(6) Joint Maintenance Agreement Amendment: RESOLVED, That the Amendment to the Joint Maintenance Agreement dated as of July 1, 2010 is amended in the form presented, and the Superintendent is authorized to execute such Amendment on behalf of the District.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Joint Maintenance Agreement between the District, the Municipality and the Youth Sports Alliance is extended for a period of six months, through December 31, 2012, with the District paying $35,700 to the Municipality for services similar to those provided previously, and the Youth Sports
Alliance paying between $10,000 and $11,000 to the District (based on the number of participating children), and with other terms and schedules to be specified in an Extension Agreement acceptable to the Superintendent and the Solicitor, and to be signed by the Superintendent.
30 comments:
Sure they can do it. It is not a new agreement, it is an extension agreement.
What the commission does will be interesting.
Did anyone note that how-to-avoid-hiring-American workers "Excited" Larry Lebo, Esq. made the statement in this weeks school board meeting that after further consideration he believes that the YSA is fantastic because they voluntarily donate money for field maintenance.
"Excited" does not want to acknowledge that (a) the JMA specifically states that payments by the YSA to the District are "legally obligated". They are so "obligated" because the YSA has demanded maintenance beyond that that would otherwise be conducted by the District and paid for by taxpayers, and (b) the YSA has not lived up to its legal financial obligations to the District repeatedly over the history of the JMA; and, the District has intentionally refused to force the YSA to pay up, and in fact have falsely claimed they are paid up in spite of their own records, revealed in a RTK, dramatically showing otherwise !
How the HELL do you extend an agreement that's already expired??? And why won't the media ask any questions? We live in bizarro land.
Do we have confirmation that the municipality was living up to their end of the agreement? Did the "demanded maintenance" get completed? Are there records to show that? If the fields are in such deplorable shape, perhaps they weren't being maintained adequately, therefore we may be wrong about the YSA. Have we even looked at this angle?
Yes, we have. Look at the JMA. It is available on my website, lebocitizens.com under "The Facts." it is the last item.
Elaine
11:24, If YSA paid the District, and the District paid the municipality, but the municipality did not maintain the fields, then the District needs to go after the municipality for breach of contract.
The YSA needs to make good on their agreement to pay the District, regardless of what the municipality does.
You see what could happen if the YSA is able to withhold payment due to sub-par municipal services, right?
If one blade of grass is too high, or there is one patch of dirt on a field, then the YSA could withhold payment but the District would still pay the municipality, leaving the taxpayers to make up the difference.
If one blade of grass is too high, then the District is to blame, not the municipality. The poison ivy growing on the steps at Jefferson is the District's responsibility. Read the JMA. Please.
Elaine
Elaine,
I read the JMA.
It does say "District employees will be responsible for all lawn mowing,..."
but read this:
"which will be performed pursuant to instructions from the Municipality as provided in the Districts annually approved budget so that the mowing is consistent with the overall maintenance program for which the Municipality is responsible."
What this means is, if the District has the money in the budget, and if the District puts a note in the annual budget to follow the municipality's instructions, the District may help with mowing, even though the municipality is responsible for it.
The YSA is not off the hook for payments if the fields are not maintained.
It is the School Districts responsibility to reimburse the municipality for the maintenance performed on the School District fields. The agreement is between the School District and the YSA not the municipality, School district and the YSA.
I would assume the JMA isn't extended until all 3 parties agree to extend it.
Hopefully Kelly wants her plan to move forward, extending the JMA will only give the YSA more opportunity to lobby for their artificial turf plan and stack the commission.
By rejecting the extension this will be a prime opportunity to get all the parties working towards a common goal. Matt, Kelly this will be your litmus test. By standing against the JMA extension you just might be taking the first step in bringing the community back together. Sign on and it will be business as usual.
5:26 if the municipality decides not to perform the maintsnance on the school district fields, whom then does the school send the money from the agreement too?
Do they keep it and take on the responsibility of maintaining the fields?
