissioner recognized how ill-formed this ordinance is.
Hey, Commish Bumblefield, how about some clairfication for your constituents!!!!
A Resident
Here is what should be done.
ReplyDeleteLebocitizens should immediately contact the commissioners and tell them they want to contract for a sign at Wildcat Field.
The sign should say:
"Get the Facts on Grass vs Articial Turf"
Visit lebocitizens.blogspot.com
That meets all requirements regarding the sign subject. Furthermore Lebocitizens has as much right to advertise in public places as UPMC or Dicks.
By doing this immediately we will find out who is managing the sale of space at community fields and will expose the collusion should the municipality direct you to YSA or some other group.
Should they say the specifics on rate and availability aren't available, a RTK should immediately be requested as to what advertisers have requested sign space before Lebocitizens!
This zoning change has a really bad odor and it's time to find out where the stink is coming from.
A Resident
I just uploaded the podcasts from last night's meeting. Public comments included YSA's 990's showing non commitments to any agreements. My friend, Dave Franklin was in the back of the room during public comments, being dramatic. We tried to pin Dave Brumfield down about who would reap the benefits from the signage. I think he finally said that it would only benefit the municipality. If that is the case, I am fine with that. It should not go to any sports groups. It is clear that more work needs to be done with this issue. Too many unanswered questions. In fact, the amended ordinance was amended again and was never revealed that further changes were made until later on in the meeting. I believe that the amended ordinance should have been made public, but Solicitor Weis didn't feel that was necessary. Good thing Commissioner Bendel brought up the changes. The commissioners were unaware that the changes were not placed on the table in the back of the room.
ReplyDeleteElaine
Changes to the ordinance that the commissioners weren't aware of!???
ReplyDeleteThen they've violated the municipal code.
§ 27.3-320. Ordinances Requiring Prior Public Notice.
No final action shall be taken on the following types of ordinances and amendments thereto without public hearing thereon, of which there has been at least five (5) days’ prior public notice published in a newspaper circulating generally in the Municipality or prior public notice has been provided pursuant to state law applicable to Home Rule Municipalities:
(1) Zoning ordinance and amendments thereto.
(2) Subdivision regulations.
(3) Land development and land use regulations.
(4) Imposition of taxes.
(5) Adoption or amendment of a budget.
(6) Adoption of an Administrative Code.
A Resident
Mr. A. Resident, our solicitor Philip Weis was asked by Mr. Brumfield if the commission could vote on the amended ordinance without public review and scrutiny.
ReplyDeleteMr. Wies advised the commission to proceed with the vote.
David Huston
No. The commissioners were not aware of the fact that the changes were not communicated to the public. They knew of the changes, of course, since they made the changes.
ReplyDeleteElaine
Bill Lewis was the first to comment. For the signage amendment portion of his comments, he started off by saying that he sees no changes were made. No response from the Commission. When I spoke, I said that I hoped they table the vote because they have work to do on the amendment. Still nothing. There were others who spoke and it wasn't until John Bendel said that there were changes made since we had seen the amendment. In the past, when this situation would occur, there would be copies available in the back of the room. Not this time.
ReplyDeleteElaine
Then the commissioners have violated there oaths of office to uphold the rules and codes of the municipality.
ReplyDeleteThe responsibility to alert the attorney general should fall on the commissioner voting against the ordinance as he has the most insight on the issue.
A Resident
I understand that Commissioner Fraasch noticed when she was leaving the meeting last night, the updated amendment was not on the back table. When she asked President Brumfield where the updated ordinances were, he replied with, "We don't do that." Of course that is not true.
ReplyDeleteKelly fired off an email to the commission and Steve Feller this morning indicating that a simple way to maintain transparency would be to place updated copies for the public to review before a vote.
The public was totally off guard with this change. Most of the commissioners were not aware that the public was out of the loop. It is still not available for the public to read.
Elaine
Then the Municipal Code has been violated plaIn and simple. It requires 5 days prior public.notice of any ordinance change "or" amendments In a generally circulated newspaper. They didn't even have it available AT the meeting.
ReplyDeleteHere's an idea, let's just turn over the municipality to Brumblefield and Franklin and dispense with all the formalities of local government.
