Remember how Elaine Cappucci said that they will not revisit saving Building C? Remember how nearly 4,000 residents felt that we should scale back the high school project since projections indicated a drop in student population, rising pension costs, a possible need to close a school or cut programming, and a decrease in state funding? Well, guess what? WE WERE RIGHT! In today's Almanac (saved in Google Docs), Nick Lewandowski recapped Monday's meeting. The School District has realized they are in a quandary over the 2013-2014 budget.
Elaine Cappucci admitted that, “Closing a school is an option we should at least look at.” Nuh uh. Did you just realize that, Elaine? We have been saying this for more than three years now. We were vilified by the VOICE people. (Gee, where are they now? Oh yeah, they are our elected officials.) We were trashed by local bloggers. (Huh...another elected official.) We hated kids. We were anti education. A school board director was humiliated. We were told to cut back on our lattes. Twenty five percent into the project and Elaine will now revisit closing a school.
Last year at this time, our illustrious school board decided to come up with a list of cost reductions. We were never permitted to see the entire list. Students were faced with parking fees, but the administrators all received nice raises. We were also told about a $30 million fundraising campaign to offset the second bond issue. The board has decided to stay with Pursuant Ketchum to raise $6 million.
We have two school board directors who will be running again, Mary Birks and
Dan Remely. Is Mt. Lebanon going to re-elect them just as we re-elected Elaine Cappucci, Ed Kubit, and Larry Lebowitz? Can we come up with some new blood? Where is the RCML?
41 comments:
From the article:
The Mt. Lebanon school board turned its attention to the 2013-2014 budget at the Feb. 11 discussion meeting. It reviewed a preliminary budget of more than $84 million, as well as strategies for cost savings in a year likely to bring more cuts to programming.
I seem to remember a white paper saying exactly this! I'd say this is unbelievable but it's not. Too often the school board focuses on the immediate budget numbers and not the impact of today's decisions on tomorrow's millage.
Mrs. Klein does not do a good enough job of outlining consequences of budget decisions. Yes we can do this, but if we do, this happens.
Well, here we are three years later. Yes, you can max out your borrowing capacity and your millage limits by building this high school to its maximum non-referendum cost, but you will have to come back later and close schools or cut programs.
If Mrs. Klein laid the argument bare in such a fashion, I wonder how many minds would have changed?
I doubt very much that the Board will entertain seriously the thought of closing a school. They will instead simply cut sheet music, teacher training budgets, and school board member travel reimbursement. Then they will eye raising fees on sports and/or parking to increase revenues.
All of this was so easy to see but we elected a bunch of people who saw shiny new windows and tunnel field entrances instead of empty taxpayer wallets.
Did you think the suggestion to revisit closing a school came up during the monthly pizza lunches?
I mean– these kids would some of the first to be able to resolve complex math problems using Investigations, right?
Yeah that is a little or if you prefer a lot snarky... but I figure when I get my 2013 tax bill I'm paying for the right.
The rifle coach is quoted in the Almanac saying, ““My opinion is $410,000 is an inflated number,” he said. “It’s not a real expensive thing to build a range. You need a backstop and some concrete block.”
In addition, you do not need a spectator area. The sport takes great concentration and spectators would be distracting for the team members. Rifle has not been a spectator sport. How do I know that? My children were on the rifle team.
If memory serves me correctly, I remember the original upgrade to the rifle range was $300,000. How did it jump to $410,000?
At any rate the problem of the Budget will not be solved until you tackle the pension problem. Closing buildings, eliminating curriculum, raising class size, downsizing athletics, charging fees, retiring staff, or RIF, and fund raising will not solve the financial problems MLSD faces under Act 1.
Until the Board begins to realize that the TOTAL COST of each contract is the important number – including pensions, accurate healthcare cost increases, vision care, dental costs, Social Security, Medicare, disability insurance, workman’s compensation, and pensions - are compared to the Act 1 Index continued expense reductions will be necessary from year-to-year.
There is no way a 4.4% salary increase for teachers along with the other costs that figure in the total cost for the teachers contract in the 2014-2015 contract year (the first year for newly elected board members) can be financed with a 1.7% Act 1 millage increase even with exceptions.
It is the best interest of the unions, the administration, the students and the parents to co-operate in the renegotiation of labor contracts before the budget cannot be financed and larger cuts are needed.