Maybe this is a good thing. Get the muni out from under the triad. The commissioners could then feel free to operate with which ever sports group they wished. Girls softball- want your own field at Robb Hollow here's the plan. Boys baseball want Brafferton, Wildcat, Dixon and Middle. Here's the fee and open dates.
5:26 PM, where did you get that information? Funny, page 2 of the JMA shows Tim Steinhauer's, Steve Feller's, Chip Dalesandro's and Scott Foor's names. First paragraph states all three parties.
Elaine
Since 1998, the YSA's fee has even the same. $30,000. No COLAs. I am not sure if the SD was paying $83,300 for the same period of time. Where has ANYTHING been the same cost for fourteen years?
Elaine
5:26 PM, second paragraph of Agenda item C6:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Joint Maintenance Agreement between the District, the Municipality and the Youth Sports Alliance is extended for a period of six months, through December 31, 2012
As the youth of today say, "Are you on crack?"
Elaine
Elaine: you recent posted this:
"Mr. Brumfield said that on May 1, 1999, the School District, Municipality and Youth Sports Alliance entered into the first agreement to improve the quality of athletic fields owned by the School District. The joint agreement has been very successful, and all of the parties want the partnership to continue.
This new successor agreement has the following major provisions:
Term of two years beginning July 1, 2010 and ending June 30, 2012."
I would assume you transcribed the podcast accurately.
So is 5:56 trying to defame you, are they calling Brumfield a liar, or an incompetent lawyer that can't read a legal document?
I'm pretty sure the commissioner wouldn't say the 3 parties entered into an agreement if they didn't.
Now then the new agreement may be between the school district and the YSA only, but then it would be misleading to call it an "extension."
It also opens up a new can of worms. Why would they exclude the municipality in the new agreement?
Elaine: one can only hope that 5:56 isn't a board member, an administrator or executive in the YSA or even a municipal employee or commissioner.
That's an interesting thought.
If they exclude the muni, then would the YSA be able to claim that the district wasn't maintaining Mellon per the agreement.
Then the district would be obligated to look into turfing Mellon?
Nah, they couldn't possibly be thinking that far ahead. Could they?
7:01 PM, that came from the May 10, 2010 meeting minutes found here. http://www.mtlebanon.org/archives/31/Approved%20Commission%20Minutes%205-10-10.pdf
Elaine
Note the wording of the motion, ". . . the Youth Sports Alliance paying between $10,000 and $11,000 to the District (based on the number of participating children), and with other terms and schedules to be specified in an Extension Agreement acceptable to the Superintendent and the Solicitor, and to be signed by the Superintendent. "
What other terms and schedules are being withheld from the public and specified in the Agreement while Timmy and Tommy complete the back-room deal?
Why is the Superintendent the only signatory? The School Code says the Board Secretary and the Board President are to sign all contracts.
Could it be that Timmy was the Superintendent that excused the 2008 YSA payment? Did he also excuse the 2011 YSA payment?
There is a smell about this motion. It looks like the Board doesn't want the terms made public.
"...Youth Sports
Alliance paying between $10,000 and $11,000 to the District (based on the number of participating children)..."
Does anyone have the stats for the number of kids participating in sports now vs 10 years ago vs 20 years ago vs 30 years ago vs 40 years ago. I think that such numbers would be very helpful in these discussions.
I bring up the point because when I was a child, every night in summer you would hear kids out playing and doing whatnot. Now, I just don't notice as many children as back in the 70's and 80's. The Pittsburgh area has been and is still aging (the South Hills being an epicenter of people over 65 - at least it appears to me that way). We hear that there are not enough ball fields but do the number of children wanting to participate in sports support those statements? Yea, Title IX added requirements for equal time but are there that many kids wanting to play that they don't get an opportunity to play?
Add to the lower numbers of kids, and I think a lot of kids are just playing video games instead of playing outside. Yea, it's not good but it's a fact. Add to that, busy family schedules with two working parents (someone has to pay the taxes) and I just really wonder if there are so many kids who want to play that they are being denied time to play.