A Resident
Kelly along with Matt Kluck should be firing off emails to the state attorney general! No published amendment in the paper and Comish Bumblefield resigns his position on youth football just days prior to a vote on fields... Deplorable (with a capital D)!
ReplyDeleteIt's no wonder people don't get involved.
A Resident
I wish I had a name so that I could address you, "A Resident." I was so discouraged when I left the meeting last night. It seemed like I was at a school board meeting. I used to have faith in the commission, but with this new president, I have my doubts. I was ready to hand the recorder over to the person sitting next to me and ask to return it to me later so that I could leave. Brumfield said that the YSA has a plan that they will be sharing with the commissioners. OMG. A plan? The same people who haven't been true to their word in more than one case? Let me guess. The plan is to turf and light Mellon Field using municipal dollars and they get the revenue generated by from signs. You heard it here first.
ReplyDeleteElaine
So Commission Bumblefield admits that he is carrying on conversations with the YSA, admits that he is is privy to their strategy to present "a plan."
ReplyDeleteAn organization that until a few days ago, he was listed as an officer of the youth football program and we're to believe that he doesn't have a conflict of interest regarding athletic fields.
Elaine, the YSA doesn't need to get the revenue from the signs. Once get bought (even though the income will never approach the cost of turf & lights) that will be all the justification Franklin's buddy Bumblefield will need to propose turfing an lighting Mellon.
Do not forget, Bumblefield tabled this amended sign code while he was still involved with youth football.
The YSA will get what they want and still not abide by the $30,000 yearly agreement with the SB/Muni.
A Resident
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.---Edmund Burke
ReplyDeleteIt's time to start SCREAMING!
Maddie Miller
To whom, Maddie? Nobody cares.
ReplyDeleteA Resident
I wanted to share a post from my website... Last evening was the the first Commission meeting that involved any real “controversy”. After hearing from numerous residents and having conversations with staff and other
ReplyDeletecommissioners, I heard a lot of different perspectives. There were a
number of people that had very similar questions regarding exactly how this
ordinance would be enacted. Who would benefit? Who is responsible for
getting the advertising dollars? Where exactly does the revenue go? After
discussions with our solicitor there were a few amendments that were attached
to the ordinance which allowed me to support it. Passing of this
ordinance is the first step in a process that will include reviewing policies
and regulations regarding such signs. You will see future discussion on exactly
those topics.
One of my top goals as commissioner is to find new revenue sources. I
believe a sign sponsorship has the potential to bring in additional funds that
will benefit all of Mt. Lebanon.
Please feel free to contact me anytime if you have any feedback regarding this ordinance or any other community topics. 412.580.7665 or kfraasch@mtlebanon.org
Kelly what happened to the required 5 days prior public notice in a general newspaper before final action on ordinances and amendments as spelled out in the municipal code?
ReplyDeleteThere's nothing wrong with trying to find new sources of revenue, but isn't this silly. We'll allow new revenue streams, then we'll decided who will manage those streams, where it will go and who'll keep tabs on it.
A Resident
I'm interested in advertising on one of the field signs, Commissioners.
ReplyDeleteHow much are they? Who do I contact? To whom do I make out the check? You say you need money, you said signs are allowed. I guess if no ones in charge I can start hanging signs on my own as long as they comply with the code. I don't see anything that says I can't!
And if I do have to contract with some define entity, should my sign get damaged by balls or vandalized who is responsible to keep It up to the requirements in the code?
Oh yeah, let's bumble around in the dark, it's for the kids.
A Citizen
A Citizen, I do remember that the back of the sign has to be dark green. That was one of the changes.
ReplyDeleteYou might want to check with Lincoln School. They have had signs on their school for years. They don't have to comply. Check with them.
Elaine
Thanks Elaine. I'm thinking the ordinance is passed and it says up to 10 signs are allowed in certain areas of our municipal fields. The code is in effectas long as I comply I can hang any sign I damn well choose. The code says I can.
ReplyDeleteAll you business owners the spots are limited, maximum 10 to a field and as of today no one has any control over who puts one up or how much you have to pay. You won't find a netter advertising deal anywhere.
And if you do put one up and someone or the municipality takes it down... sue 'em. The code says you have legal permission to put one up.
A Citizen
Whadda u think folks, should I go for it at Wildcat?