Don’t blame the Governor who didn’t vote for the MLSD cost increases.
The best of luck to all board members involved in solving this problem.
I distinctly remember the Governor and the President advising school districts to get their spending under control. MTLSD didn't and now we will pay the consequences.
You cannot raise salaries and not account for the fact that future pension obligations will be based on those higher salaries.
I wonder do you think there will be a grand 'groundbreaking' ceremony with green tinted visors and calculators for all the board members when they finalize the budget.
Think of the photo op! Posti, Cappucci, Steinhauer and Klein can stand in front of the new science wing with a huge reproduction of the tax bill.
Hundreds will attend!
Could this be why no one wants to run?
My, what a difference three years makes! Thank you, Nick Lewandowski, for bringing to light what many of us feared was going to happen.
The school board owes the community an apology. The community should respond by taking its checkbook away.
Somewhere in this municipality there surely must be nine people who are capable of making logical decisions about what is really important to education. (Hint: a fancy building isn't one of them.)
Obviously, the current school board doesn't have a clue.
6:68 if you're referring to the comment at 6:35... Yeah that's it, that's what is scaring people away.
Couldn't be the treatment the author of the white paper got or the malicious PTA email against the 4 candidates in the last election.
Which Board member should tell the community that MtLebanon will have to merge with Keystone Oaks?
Are you sure Ketstone Oaks will have us?
No one is going to want to take on our debt.
Will it take 3 years for President Cappucci to revisit the math program ? I am sorry I voted for her.
Keep that in mind when you vote for up to four school board directors. So far, I know of five people running and two of them are up to their [rolling] eyeballs in this mess. Come folks, didn't Dudley some crazy amount of votes without even trying? He would never have written in a comment like 8:17 AM from the other day did.
Mary Birks had the most votes when she ran. Does she deserve your vote now? Does Dan Remely deserve your vote? For either race? PLEASE, we need more than five candidates to run.
Elaine
Agreed Elaine. We need some people to step up.
I wish wish wish I could do this but my schedule just doesn't allow it.
Here's what I will do...I will commit $100 to the PAC/Candidates that announce they are running on this blog. As long as that PAC is not affiliated with any incumbent, I will happily fork over the hard earned money!
Who's with me?
Figuring you need about $2,000 to make it through the primary and about $4-5,000 to make it through the general, that is a pretty good start.
Independent minded D's, R's and I's are encouraged. Even better if you all run together! And don't forget to cross-file.
New blood on the school board is a step in the right direction, but the real problem is the school system itself. New directors can only deal with the problems they inherit, and hopefully not make matters worse. Even if the board were to become fiscally conservative that in itself would not erase the massive debt previous boards have foisted upon the hapless Mt. Lebanon resident, nor would it erase the pension, union, and administration problems that are built-in to Pennsylvania's public schools.
Unless and until the residents of this town realize that their 19th century school system, organized as a massive government bureaucracy, and one that is seeking even more control over the lives of local families and their children, is not compatible with the sensibilities of the 21st century the specter of large tax increases, non-transparency, unaccountability, and incredible arrogance toward the public will continue apace.
Mt. Lebanon is far from the only school district experiencing controversy; a Google search for school district problems finds that the issues we face are common throughout America. Citizen complaints of reckless spending, inflated administration salaries, lackluster academic performance for the money spent, unsustainable pensions, faulty curricula, and a "Napoleon Complex" on the part of school board members are common.
The day when Mt. Lebanon residents put the academic well-being of their own children above a misdirected loyalty to their local government school will be the day that real change begins, but it will take more than a new set of school directors to accomplish such a task. It will take public awareness, an information campaign, and perhaps an infusion of new residents who reject the concept of government "über alles" and accept responsibility for themselves and their children's education.
I happened to turn on the TV a few minutes ago to hear Dan Remely say something like "excluding retirement increases and debt service, there was only a quarter of a mill increase in the last six years." Those are huge exclusions! Jan Klein said that we are very fiscally conservative.
Also regarding PK, it went down exactly as I thought it would. We basically paid PK $40,000 plus expenses to see if we were worth their time.
Elaine
EG:
Yours of 9:06 AM - I heard that myself on the podcast. In like manner, if I could exclude my health insurance costs, taxes, utilities, and groceries, I'd be "doing pretty good."