10:09 PM, on the same night as the super secret signing of the JMA, Timmy and Tommy will be signing the super secret Act 93 Administrative Agreement and the super secret Mt.Lebanon Lutheran Church Agreement Amendment. Dr. Tim just happens to be a member of that church.
More RTKs ahead?
Elaine
I'm still waiting to hear from Matt Smith and/or Raja about all of this. You'd think with a local school board in their district consistently violating both state ethics codes AND local and state laws (maybe even federal if they've been naughty using email for their illegal deals) that one of the two "men" -Ahem- would say something. But Raja doesn't care since he can afford a tax increase, and Matt Smith doesn't want to offend anyone in the D party. It's so sad. The scum on the school board just keep spending like there's no tomorrow. Guess they haven't learned anything about economics in the last few years. I used to think they were all evil. Now I see they're just dumb.
10:09 PM. I believe Dr. Tim is also a Trustee of that church, and his wife, Dr. Kim, is the music director. Nah, there just couldn't be a conflict of interest there. Just ask the PA Ethics Commission for an Advisory Opinion.
A July 20,2006 Post Gazette article indicates that Mark Hart questioned Board ethics policies six years ago.
Mt. Lebanon Schools
"Board member Mark Hart asked the board to review its ethics policies after being asked that the district make its policy more like those found in private businesses.
The policy, which is titled "staff responsibility for safeguarding district assets," should stipulate conduct, reporting of violations and other ethical concerns, Mr. Hart said.
The board's policy committee will research the matter, and board members will discuss whether they wish to make changes to the policy."
Were there any policy changes made?
Elaine
Are there ethics violations, fraud, payola, lying etc., going on in the district or the YSA, who knows. We can only speculate and it will remain speculation until the FBI, PDE or AG prove it is actually happening.
There is one thing we do know for sure, transparency is not any better than it was pre-Sablegate. Jack Wagoner admonished the district for not being more transparent with the people they serve. Look back at his audit of Sable's buyout.
Nearly ever sitting board member campaigned on a plank of greater transparency. Can anyone see through this JMA extension? Anyone know the fine details?
So, are there unsavory things going on, one can make an educated guess based on some "hard" evidence, but one thing is glaringly obvious- the transparency, the windows into the inner works of the district never arrived.
They're not even using clear packing tape anymore to fix those windows. They've opted instead for 'duck' tape.
The fine details are in the " . . . other terms and schedules to be specified in an Extension Agreement . . ."
See the motion for the wording above.
Question not asked?
During the reconstruction while school is in session how will security be handled?
As a parent, I know I have to sign in thru the central office to gain access to the school. But are the construction workers going to be segregated from the student population? Surely they won't have to sign in each time they enter and leave the building?
What would stop someone from posing as a worker and just waltzing in? Unfortunately, events at schools over the last few years mandate a look at the situation.
Let's say we have a lock down and we have had a couple. Will the workers be locked down with the student body? How would we know that the "subject" wasn't already in the building?
Just a random thought.
Does Nello provide background checks on every single worker and sub-contractor? It would be a trgedy to find out we have any sexual offenders working around high school kids.
From the Administrative Progress meeting minutes, 05-APR-2012 9:00AM ET
A. Security Clearances: All employees must submit the FBI Federal Criminal History Record, Request for
Criminal Record Check, PA Child Abuse History Clearance, and Arrest/Conviction Report and Certification
Form.
3.8.12 - On the first day of employment, prior to the start of the work day, all employees will need to submit
all required state and federal clearances, receive an identification badge, and sign required affidavits. Nello
expressed concern about union employees coming to the project with short notice who do not have all
required clearances. PJD indicated that we need to be aware of all employees who are onsite and that
paperwork needs to be obtained prior to starting work. In the event that this does not happen, we will need
to be made aware of the employees and will advise what course of action will be taken.
4.4.12 - MLSD has verified several Nello employees have not had their fingerprints recorded. PJD noted that
these need to be addressed immediately.
David Huston
The renovation was approved as part of a conditional use, correct? So I think the commissioners need to stop the work until all the background checks/criminal checks have been completed. It's for the children.
Post a Comment