ReplyDelete"Hey dad, your kid can't hit worth squat!
Drown your sorrows with a cold one
at Ye Old Pub & Saloon"
Joe the Bartender
"Passing of this ordinance is the first step in a process that will include reviewing policies and regulations regarding such signs. You will see future discussion on exactly those topics."
ReplyDeleteMiss Fraasch, I missed the part where you explained how the ordinance can be considered passed when the commission didn't follow the prescribed legal route.
All of you who read this blog--someone, anyone, go file suit immediately, or get an injunction. You don't call the attorney general's office to complain about a local junta ignoring the law.
The ordinance isn't enforceable as it stands right now. Brumfield needs to resign and take the solicitor with him. In fact, that solicitor should be sanctioned by the courts for offering faulty legal advice. Come to think of it, the four commissioners who voted for it should all resign as they obviously don't know how the law works and thus, have no business being involved in it.
Brumfield's 4th Ward Commissioner website says he still volunteers for the Youth Football Association
ReplyDeleteContact Ward 4 Commissioner David Brumfield
Ph: (412) 596-4095
Term Expires: December 31, 2013
Contact Commissioner Brumfield
Contact All Commissioners
Ward Locator
Dossier
Residence: Crystal Drive
Spouse: Michelle
Children: Connor & Jessica
Education
B.A. in history from Ithaca College. J.D. from Duke University Law School
Occupation
AttorneyatAlpern SchubertP.C.
Volunteer Activities
Sunset Hills United Presbyterian Church
Mt. Lebanon Youth Football Association
Mt. Lebanon Baseball Association
The Commissioners, all five of them, violated their oaths of office by passing an ordinance without following procedure.
ReplyDeleteI guess that oath means nothing unless some resident or group of residents has the means and will to enforce it.
A Resident
Actually, under the guidelines in the MPC, all four can now be recalled. Food for thought.
ReplyDeleteAccording to this apparently they can't be, Ben.
ReplyDelete"How can I recall a township supervisor?
Municipal codes provide for removal of township supervisors/commissioners, but a 1995 Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision determining that home rule recall provisions are unconstitutional, also overruled an older 1927 decision saying the township officer removal provisions were constitutional."
I'll stand corrected if someone knows better.
A Resident
Hold on, guys. This is a leadership issue. We have three new commissioners. Bendel was the first to mention the revisions. Fraasch questioned Brumfield as to why the revised ordinance wasn't on the table and sent out an email the following morning to the commission and manager. Linfante...well what can I say?
ReplyDeleteKluck voted against it. That leaves us Brumfield. Reading his dossier on the municipal website explains it all. He is an attorney who should know the law. He volunteers for two athletic organizations. He has been on the commission for more than half of his term. He was the one who brought up turfing a school district asset at the joint discussion season. He is the one who staged the town hall meeting for the unassigned fund balance. He is the one who permitted Dave Franklin to act the way he did while I was commenting at Monday's meeting. I don't think there is anything in Robert's Rules of Order that condones that sort of behavior. As I said, this is a leadership issue. As a reader commented, the two Dave's are trying to call the shots to push their personal agendas.
Elaine
That is joint discussion session, not season. I can't stand auto correct on this iPad.
ReplyDeleteElaine
Then you stand corrected. there is a provision in the PA Constitution that provides for removal of elected officials for misbehavior in office. One of those criteria outline is breach of statutory duty. I'm going out on a limb here but I would say ignoring the prescribed legal route in pushing an ordinance amendment and illegally passing it would apply.
ReplyDeleteSince you decided to nitpick my first post, I will grant that perhaps I should have written that procedure to remove them can begin. All it will take now is someone in Lebo with the you-know-whats to do it.
And who would that be, Ben? I realize we are on the same side of the issue, but look how many don't have the you-know-what's to sign their own name.
ReplyDeleteElaine
Ben I'm on your side I absolutely positively agree that they ignored their duty- all of them including the solicitor- and passed an ordinance illegally.
ReplyDeleteFollowing your advice and searching the matter of recall I posted the only thing I could find. And I admitted someone may have better information.
Apparently you do so where do we go from here.
I don't think one individual should bear the weight of starting a recall. Personally I think it should fall on the honest representatives we put in office to at least insure that protocols and legal procedures are met. If they don't then they are accomplices.
