Sunday, June 24, 2012

The problem begins with all of us.

This letter to the editor comes from reader and frequent commenter, Charlotte Stephenson.

Elaine,

Since I originally composed this letter to the editor a few days ago, there have been numerous comments posted that may make this seem a bit redundant. Nonetheless, I am willing to post it anyway. Here is goes:

We really do have a problem in Mt. Lebanon and the problem begins with all of us. It’s true that we should feel angry and upset over the way our elected officials choose to spend our money without demonstrating an understanding of the impact of their decisions.

Money for turf may satisfy some families here, but the cost will impair others because the money will come from the taxpayers and the ongoing cost of this project does not appear to be fully understood. How can we be paying for turf when we don’t have enough money for our entire road repair or other infrastructure needs? The uncollected sum of $800,000.00 in parking violations among other chunks of dough that have fallen through the cracks according to Dave Egler demonstrate completely irresponsible fiscal management by someone and yet we do not really know much loss there has been or exactly how it happened. We have seen that the decision to overspend on a high school renovation project has already cost more to the taxpayers due to a recent change order and a fundraising feasibility study and at the same time we are cutting service to our students. Oh, and did or didn’t the YSA live up to their end of the bargain? The school district claims they have, but the IRS tell us differently. So if the payments weren’t made, who has been paying for all of the field maintenance? You know who has! How about the perpetual audits, we all know that a change in players from time to time is a good idea, but why hasn’t that happened?

What about the basic Sunshine Law? When I became frustrated for not getting information about the School District’s decision to conduct a feasibility study relative to the donor as we were promised by Board President Josephine Posti, I eventually filed a RTK. I am including the documentation here, but what is disturbing to me is the obviously blatant effort being made to keep our residents out of the loop as the directors and administration conduct business that we pay for.  Go ahead and read it, see what you think.

The situations discussed on this blog are concerning and frustrating, but venting our frustrations is not going to make any difference because anyone who has approached these authorities with their logical concerns has seen first hand that the sitting elected majorities (not everyone) are entrenched, inflexible and frankly incapable of changing their minds on these and other highly controversial issues. It’s politics at best, or worst around here depending on where one sits in the fiscally conservative department. So, what can we do?

If people really want to make a difference, it’s time to start recruiting potential candidates for the next election cycle for the open Commissioner and School Board seats. (Make sure they understand that a sitting official will stop at nothing to impair their campaign including authoring a slanderous letter under a fictitious name for illegal distribution throughout the community). Form an election committee and start soliciting donations NOW. Finally, keep a list of the egregious actions we continue to observe of those who will be running next time. The only way anything will change will be when new and motivated candidates who really want to serve the community and not their own agendas are sworn into office. Be sure to add some time in to motivate voters to actually go to the polls!

This community is learning the hard way why being an informed active voter makes a difference. If anyone can appeal to the Commissioners as to why spending a huge amount of money for artificial turf is irresponsible, good luck. It's about special interest politics plain and simple. The decisions the School Board made to spend too much on the high school, among other items and those that the Commissioners are making on turf will have far-reaching impact for a long time to come. These people may feel they are serving the next generation, but what they are really doing is ensuring that the next generation won't be able to afford to live here, one poor financial decision at a time. Everyone should be careful what he or she wishes for!

Finally, where have our other local representatives and senators been? Quite honestly, Elvis has left our building. How many times have any of them reached out to those of you who have made your concerns known? When I was featured as “A Newsmaker You Should Know” regarding the petition effort, I received a note and copy of the article from Matt Smith, but he never offered to talk further and see what he could do to help. Tim Murphy’s office has been an impenetrable fortress. They always ask for my donation and vote when the time comes, but there is obviously little interest in trying to deal with our local situation. Sure, local votes and local money matters, but beyond that these issues appear too hot to handle. It’s time for change all the way around, so who is willing to get started? We must remember, if we always do what we always did we'll always get what we always got!

-Charlotte Stephenson

38 comments:

  1. Don't miss those four little letters H-E-R-E in Charlotte's article. It is a link to 117 pages of emails concerning Pursuant Ketchum and the feasibility study.

    On page 13, Dave Reese calls a $30 million goal a Herculean task. He also clarified that the $8 million promise was only an estimate, not a promise. Ha!

    Page 39 shows Joe Rodella a.k.a. JoeRo as "in" for a meeting about the MLCE at Panera's. Remember that name, folks.

    Note the warnings that Ilene Cohen gives throughout the emails. It appears she has done lots of fundraising for nonprofits. Thank you, Ilene! I sure hope someone listened to her.

    Check page 48 - oh this is good. PK has never worked on a public school campaign. Classic Posti.

