- Preliminary discussion about a possible location for an offleash dog park.
- Preliminary 2012 financial results and beginning discussion on fund balance.
- Public information role and services.
Beginning discussion on fund balance might be how the Turf Board, I mean the Sports Advisory Board, will be able to get turf snuck in.
Finally, the topic that is near and dear to my heart, "Public information role and services." There is fifteen minutes allotted for that topic. Are there changes in store for the Public Information Office? I am not trying to start any rumors, but it is nice to see that on the agenda. Defining the role of the PIO is definitely in order here.
81 comments:
I do not know how an other community can create a ordinance for Scott Township.
No count on deer yet? Where are we at on the muni. Appeals on underassessed properties?
3:09 PM Apparently since we own the property, we can control its uses and conditions of use.
It appears we can legitimately say: "Lebo is going to the dogs!"
Scott has a $300/day/dog fine for each unlicensed dog. Who would be responsible ? http://www.scott-twp.com/doglicapp.pdf
I own property in Scott Township and I am required to follow the laws of the Township. Is the Lebo Commission above the law? Ha! Dumb question.
If I remember correctly, doesn't Baldwin still retain the usual municipal codes and ordinances of the Lebo purchased property on McNeilly.
Seems that was one of the glitches in Mt. Lebanon developing itnto lighted athletic fields.
Back on the 13th of the month I wrote to the Commission and asked the following questions:
1. Am I correct in assuming that in purchasing Twin Hills Park Mt. Lebanon did not acquire sovereignty over it?; in other words, Scott did not cede the land to Mt. Lebanon such that it would now be considered within the boundaries of the Municipality.
2. If the land is legally in Scott then would not Scott's laws trump Mt. Lebanon's ordinances? Making an extreme example, suppose someone is murdered in Twin Hills Park. Which police department would have jurisdiction - Mt. Lebanon's or Scott's?
3. If Scott's laws are sovereign then would you not have to ask them for a waiver of any ordinance they might have against dogs in their parks? Conversely, if Scott is sovereign and allows dogs in Twin Hills then it would seem to be that Mt. Lebanon can't enforce a "no dogs" law in that area.
The next day I received a reply from Ms. Linfante, saying that she had referred my questions to the solicitor. So far I have not received an answer, although I have been told that the solicitor would not likely answer me directly but would send the answers to the Commission.
There is a difference between one government purchasing land within another government's boundaries, and one government ceding land to another government as the result of a sale.
It is likely that the issue of sovereignty will be addressed during tomorrow's Commission meeting, since I'm not the only person to have raised the question.
Another park with a possible "issue" is Robb Hollow, a portion of which lies in Upper St. Clair.
RG, I was able to find a PG article written by Mt. Lebanon resident Carole Gilbert Brown, about this parcel of land. http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-west/slide-damages-ryan-drive-area-in-scott-350548/
"Mr. Woznicki, who was on Scott's planning commission in the 1990s, thought a part of the nearly 25-acre parcel was to be retained by the township, but apparently all of it was sold to Mt. Lebanon. At the time, the two communities were working on developing joint recreational trails, he recalled."
Elaine
It appears Mt. Lebanon applied for a conditional use permit necessary to use the land as a park.
Conditional use page 1
Conditional use page 2
We may need Scott's approval for this one. Has anyone contacted Scott Township?
Elaine
Sorry page 1 is upside down. I had to scan it that way because of the age of the article. The document won't rotate permanently for me.
Elaine
RG, page 2 of the article explains which police department would have jurisdiction.
Elaine
I made a number of calls to officials today, but learned nothing new except that the item is not on Tuesday's voting meeting agenda, at least not at this point.
I will keep trying to contact people.
Elaine:
Thanks for posting this information.
The fact that Scott must approve any physical improvements to the site seems to imply that Scott has retained sovereignty over the area, and seems to answer my first question. However, the conditions of sale consigning police and fire jurisdiction to Mt. Lebanon, while answering my second question, has me wondering why Mt. Lebanon would have signed on to such an agreement if the land was not to be ceded to the Municipality.
Twin Hills Park is definitely shown outside the boundary of Mt. Lebanon on the official map of the Municipality, available for download off the municipal website.
This deal reminds me of the joke about the guy who divorced his wife and got custody of her mother.
RG
In Mt. Lebanon's 100 year history there have been somber really great ideas, but the purchase of the Twin Hills and McNeilly properties have to be two of worst decisions ever made in the municipality.
Topped only by the school board's decision to build that hideous athletic/school complex.
I'm really surprised that someone didn't inadvently forget to include the Horsman bridge floor and walls and submitted a change order for them yet! Guess there is still time.
Both Twin Hills and McNeilly were purchased as a result of enormous field sports lobbying with very little public knowledge and a lot of back room wheeling and dealing coupled with a complete absence of necessary due diligence. We bought the proverbial "pigs in a poke" at a collective and running cost far beyond the $3 million we initially paid for them !