We have a commissioner that voted against the ordinance, it appears at least one other acknowledges procedures were ignored. One or both should declare that the ordinance itself does not comply with municipal code and see that it is thrown out.
As for Comish Bumblefield not following the rules of order what can we say. The "what the Kluck", PTA moms love to drag out their No Bullying bullshit agenda when it suits them.
It's odd that 4 democrats follow the party MO, find someone else to pay for our agenda though we really have worked out the kinks- and the republican party that supposedly has principles sits quietly by and doesn't support their lone office holder locally or their state governor.
A Resident
Mr. Mason:
ReplyDeleteIf you were at the meeting, our attorney told us we were not making substantial changes and that we did not have to wait 5 days. If we were making substantial changes, then we would need the 5 days.
The ammendment we added that I believe you are concerned about is the sunset provision. If you find that the sunset provision shouldn't be added and that was substantial enough to wait 5 days...let me know. I did not feel it was substantial enough to give the 5 days.
I am not a lawyer, but since you play one on tv, maybe you can investigate this a little more and call me to share your results.
Kelly
If the RCML had any nads I would join it.
ReplyDeleteAnother Resident
I've already shared the results. The commission didn't play by the rules. Your solicitor apparently gave you bad advice. And furthermore, even if it were not classified as a "substantial" change (subjective at best) why werent materials made availbe to the public? I mean, I get it- Dems' idea of open government means unlocking the door to let people in. But come on. You cannot, with a straight face, defend this nonsense.
ReplyDeleteAs for who should shoulder a recall effort, no, one person should not take it on. I guess if enough people give a damn, are tired of corruption and don't want to keep being taken for granted, then someone will step up to the plate.
Kelly, what do you think of Section 1.B.(i) The Sign is one sided, and faces the middle of the property; and
ReplyDeleteLet me get this straight. If there is a sign on the wall of the high school stadium beneath the visitor's bleachers, spectators sitting in the home bleachers would be looking at the back side of the sign, because, according the ordinance, must be facing the middle of the property.
How did the municipal solicitor advise you when you asked him about that in executive session? I don't even play an attorney on TV.
David Huston
Kelly, please, please don't start with what is essentially bs! I wanted to believe in you, I supported you, I voted for you and now apparently you're going to let us down.
ReplyDeleteThe attorney told you the amendments weren't substantial enough!? Would you please go back and ask him just how he arrived at that conclusion. Attorneys can and do make mistakes.
Here is the code once again, I've capped the key phrases. No nowhere is there a reference to "substantial" amendments. The way the code is written, whether its inconvenient for the municipality or not, an amendment must have 5 days prior notice published in the newspaper...period. That is what Home Rule is all about, giving residents the opportunity to review and comment on changes their elected officials are making in the way the way the municipality is run. I mean who determines what substantial is... the attorney, Comish Brumfield?
What if Dave said let's make the maximum size 28 sq. ft. instead of 24. Is that substantial, it's only 4 sq. ft. and the average resident couldn't tell the difference? Others will see it immediately!
Then you have the issue of who enforces this code, who maintains the signs. If the municipality is going to handle it, do we have to create a new department of field signs? Will the muni. now be responsible for guarding advertises signs and on the hook to replaced damaged (by the kid athletes) ones. If a kid tears or breaks a sign catching a ball, will he be responsible for replacing it? Will the YSA?
No one has thought this out. As usual the muni employees and the youth groups think the've found a motherload to help pay for their wish list with not thought on future repurcussions. Don't fall for it Kelly. You have a perfect example of the school district trying to collar people (PK) for their frivilous ideas that your husband warned against.
§ 27.3-320. Ordinances Requiring Prior Public Notice.
NO FINAL ACTION SHALL BE TAKEN ON THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF ORDINANCES AND AMENDMENTS thereto without public hearing thereon, of which there has been AT LEAST (5) days’ PRIOR PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLISHED IN A NEWSPAPER CIRCULATING GENERALLY in the Municipality or prior public notice has been provided pursuant to state law applicable to Home Rule Municipalities.
Would the public be more receptive to the approval of this ordinance if they were assured that this would be a revenue source to only benefit the municipality? Leaving the sports group out of it? Would it also help to publish the revised ordinance? I still think this fell on the president's watch and if he had any backbone, he would be stepping in, instead of watching everyone criticize Kelly.