Is there any interest in selling the school district real estate and then leasing it back?
Think about what Dan said for just a moment.
First, it's BS. Look at the salary line alone from the last four years and it will be at least a mill ($2 million).
But, really, think about this. If it is true about the quarter mil, that is only $500,000 increase over five years. Assuming most has gone to salary, that means that programming and curriculum has either had to be held steady or reduced to keep pace.
That is not a good thing!
Elaine, Richard, that highlights exactly why we can't let Remely go to Harrisburg!
Yep, Dan I'd be in pretty good financial shape too if it weren't for the huge losses on my retirement accounts and the debt on that home improvement loan I took out for the home theatre system, exercise center, pool and family room.
Mr. Kendrick maybe that's not such a bad idea. We could sell Mellon Field to the YSA, they can turf and light it to their hearts content, and then the school district could pay them a fee for the few middle school games that are played there. LOL
9:52 for as long as I can remember watching the board budget discussions they've asked dept. Heads to cut there material and supply budgets by 5 to 10%.
I never paid close enough attention to see if those cuts were actually made, but it seems to me after 10 years or so the departments would eventually be left with next to nothing.
Aside from directly reducing the debt on the balance sheet, consider the long-term strategic implications for the entire community.
The District could phase-out certain district properties and then the District's landlord (the new property owners) can develop the sites into a blend of residential and commercial properties that will build the tax base and tax revenues.
Leasing gives the District considerable flexibility.
Mr. Kenderick, not a bad idea to explore.
Here's a crazy idea.
Shut down Jefferson completely. Move the elementary students to Hoover, Markham, Lincoln and Washington. All of which I understand ate nowhere near full capacity.
The school could be razed and 20 or so $500,000+ homes could be put in or a private business could buy the existing structure. Then the whole site returns to the tax roles.
Then we keep building C, which Taylor and Rothchild said could be easily renovated. That's saves at least $3 million disposing not having to tear it down. We put Jefferson middle school students there. Everything is centralized. We can eliminate nurses, student counselors, maintenance staff and more.
The high school tennis courts could be put on the hill left of the Rec. Center (facing it). About the only time it is heavily used is during the Easter Egg Hunt.
Why $500,000 homes? Why not $300,000 townhomes that target a different demographic - one that wants to remain close to quality medical care during their elderly years; and another that is young, professional and aspires to live in a safe suburban community with a high quality of life? Perhaps in the center of the development there could be a small commercial business district that encourages the residents of the development and the surrounding community to walk to a local restaurant, cafe or coffee shop?
In fact, I'll up the ante and tell you that in addition to bulldozing everything on the site where both of the Jefferson schools sit, how about selling the Hoover school to UPMC and encourage the development of additional medical facilities that support an expanding regional hospital. Maybe someday St Clair will have a Trauma Center? The population is shifting in their direction.
Concerning your second remark, I'd have no problem trimming the massive fat on the payroll from the elimination of redundant administration, or wiping out the teachers that rate and rank in the bottom 25%.
Doesn't my approach make a lot more sense than staffing empty classrooms with personnel who have literally nobody in their audience?
Give the taxpayers a break!
John, how the Jefferson site would be developed wasn't my concern although your ideas have merit.
Choosing Jefferson seemed to make more sense than unloading a neighborhood elementary in 'residential' neighborhoods.
Markham, Foster, Howe and Hoover are nestled in sort of out of the way area for commercial concerns. Plus the neighbors wouldn't be happy about increased traffic a business might bring at all hours of the day.
Washington, Lincoln and Jefferson (Having the largest land area for development) are the obvious first choices to maximize profits from a sale.
Somewhere I heard someone mention that the elementary schools were operating at 60-80% capacity.
The other benefit we retain the neighborhood elementries for the younger kids where a local school counts more.
But our suggestions will never be looked at... It's easier for the board to raise taxes.
Mr. Kenderick's ideas have merit. I'm not sure about selling with a lease-back option, but I do know that other school districts across America have leased facilities for use as classrooms on the grounds that it was less costly in the long run for a given district with a changing school-aged population. But I consider this lease-back idea another "step in the right direction" instead of a final fix. We need to get rid of geographical school districts and the boundaries they impose on residents. Pennsylvania citizens should be free to choose the school, and the type of school, that best fits the needs of their children. For example, if a family lives closer to USC and feels that a particular school there would serve them better then that is where its children should go.