I just spoke with Tom Castello, who is president of the Scott Township Board of Commissioners and also an attorney.
He said Scott was unaware of Mt. Lebanon's possible plan to utilize the 25-acre property until Scott Police Chief James Secreet told him Friday (April 19) that he had gotten an inquiring phone call from our police chief asking who is to patrol the area. According to an Aug. 24, 1994 Post-Gazette article written by the writer whose beat included Mt. Lebanon, our township was to sign an agreement to respond to police and fire calls from that area.
Mr. Castello also stated that Scott does not permit dogs in its parks and that he had no knowledge of a proposed dog park.
He went on to say that Mt. Lebanon will have to bring its plans to Scott.
"They will have to get approval from us and get the proper permits," he said.
How is it the "crazies" can make inquiries, talk to people in the know and rapidly convey the information they uncover for no pay, no benefits and lastly, no respect.
While getting information from our hired guns is like pulling teeth.
Thank you Ms. Brown for the "public" information.
Ms. Brown:
Thanks for yours of 6:55PM. I'm sure what you've discovered will come as a surprise to the people who are expecting our Commission to approve dogs in Twin Hills Park.
RG
Carole, thank you for making those calls. Huh! We will need Scott's permission after all. Tomorrow's commission meeting should be interesting.
Elaine
6:55 PM Carole, I raised the question of whether we had to abide by Scott ordinances regarding dogs in Twin Hills Park at the last Commission meeting, and was advised "No". We'll just have to see.
Bill Lewis
Isn't that the customary answer in every MTL municipal or district decision these days, Bill?!
"Can we afford a $113.4 million high school?"
"Yes,, we"ll just have to see."
"Is there enough parking to meet code in the HS plan?"
"No, we'll just have to see."
"We don't need to turf and light A MTL field do we?"
"No, we'll just have to see."
Is the answer to every issue in this community now, to put the cart before the horse?
Buy the McNeilly property for new sports fields. Don't sak if we can afford it. Don't ask if it's a practical site. Don't ask if anyone want to drive there. Just buy it and wait to see.
Want to put dogs in a park wemay or may not have jurisdiction over? Discuss the possibility of OKing it, then find out if you have the authority. Isn't that half-assed backward?
This morning I received a message from Kelly Fraasch concerning Twin Hills Park. She correctly points out that Mt. Lebanon never had any plans for a "dog park" - the issue was about permitting Mt. Lebanon residents to walk their dogs on-leash in Twin Hills. The terminology is important; a "dog park" and "dogs IN the park" are two different things.
This distinction, however, does not invalidate the questions of most posters, which have to do with which political subdivision has the ultimate legislative authority over Twin Hills Park. The information provided by Carol Brown and Bill Lewis shows that Mt. Lebanon and Scott Township are not, apparently, on the "same page."
I thought Mr. Costello as reported in Mrs. Brown's comment has a pretty good grasp of the situation.
She wrote: "Mr. Castello also stated that Scott does not permit dogs in its parks and that he had no knowledge of a proposed dog park.
He went on to say that Mt. Lebanon will have to bring its plans to Scott."
Too bad we can't get clear and direct information like that in Oz.
The MTL "dog park" was proposed to be located near the muni. maintenance on Cedar, right!
This parcel was to forever be a park, according to the PG article. It is called Twin Hills Trail Park, yes? It is my understanding that there is a doggy duty bag station (or whatever you call it) in the park. Scott does not allow dogs in their parks. The question is, does Scott allow us to have dogs in our park that is located in Scott?
Elaine
How many years now has MTL owned in the Twin Hills property?
In that time, no one in the municipal government has established what rights the municipal government has over that property. Unbelievable!
Mr. Castello's response provokes a question. Does MTL pay property taxes to Scott on the Twin Hills property? I believe it wasn't tax exempt before the commissioners bought it, so why would MTL be any different than any other owner in Scott.
Wouldn't this be something like the people of MTL creating a land speculation company andbuying property anywhere in the state?
9:18 AM, it is tax exempt.Chatham Park Drive
Elaine
Scott Township has an ordinance prohibiting dog urination on public property.
Also, I have seen men hunting with rifles in Twin Hills park.
Has anyone seen the final agreement stating Mt. Lebanon police patrol the park? The article only says the agreement "was to be signed", but we don't know if it has been finalized.
Do you think Mt. Lebanon police are going to enforce the Scott dog urination ordinance in a Mt. Lebanon-owned park, if they don't enforce the state's hunting law prohibiting hunting within a 150 yeard safety zone?
The jokes on us isn't it.
See the sale price of $1,000,000.
Then check out its assessed 2013 value.
But seriously, the commissioners are looking for new sources of revenue. Why don't they start buying up office buildings and commercially zoned property in other communities.