ReplyDeleteElaine
Remember the vote was 4 to 1. Kelly was the one who questioned Brumfield after the meeting. HE is the one who said that the commission does not print revised ordinances. Remember how certain men were screaming at Kelly at the coffee shop? For that reason, I will not be publishing any more criticism directed towards Kelly unless you have the guts to sign your own REAL name. If you can't live with that, then you can email her privately. I am the first to admit that this whole thing went down badly, but the person to blame is not Kelly. Residents, citizens, Ben, and Perry, the person ultimately responsible is Brumfield.
ReplyDeleteElaine
No one is yelling or placing blame on Kelly.She at least had the fortitude to ask questions, that's all her constituents can ask of her if she doesn't accept answers on face value.
ReplyDeleteThe only problem is that just any answer is not OK, and that is all I think we're trying to remind her of.
Attorneys can and do get it wrong sometimes. They don't always have the right answer, if they did there wouldn't be so many of them.
As to your question Elaine would the ordinance be received better if... YES...
1. If it was defined who will manage and be responsible for all issues regarding signs on public property! That is selling, creating and maintaining signs and managing the inflow and outflow of money.
NO... if it requires a new municipal dept. maybe not if the sign funds don't cover it's cost.
NO... if the sports groups manage it.
NO... if this is an excuse for the YSA to renege on their $30,000
NO... if this is an excuse to proceed with turfing and lighting fields.
ANd before the commissioner's start a discussion on turfing again, Comish Blunderfield better explain how he came up with $3,500 annnual maintenance cost for turf.
A Resident
Oh, but there are. I just haven't published them.
ReplyDeleteA Resident, to your points...Amen!
If you get a chance to watch the meeting or listen to the podcast, I did ask the commissioners to table the vote because they still had homework to do before voting on the ordinance. Perhaps Brumfield didn't hear me due to the the antics his partner in crime was doing while I was speaking. At least he was smart enough to not get it recorded like another commissioner was when I was being interrupted at a school board meeting two years ago.
Depending on which commissioners were being televised during my comments, you could see the disapproving looks of Commissioner Fraasch while Dave Franklin was being so childish.
Elaine
It is your blog Elaine so manage as you see fit.
ReplyDeleteThe antics of in my opinion Spoiled Brat Franklin and Comish Blunderfield are deplorable. It's amazing what law schools foist on the world.
Of course prim and proper Linfante wouldn't speak up to right a wrong unless it was directed at one of her cohorts.
Kelly sorry, if its objectionable enough to make you grimace, perhaps it should be requested that the president gavel the offender. If it feels wrong, it probably is.
A Resident
"I still think this fell on the president's watch and if he had any backbone, he would be stepping in, instead of watching everyone criticize Kelly.
ReplyDeleteElaine"
Ths guy can't even explain where or defend the accuracy of his turf estimates. Do you really think he has the chutzpah to defend Kelly?
A Resident
Another resident, I'm with you... "If the MTLRC had any nads I'd join it!"
ReplyDeleteIs Raja still heading it up or is someone else in charge? Here's a perfect opportunity to differentiate themselves from the democrats and tout what they stand for. But no, they'll wait until November, solicit some money and then crawl back into their holes and wonder why they're still in the minority.
A Resident
It's Brumfeilds fault yet Kelly still voted for it, correct? So now you're going to choose which public officials to hold accountable even though four of them are on equal footing? You're going to lose credibility by doing that, Elaine. Aren't you the one who claims to have the community's only real source of public debate? Now it's "oh, don't pick on Kelly". That's kind of selective and sounds an awful lot like the way the SB people behave.
ReplyDeleteShe ran for the office, Elaine. If she can't take heat for making poor decisions sometimes, then she needs to resign. But I'll give her credit for at least engaging in dialogue and trying to explain why she did what she did. That's more than the other three Dems.
A Resident: RCML missed the boat before when they supported their RINOs on the school board for their ridiculous spending, and don't forget that they didn't endorse Lone Ranger Matt Kluck.
ReplyDeleteMaybe they should take a group vote and then do the opposite if they want to be a "Republican Committee"!