    My all time favorite email is on page 113. See Dave? We do have common ground!

    What have I learned from this PK RTK? I think a possible donor has been identified. Who is going to approach Panera's? They sure get a lot of business from the School District.
    Elaine

    ReplyDelete
  2. What caught my eye was pages 14 and 15 where they tiptoe around the Sunshine Law. Notice how many e-mails are routed through non-district e-mail addresses, those are not accessible under RTK according to the district's solicitor.

    -Charlotte Stephenson

    ReplyDelete
  3. "What did you do TODAY to improve the life of a child?"

    "I got a 3% raise by reducing print classroom magazines at elementary schools."
    - Dr. Timothy Steinhauer

    ReplyDelete
  4. According to the PK Planning Study Timeline on page 31, PK should have finished Phase III and should now be presenting their final report. This was determined by using the maximum amount of time in each phase of the timeline. So what's it going to be? Green, yellow, or red?
    Elaine

    ReplyDelete
  5. Per Charlotte's letter, please understand how much she gets this:

    ELECTIONS MATTER
    CANDIDATES MATTER

    If you want to change this town, start doing it today by organizing a group of like minded individuals to run for office. Run on one word: Transparency.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Actually, email on any account used for public business IS accessible under the revised Sunshine Act. Please please please let the solicitor advise everyone involved to deny a RTK. It will trigger legal action and at that point it's game on.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous 6:53 AM

    I am a RTK newbie and you are correct, that the personal e-mail accounts when being used for “public business” are accessible under the RTK, but items were denied according to the RTK response due to attorney/client privilege, and the requested information about donors, potential donors and other non-officials’ information were “redacted” under other sections of the RTKL It’s hard to know what is being redacted when you can’t see it!

    This is an interesting topic and perhaps you can answer a couple of questions: How does anyone know exactly what or how many personal e-mail accounts are being used by elected officials? Also, is election-related correspondence from a sitting elected official’s personal account considered “public business”? Finally, as I read through the legal gobbledygook it seems to me (a lay person) that text messages should be considered a public record when they are being generated over public business. Do you have any thoughts on these questions?

    -Charlotte Stephenson

    ReplyDelete
  8. Some folks have better access to elected officials than others.
    See this brief email exchange:

    From: larry@APGHLAWFIRM.com
    Sent: Fri 5/25/12 1:43 PM
    To: David Huston


    David--please do NOT send me any school board information to my work email address. Thank you. Larry

    David Huston ---05/25/2012 09:36:32 AM---Larry, Please review the attached case I referred to in our telephone conversation this morning.

    From: David Huston
    To:
    Date: 05/25/2012 09:36 AM
    Subject: phone call follow-up



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    Larry,
    Please review the attached case I referred to in our telephone conversation this morning.
    Let me know what you think.
    David
    [attachment "IMPORTANT_CASE.pdf" deleted by Larry/APGHLAWFIRM/US]



    **********************************************************************
    This email contains confidential, privileged information intended only for the addressee. We appreciate your assistance in correcting this error.

    http://www.APGHLAWFIRM.com
    **********************************************************************
    David Huston

    ReplyDelete
  9. Charlotte, would you mind sharing what your RTK was? I didn't see any emails from Cissy Bowman even though there were questions directed to her.
    Elaine

    ReplyDelete
  10. David, are you speaking of Larry Lebowitz? He shows a different email address in the RTK.
    Elaine

    ReplyDelete
  11. Elaine,
    I altered the e-mail address to protect the innocent.
    David Huston

    ReplyDelete
  12. The email address Mr. Houston altered is to llebowitz@cohenlaw.com. Mrs. Linfante is using this address too to communicate with Larry as are others.

    When I sent an email there, Larry told me to send emails to his mtlsd address.

    Obviously Larry has two faces - one for his buddies and the other for the public.

    John Ewing

    ReplyDelete
  13. With respect to the posting of June 25, 2012 6:22 AM - Along with this good advice I would posit the following:
    1) A mass mailing to ALL Mt. Lebanon registered votes, reminding them of the importance of voting in local elections, regardless of when they are held, might work wonders at the polls, and 2)the group of "like minded individuals" should run as independents. A study by the Reason Foundation (disclosure: I'm a supporter) shows that the market share of voters claiming either D or R affiliation has plunged over the past 10 years, and independents make up the largest voting block. Many independents stay home because of the choices offered to them. Candidates who "cross file" are generally not independents, but partisans looking to sweep in extra votes from those who check off the "straight party" box.

    Personally, I would much rather vote for a principled Libertarian Party candidate or an independent than any of the D's or R's.