Choice would also eliminate the situation some Mt. Lebanon families find themselves in now, where their kids are being assigned to Jefferson when Mellon is closer. Take the time to listen to the podcast of the school board discussion meeting held on 11 February 2013. Go to the 1:39:00 mark and you'll hear two women describe their situations. Pay particular attention to the responses from Ms. Cappucci and Mr. Remely. In essence they told these women, "too bad!" - the decision has already been made. "Too bad" your children have to walk a half-mile to a mile more, respectively. "Too bad" you must work and can't drive your kid to Jefferson. "Too bad" that much of the walking distance from Seneca Drive to Jefferson Middle school is on dimly lighted streets with no sidewalks. (This business of Mt. Lebanon being a "walking community" is pure myth and pure bunk!) I wonder what the board would say if this child is hit by a car some dismal winter morning?
In the end, to effect meaningful change more political pressure needs to be applied in Harrisburg than in Mt. Lebanon because Harrisburg is the only place that sets the criteria for Pennsylvania public schools.
Let's face it, the School Board election is a "popularity contest." The turn out in the election is usually the lowest and the only people who do vote are the few of us who really care and the friends of the candidates. Hell, most of them run on BOTH party's tickets. I don't need to do a Jay Leno "man on the street" interview to know that most Mt Lebo residents are "Low Information Voters" when it comes to the school board election. You would have to spend A LOT more money than $2000 to $4000 to get the kind of turn out you would need to change this. The same goes for local commissioner elections.
With regard to closing schools, keep in mind, the population is shrinking significantly. The birthrate in 2011 was a record low. That was after 4 years of low birth rates. It wasn't any better in 2012. Those 60% to 80% capacities are going to be shrinking down to 50% to 70% and 40% to 60%. You'll know when this happens because it will be sugar coated as "unprecedented child to teacher ratios!"
(another effect is this will accelerate the insolvency of Social Security in the coming years)
What confuses me is we spend significantly more money on educating significantly less children and we have the same results, in spite advances in information technology and access to information that is unprecedented in human history.
Mr Gideon,
While I understand what you mean by "pressure needs to be applied in Harrisburg" you do realize the "pressure" those in power are applying is "pressure" for more money so they can live in their dream world where actions don't have consequences.
Jack Mulliken a very thoughtful comment at 6:47.
Our school district administration, teaching and staff continues to grow year after year.
Each new hire adds to the pension crisis, as does each pay increase.
But as you state with all the increased spending, with all the advances in technology, we have very little in the way of better results... for fewer students.
Jack raised an interesting point which us back to the importance of having a strategy that will attract new residents to Mt Lebanon.
Mt Lebanon is truly at a critical junction. We need to implement policies that will encourage migration from other communities into Mt Lebanon.
At the moment we don't have any meaningful policies in place. However, we have been blessed with a safe community that happens to have a great strategic location that is in close proximity to shopping, healthcare, transportation and work.
And we have a decent school district reputation, that unfortunately despite increased spending seems to be falling rather than rising.
Mr. Mulliken:
The current crop of school directors are indeed applying pressure in Harrisburg, but that does not mean pressure cannot be brought to bear from the "other side." This means contacting more than just our local representatives. I communicate with state representatives and senators from across Pennsylvania. But I do appreciate your point.
Mr. Kendrick:
There are several problems associated with attracting new residents to Mt. Lebanon. First, the town is about fully developed; the space for new housing is limited. Second, despite what the local cheerleaders say the tax situation here discourages many young families from moving in. Third, the stock of available houses for sale is a mixed bag. Much of the housing in Mt. Lebanon is post WWII, and not of the style or space some people seek. Fourth, while the school district is a "draw" for some people I suspect the kind of people who move here strictly for the schools are very much of the collectivist bent. Given all of these things, your observation that Mt. Lebanon is "..a great strategic location that is in close proximity to shopping, healthcare, transportation and work" is well said.