Another Resident
Let's not turn this into what I am or am not doing. I didn't say, "don’t pick on Kelly." What I said was, if you are going to go after her, sign your real name. I am not going to be publishing unsigned trash, if you don't have the you know what to sign your real name. And why should I be concerned about my credibility coming from someone called Un B. Lievable? If they are on equal footing, as you say, let's give equal time to Bendel and Linfante, in addition to Brumfield. Why don't you start, Un?
ReplyDeleteElaine
Lieveable, apparently everything in Lebo is judged in degrees.
ReplyDeleteThe amendments weren't substantial enough to fulfill the public notice requirements.
Voting for the amendments is wrong, unless you asked a question (irregardless of the answer) then your vote is OK.
Then of course, the fifth commissioner voted against it. Guess that's OK right even tough no question as to how they could legally conduct the vote in the first place.
I've got to remember that!
When they issue me a parking ticket at an expired meter... I'll just ignore it because 2 or 3 minutes wasn't a substantial amount overtime.
Hell when I get a .09 level DUI for being over the .08 limit, I'm going to tell 'em hell "thads eeerrrr nodda snuff to git workdddd upbout, sloush-iffcer!"
Yeah that'll work- let's run it by the solicitor for a ruling.
A Resident
My arguments from the outset have been asking why not one of the five commissioners (or the hired solicitor, what are we paying him for) asked for the municple code to be enforced.
ReplyDeleteA Resident
Let's ask youth sports volunteer and legal beagle, Comish Blumblefield for a ruling.
ReplyDeleteIf I kick a field goal in a youth football and it doesn't go thru the uprights, how many inches does it have to be away from the uprights to be counted as a "substantial" missed attempt?
One inch and its still a goal? How about 5 inches? Can I get away with 12"? How about if my team never COMPLETES the snap?
I mean really, substantially we went for the field goal, it'd be nice if you gave us the 3 points!
Oh yeah I want this guy teaching my kids the rules.
A Resident
On The Almanac's web page it announces that the Lebo Boys Baseball Team (congrats guys) cinched a playoff spot.
ReplyDeleteWhere'd these kids learn to play ball? Certainly not on artificial turfed ball fields. We don't have any.
Franklin's and Bumblefield's talk of turfing must have been the factor that put 'em over the top. Thanks Dave's, they couldn't have done it without you.
A Resident
Seems to me there are a bunch of idiots on this thread.
ReplyDeleteSo we have a commission that voted to do some revenue generation with signs on field.
Whoop-de-doo! Don't you want this revenue? Do you give a hoot where the money goes to? Shouldn't you be happy that any revenue generated will be less taxes paid by you, the taxpayer? People are up in arms about putting signs on fields? Really? Have you driven around lately? Have you looked at the budgets of public entities lately? I'd rather the commission find new revenue sources than raise my taxes.
So they voted to change an ordinance that allows such revenue generation.
As for the vote being illegal...just shut up. Seriously. Do you expect the commissioners to know more about municipal law than their own solicitor? Should the commission stop their next meeting when they have a question for the solicitor and wait to get a second opinion after they hear the first?
They consulted their solicitor to see if they could go ahead and legally vote for the amended ordinance. The solicitor said what? They did this in public.
So put it like this. The commissioners consulted the solicitor to make sure they were operating within the law. The person who is responsible for knowing whether or not they were operating within the law said that they were operating within the law.
Many of you have clamored on for YEARS about the SB or Muni acting outside the law. Now these people ask in a public meeting to make sure they are within the law and you STILL want to take them to task?
And in the midst of it all you essentially throw under the bus the only commissioner who fought for exactly what you all are asking for....no turf on Mellon.
Get real.
Citizen_A
No you get real Citizen A or what did you say--- shut up.
ReplyDeleteI'm not speaking for anyone else just asking some questions. Not opposed to signs but I do want to know who is going to run them, who will be accountable and why if all these things are up in the air why the rush. 5 days to put the amendment in the paper as required by law doesn't seem like an odd request.
As far as turfing Mellon, if Comish Bumblefield's presented estimates ate even close to being real--- only $3,500 yearly maintenance--- reluctantly cuz I'm a fan of grass, I might have to support his turf.
If it's that good, why does it have to be rammed down peoples throats?