    ReplyDelete
  14. So, David was out of line for sending an email to Larry's work address but he and the rest of the board can go back and forth all day using that email? And Posti can use her work email for all sorts of SB business? I'm sorry but isn't that why these people have email addresses that end with mtlsd.org??? And Posti works for a public utility, the only water utility we all use. So next time they go for a rate increase, maybe ask the PUC if her personal email use is part of the cost. Really wish one of the many lawyers in the community would get involved or chime in.

    ReplyDelete
  15. There is a reason the school board went to four prime contractors. Here is a copy of a sample letter to legislators noting the sunset of the Mandate Waiver Program in June 2010 in the last sentence. In other words the Board did not get their act together to qualify for a waiver. Nice going Josephine and Tim!

    "The Separations Act and section 751 of the Public School Code require school districts to bid construction projects with a minimum of four prime contracts (e.g. general, plumbing, heating, electrical) and award a contract to the successful bidder for each prime. HB 2028, as passed by the House Education Committe on March 29, would provide school districts with flexibility to use single prime contracts.

    Please contact your state representative immediately and tell him or her to vote YES on legislation that would provide the single prime option but allow local decision-making.

    A single prime contract process gives schools the opportunity to save dollars on school construction projects and creates a much clearer line of authority in the construction management process. This legislation is absolutely critical since the sunset of the Mandate Waiver Program in June 2010."

    ReplyDelete
  16. Elaine, regarding the fundraising feasibility study RTK, Josephine Posti was quoted in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on March 20 stating “a donor pledges $10,000 toward the study's cost once tax and legal issues get worked out this week." and the article states "She said the donor should be revealed in the next few days.”

    No announcement was made as promised and so on April 4 I sent e-mail to the school board asking for the information. On April11, I received a nebulous response from Mrs. Posti stating “we're finalizing some paperwork and should have a detailed response for you soon.” So, after receiving no information as of five weeks later, on April 24th I filed the following RTK:

    "Any and all e-mails, whether from official public email addresses or from personal e-mail accounts of the members of the Mt. Lebanon Board of School Directors relative to fundraising plans for the Mt. Lebanon School District including the hiring of Pursuant Ketchum, solicitation of donations, related legal advice, relationships with the MLFE [Mt. Lebanon Foundation for Education], and a pledge for a donation of $10,000.00 toward the cost of the study...between January 1, 2012 and April 24, 2012."

    I received a response to my additional question from Josephine Posti on April 25 that the cost to the school district for the feasibility study is considered a consulting fee to be paid out of the district’s operating budget, and it is not a high school project expense. (That seems odd to me since the study is to raise money for the high school renovation project).

    -Charlotte Stephenson

    ReplyDelete
  17. Thanks for the update, Charlotte. Looks like another RTK is in order for any and all emails from administrators and staff, in addition to your request asking for emails from school board directors. I hate this game we have to play.
    Elaine

    ReplyDelete
  18. I guess I should say to or from any administrators or staff.
    Elaine

    ReplyDelete
  19. I am trying to determine who invited PK to the party. From what I am reading, it was either Larry or our super Super.
    Elaine

    ReplyDelete
  20. Will the person who submitted the two comments about the donors for the PK study please resubmit them under this thread instead of the thread where Posti is calling the County incompetent? Thanks.
    Elaine

    ReplyDelete
  21. Who invited Ms. Cohen to the fundraising. Is she related to Henry Cohen of Upper St. Clair?

    ReplyDelete
  22. From what I gather, Ms. Cohen was a concerned citizen who was sharing her expertise in fundraising with the board. It doesn't look like she was "invited." She advised them against a feasibility study.
    Elaine

    ReplyDelete
  23. Sorry, I can't remember the page numbers (50 and 100 come to mind)....but according to the RTK request, page 100 show MLFE as a $10,000 donor to the PK Study. Page 51 shows Mt Lebanon Community Endowment as another $10,000 donor.

    I don't see any other notes about the other $20,000.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Mrs. Cohen seemed to have her head screwed on straight. She agrees with opinion mentioned here before that any capital campaign for the HS project should have started long before now. Additionally, she advocates for fundraising to be directed towards education and not bricks and mortar. Good for her. After all, that was what the MLFE was founded for.

    I am not worried about JoeRo. He was President when Posti was first elected. No doubt they remained friends. Now that he is on the MLCE, he directed funds towards the study. I could have probably come up with a better use of funds but for now its not coming out of my pocket (I don't contribute to either).

    ReplyDelete
  25. The District got a mandate waiver:
    http://www.mtlsd.org/District/Stuff/2009/OwnersRepRFP090810.pdf
    "The School District has obtained a mandate waiver from the Pennsylvania Department of
    Education to allow the retention of a single prime contractor."