General comments to all Blog readers:
Keep in mind that commissioners and directors are also very much interested in population movement; i.e., the "wrong kind" of people leave and the "right kind" of people move in. It is almost beyond argument that Mt. Lebanon is a bedroom community, first and foremost, and that its primary tax base is the fictitious real estate tax. As such it is in the interest of both the municipality and district to keep the percentage of young, fertile, home-owning families as high as possible. These "ideal" Mt. Lebanon residents are in their mid to late 30's with a minimum of two kids, mother and father both work (more taxes), and mother and father see the schools not only as institutions of education but as baby-sitters. The very worst residents, in the eyes of the powers-that-be, are retired people who want to stay in order to be close to family, or friends, or medical facilities, or because Mt. Lebanon is a safe town; or they simply wish to stay in a home that is paid off and which they love. While many of the people in this age bracket leave of their own accord and head to more desirable places, enough say behind to be an "irritant."
My conclusion is that local officials are also interested in attracting new residents, but of the kind that may be properly fleeced for 40 years without complaint and then move out. And I also stick by my earlier statements that real change in this town must first start with the school system, and that won't be accomplished from within. The starting point is Harrisburg.
Obviously, I fall into the category of "irritant." What frustrates me is when candidates make promises and then when elected, all those promises evaporate. Here is something that Dan Remely wrote to Mike Madison on May 13, 2005.Lebo School Board: Election Update
Read what he says about change orders!
Elaine
A priceless trip down memory lane, Elaine.
"Some unplanned yet justifiable expenses are going to come to light in this manner of renovation, but better planning and job control, better analysis and understanding of the work to be done, and stricter bidding and “hold to the contract/budget” reviews, could have possibly saved a great deal of taxpayer money." -- Dan Remely
So, all that better planning and job control, contract/budget reviews resulted in hundreds of thousands of dollars in geofoam infill, ductwork thru elevator shafts or elevator shafts thru ductwork, missing sump pumps, missing firewall, missing theatre lobby floor finishes, missing doors.
What is amazing after reading Mr. Remely's letter is that the local R party thinks he's the best guy to send to Harrisburg.
Maybe the best question to ask Mr Remley and Mr Miller should be, "What meaningful legislation will you author during your first year that will have an impact on changing the plight of PA communities like Mt Lebanon who have literally been brought to their knees by their school boards?"
The answer could take many forms, like: a new state law that will limit state funding of local district revenue short-falls, a new state law that would force the synchronization and integration of state economic policies and state educational policies; state assistance for economic redevelopment programs that would build school tax revenues; a new set of legialation that will give districts greater flexibility to fire teachers - maybe tenure should be illegal? Why not pass a law that nullifies teacher tenure in present and future labor contracts?
The first step Mr. Kendrick would be to make Pennsylvania a Right-to-Work state.
Second step would be to discontinue the practice of continuing the terms of the previous teacher's contract until a new one is signed.
By doing this the playing field is leveled in contract negotiations. Right now there is absolutely no reason for the teachers union to consider new terms as they can work forever under the old contract until the administration capitulates on a new contract.
Another thing,... if the governor of California can enact pension reform for state retirees, then the governor of Pennsylvania can do the same.
So, if you are a retired Mt Lebanon teacher get ready to kiss your retirement income good-bye!
Can't agree with you on that one, John. An agreement is an agreement. The teachers retired teachers fulfilled their part of agreement.
As far as existing teachers and those yet to come, that is another matter.
Really? How does state retiree pension reform differ from social security benefit reform? How can you support Santorum axing your hard earned annunity but defend state pension recipients?
Along with Mr. Kendrick's excellent question to Mr. Miller and Mr. Remely, I would ask those gentlemen if they support the current Pennsylvania anti-stalking exemption for labor unions (which include teachers' unions), and if not will they move legislation forward to repeal the exemption.
Pennsylvania is one of four states that exempt labor unions from anti-stalking laws. (Read "Why do unions seek exemption from anti-stalking laws?
By Grover G. Norquist and Patrick Gleason, published by Reuters, and "Unions Look to Stalk Their Way into Our Hearts. Don’t Try to Stop Them, Because You Can’t" by Scott Shackford in Reason Magazine.) This simply means that union members (including unionized teachers) may legally harass you, even to the point of following you to your home, as long as it can be shown that their actions are as the result of a labor dispute - and under the PA exemption there is nothing you can do about it! This is yet another reason why the fight for Mt. Lebanon must start in Harrisburg.
Post a Comment