So as you say A, get real--- follow the rules and make a real case. It's all that's required! It's the "we know better than you, we don't have to explain or answer to anyone" attitude that's dividing the community. The Twin Hills and McNeilly purchases prove that.
A ResIdent
Hey A Resident,
ReplyDeleteAs with many of your other posts on the thread, you completely missed the obvious.
The commissioners followed the advice of their solicitor when voting. What the hell else are they supposed to do?
Let's ignore the fact that if they had postponed this vote five days to satisfy your every whim the vote still would have passed 4-1 (perhaps even 5-0). Nobody wants to hear your whining.
Actually, here you go. I would like this. Why don't YOU go file the lawsuit and put your money where your mouth is. I'd appreciate it because it would mean less of your crying on this blog about nothing that matters and more real conversations about how to get things done.
Don't post again until you attach a copy of that lawsuit.
Citizen_A
Hey C.A. and A.R.
ReplyDeleteLet's take a deep breath for a moment.
Several residents had concerns with the amended ordinance. We found out that there were amendments made to the amendment. The commissioners checked with the solicitor before voting, and it was his opinion that it was OK to vote. It is unfortunate that Brumfield didn't feel that it was appropriate to share the revision with the public by either having copies available on the back table or by announcing the changes made during public comments. Perhaps the changes were made during Executive Session and there was no time to print copies of the revision. OK. I will give them the benefit of the doubt. But Brumfield should have been more transparent. It would be helpful if the revised ordinance could be published on the municipal website. I don't think that lawsuits need to be filed. I don't think any laws were broken, but that doesn't change the fact that WE STILL DON'T KNOW. Even the zoning ordinance hasn't been updated online compared to what the Solicitor has in front of him. The amendment has a gap in numbering from what is online and what was voted on. That needs to be updated. I still hold Brumfield accountable for not stepping in here to defend his decision. As president of the Commission, he was watching Kelly get fried here. I have lost all respect for him. He did not stop the antics in the back of the room. We have guidelines as residents for proper behavior during the commission sessions. They are printed and on the table in the back of the Commission Chambers.
So let's take a step back and cool off. This just showed the true colors of our president and his buddy. We know who we are dealing with and we are concerned. No lawsuits, please. Let's be cautious and aware. The Dave's are involved.
Elaine
I can understand CA anger. I'm a little miffed myself. This chain of blogs was disappointing to say the least. I think Commissioner Fraasch has earned enough respect for her hard work and openness to not be treated this way. I emailed her prior to the vote and she was clear. If two items weren't addressed she was voting against the whole thing. She must have gotten what she needed. That's all we can ask for. She sees the end result and it's her job to manage it all to achieve the goal. I don't get why some took such a harsh tone on literally something so petty.
ReplyDeleteFrom your reactions you would have thought she voted for turfing Mellon. Ken Ward
There you go again with the "poor little Kelly" nonsense. There are five commissioners. Each had a vote. Keely had one, Blowhard had one, etc. This whole issue can't rest on Dave's shoulders.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I don't know who citizne A is but you're the idiot, A. Lawyers make mistakes and sometimes give bad advice, just like mechanics, doctors, pro sports agents, etc. Their solicitor screwed up. You ask "what else are they [the commissioners] supposed to do?" Well, golly, how about brushing up on municipal regulations? Have you, Citizen A, ever read the entire MPC? I have and I'm not running for office. It's called education. You oughta try it, and if the commissioners want to represent voters, they should too. The way they "passed" the ordinance was illegal. Which part of that don't you grasp? Unfortunately, by law, even if an ordinance is passed is such an absurd and blatantly incorrect way, it will stand until someone decides to challenge it.
You bring up revenue. Here's how you start to afford things in Lebo (and this goes out to the community)--live within your means. You don't get to have everything. A lot of kids go into debt when they get credit cards because it's just so easy to spend other peoples money. It's very easy until the bill comes due. Ours has. If we can't afford having kids play every sport under the sun, then cut some. It's that easy. I'm tired of the Dave Franklins of the world trying to convince people it's okay to destroy the charm and character of a community for their own selfish means. Hey, Franklin, if you don't like Lebo, leave. It was here before you, it'll be here after you. Thanks for stopping by, now go away.
The amended ordinance regarding signs is on the municpal website.