    Here is the application:
    https://docs.google.com/file/d/1n_EDz3Hrt8t9n4uzWT12mf6Dbh33RAQZ3mScMqvRMUKfGlXYaoovv_sxncPs/edit?hl=en_US&pli=1
    filed in March 2010.

    This link:
    http://www.pdeinfo.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/applications/7306/waiver_applications_received_and_action_taken_-_2002/508107

    does not show the mandate application was received by PDE.
    Can somebody follow up with RA-PDEMANDATEWAIVER@pa.gov to find out if the application was lost in the mail?
    If the waiver was granted, did it expire 30-JUN-2010?
    Again, I don't know who to believe anymore.
    David Huston

    ReplyDelete
  26. It's time to change the school district pledge from: "to provide the best possible education for each and every student" to "we'll be fair and transparent when and only when we want to be! So bug off!"

    ReplyDelete
  27. A fter a quik read, I agree Ms. Cohen does seem to be one one of the few individuals in the evidence that is thinking straight.
    One question though is there any relationship to Cohen Grisby?

    Also, I certainly hope that PAWC bills don't include Posti time online or emailing on the PAWC computers!

    She has a school distric account, there is no need for her to use a public utility account.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Anon 1:09, I believe the balance came out of this year's budget. Wasn't it Scott Goldman who questioned that? He was told that they had the money this year. I could be wrong.
    Elaine

    ReplyDelete
  29. If you read PK's letter about the study half was due upfront and the remaining balance due upon delivery of the study results.

    So if there was $20,000 donated for the study the district's out of pocket to this point should be almost nothing since the resiults from PK haven't been delivered.

    ReplyDelete
  30. It is extremely disappointing to see so many of the school board members use their work emails to conduct board business.

    They obviously do this because their solicitor has told them that nobody can compel them to produce work or personal emails.

    However, how do you think their employers will feel when a court finally see this craziness and instructs fact-finding to include work based email servers because an employee was using said servers to conduct non-business related matters and that those servers are now subject to RTK requests? Same goes with Mrs. Birks and her Girl Scouts email address. Didn't she already get smacked down with using PTA emails? And now she is on to Girl Scouts? I mean, that is just dumb.

    I know someone said previously that RTK request DO include private emails. The issue is that no court has the power to produce such emails. It is at the discretion of the individual. These emails could only be produced if their is a lawsuit filed in court, not a RTK.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Elaine, you wrote at 10:17 "My all time favorite email is on page 113. See Dave? We do have common ground!"

    I'll second Mr. Franklin's comment that Posti needs to learn to shut her mouth. She was embarrassment with her comments on Taylor and now she thinks she's an expert on assessment hearings.
    Is there anyone she won't insult or any topic she won't blabber mindlessly and endlessly about?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Somebody tell Posti and Tim to switch to decaf.
    All these clandestine coffee klatches have them blabbering incoherently. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  33. Posti went to her own hearing the last time around.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anon worte "I know someone said previously that RTK request DO include private emails. The issue is that no court has the power to produce such emails. It is at the discretion of the individual. These emails could only be produced if their is a lawsuit filed in court, not a RTK."

    My point is, there is no such thing as a "safe" email account any longer if there is public business being conducted via that account. While it may be true the individual could refuse to produce the documents, once a suit is filed it opens the door for discovery and I'm pretty sur eJoPo and the rest of the bunch don't want some nameless attorney representing people like Charlotte and Elaine combing through EVERY email in their personal and work accounts. Refusal to produce requested documents in that situation gets people jail time.

    ReplyDelete
  35. A moratorium on school construction projects as proposed by the Department of Education would impact more than 230 school construction projects that are currently in Steps A-G of the school construction (PlanCon) process, as well as threaten state sharing in school construction costs in future years. In many cases, debt has already been issued, contracts have been entered into, and construction has begun, all with Department approval and the assumption the state would share in school construction costs. Students and taxpayers would suffer as a result, if the Department is not required to uphold its statutory obligation to provide reimbursement to school districts for their school construction costs

    ReplyDelete
  36. Taking her lead from President Obama I'll bet that 'President JoPo' can invoke executive privilege should anyone ask for her emails in any investigation.

    ReplyDelete
  37. June 25, 2012 7:20 PM

    BO ignores the Constitution.

    JoPo ignores the School Code, Board Policy and RTK law.

    ReplyDelete
  38. That's the problem with RTK. I didn't see any RTK information from Posti's yahoo account - did I miss it? Since she has used it for other matters, particularly election fodder, it would probably take a court ordered subpoena to get that information, rather than an RTK.

    -Wilma Zellers

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.