ReplyDeleteAmended zoning ordinance regarding signs
Elaine
Well Citizen A it's plainly obvious what the "A" stands for in your name! Well here I am posting again, despite your bullying message not too unless I came with my lawsuit. So what are you going to do A__hole?
ReplyDeleteYour self-righteous bullying is only exceeded by your ignorance. There is a principle in our legal system, it's based on the following:
Ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat (Latin for "ignorance of the law does not excuse" or "ignorance of the law excuses no one") is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because he or she was unaware of its content."
You Citizen A may be right- after posting for 5 days the amended ordinance would probably still pass. An if it did then I'd have no complaint about procedures being followed.
So A if the outcome was never in doubt, why the rush??? We still don't know who can sell sign space. We don't know who will handle the money! We don't know who will be responsible for maintaining the signs! Who sets the price A? If girls softball finds 10 advertisers for Wildcat that want to pay $500 a sign and boys baseball finds 10 different ones, which signs go up?
Don't let issues get in the way of your agenda A, that would require too much thinking on your part!
A Resident
"Don't post again until you attach a copy of that lawsuit.
ReplyDeleteCitizen_A"
That one sentence says all that needs to be said about Citizen_A and his ilk.
He actually believes he holds control over everything Mt. Lebanon. He decides which codes we must follow or ignore and whom may speak freely on Elaine's blog. He actually thinks he is Citizen_A!
Amazing!!!!!!!!!
Giffen Good
To Mr. Ward, personally I don't have an issue with Kelly per se, after due public deliberation, presentation of the real facts and finances, as I said before I may have to ask for Kelly and the five commissioners to vote FOR turfing Mellon.
ReplyDeleteMr. Blunderfield made a claim that turf will cost only $3,500/year to maintain. That seems to good to be true, but if is and can be proven- hey turf away. Maybe turf a few other fields too.
What scares me, is that the commissioners didn't follow municipal code and protocol passing the sign amendment. So, will we see Comish B rally his friend Franklin and pass another municipal expenditure without due process?
Haven't we learned enough already from the Twin Hills, McNeilly debacles pushed forward by the sports consortium?
A Resident
Meanwhile School Board Director Lebowitz is probably getting overly excited. The commissioners have opened the door for an entirely new revenue source.
ReplyDeleteThey'll be able to put signs on everything and just about everywhere. The argument will be that they are allowed on muni property, so why can't they on school district grounds.
A Resident
A Resident
ReplyDeleteYou think I am bad for wanting to control this town? Ha, you would just as well tell people to LEAVE town when you disagree with them (around here they call that "thinking like Posti"):
"Hey, Franklin, if you don't like Lebo, leave. It was here before you, it'll be here after you. Thanks for stopping by, now go away."
There was another guy as part of BOSN that decided to say in a public meeting that he would be happy to put signs in peoples yards if they wanted to leave town due to the massive tax increase for the high school project. You two dimwits seem to think just alike! Maybe you should seek him out and have a beer.
Still waiting to see a copy of that lawsuit that you say is a winner
Citizen_A
Still waiting Citizen A-- that is funny. You keep waiting, I'm working on it (wink, wink).
ReplyDeleteWhat an intellect, I should take money out of my pocket to file a suit- that should it go to court- more money will be taken out of my pocket in tax dollars to pay the solicitor to defend the municipality position and tie up the courts. Who is the municipality... who pays for the courts... us-- you fool.
Its like the past incident where the school board sued the municipality on the parking issue. The district pays their solicitor, the municipality pays theirs and a judge presides over it all and all the while rocket scientist like you sit back and think you've won some major battle. Oh boy, the school got 8 additional parking spaces counted for how much did it cost us taxpayers... $30,000. Smart Citizen A, you beat me.
Had the school district just followed the specifications of the zoning code or applied for a variance as allowed, nobody would have had to sue anyone. But no, Citizen A, being the brilliant mind you obviously are, never ever doing anything according to Holye.
You're right, skip the 5 day notification required in the municipal code. It doesn't mean anything, probably something some lunatic resident requested be in the code just so they could blog about it.
You keep waiting for that copy of the lawsuit Citizen A. I'm laughing my head off.
A Resident
PS: Citizen A, I'm still blogging here and Elaine's sit accepting them. What are you going to do now?