Being tax exempt they could rent the or lease the properties at far below market prices and still make huge profits.
Twin Hills park is 64-L-300.
It is indeed owned by MT LEBANON PENNSYLVANIA, since 1995.
The Twin Hills entrance to the park, 64-L-6, is privately owned.
It was owned by MT LEBANON PENNSYLVANIA and sold in 2001 for $10.
Was this real estate deal approved at a public meeting?
Wy would the municipality part of its own park, adjacent to the entrance, 6 years after purchasing the 64-L-300 parcel?
If I were Scott Tshp. I'd be made as hell that a big plot of land is off the tax rolls because Lebo wanted it.
9:42 I believe the sale might have been to a then private owner, now deceased, in a small parcel land swap at the top of Twin Hills next to the Park entrance. The Municipality was trying to create a public parking area or lot at/near the entrance because there was not one, and needed a couple of hundred sq. feet of what was then private property.
You guys are all getting your panties in a twist for property that has been lebo's since 1995? Oh the outrage??!!!
What in heavens name is going on here?
Mt. Lebanon buys the Twin Hills Park location for $1,000,000. In 2012 it is assessed for $640,000, in 2013 it's reassessed for $156,000.
The entrance to the property parcel 64-L-6 is assessed in 2012 at $3,400. In the 2013 reassessment it's assessed at $5,000.
But our municipal government that is looking for new sources of revenue sold the parcel for the incredible sum of just $10.
Two people can barely buy breakfast with tip at Denny's for $10 and the municipal government is selling $5,000 parcels of land for that amount!
I guess I'm just one if those crazy bloggers that doesn't get it.
9:42 AM I believe the property is an environmental nightmare with all sorts of water drainage and subsidence issues, another example of a a blotched purchase with no due diligence. The property is not developable and a liability to we taxpayers, thanks to the field sports cabal and their supporters. It has cost taxpayers about $2 million in debt service and maintenance since it was purchased, excluding the annual efforts at invasive plant control by the Nature Conservancy.
10:33 yeah you're right, let's not get our panties in a twist over properties purchased for $1,000,000 that sit basically empty.
Million here, million there... That's the way we do it in the bubble.
10:44 be careful, 10:33 is going to want to check out your panties for twist.
10:33 tell us, since we've owned the property since 1995 and you're panties are on straight, which municipality's codes and ordinances control use of the property?
9:42 AM is on the right track---there are some development issues at the 25 acres, including the possibility (not probability) of landslides from the steep hills that surround it.
My recollection is that ML bought it to quiet complaints from Twin Hills neighbors about kids starting fires etc. in the area. Too bad we paid so much money for it.
10:44, do you recollect the names of the people involved in putting both the Twin Hills and McNeilly deals together?
Who suggested them, who negotiated and signed the deals?
Just curious, because I suspect there are some key players involved in both.
10:29, you are partially correct.
The owners of 64-L-6 are deceased, but that doesn't matter for this discussion.
The property was sold by Mt. Lebanon to the private individual at the same time the private individual purchased the adjacent parcel. Also, that parcel has no access to a public roadway for it to be a parking lot.
It makes no sense that Mt. Lebanon would sell the property to be used for a public parking lot.
Please get your facts straight.
John Fernsler, who was 1st ward commissioner at the time, was involved at Mt. Lebanon's end. I heard he was pressured by Twin Hills Drive constituents who didn't like kids congregating in the wooded area.
So, for nearly 20 years, these people have had quiet, tree-filled backyards paid for on OUR dime.
Just a reminder as sent in a LeboAlert:
Comment on tonight's commission meeting agenda items online until 1 pm at www.mtlebanon.org. Click on meetings/agenda/video on left menu.
Elaine
Here is the link for comments. http://mtlebanon.org/index.aspx?NID=2151
Just another friendly service of Lebo Citizens. ;)
Elaine
The Twin Hills Park ordinance was passed unanimously. There was no discussion about Scott Township. In fact, the only thing mentioned was that the dogs are on leashes.
Elaine
Wait a minute. If Lebo has owned the property since 95, how can Scott enforce an ordinance?
The property is not part of Mt. Lebanon; it is part of Scott.
Stay tuned.
The property is in Scott and if you (11:27) owned it, Scott could enforce their own laws. Furthermore there is no Right-of-Way to the Scott property from ML so it will be difficult for the ML police to patrol our own dog park. OPPS!
Twin Hills is not a dog park. It is a park which permits dogs on leashes. Well, Mt. Lebanon permits it. Scott does not.
Elaine
Ah, the dogfight is only just beginning...
Who is going to enforce the Twin Hills ordinance that dogs must be on leashes?
Now I am confused, Elaine. Let me get this straight. ML allows dogs in parks on leashes. Scott does dot allow dogs in parks on leashes. The park is inside Scott township regardless of who owns it, so Scott's laws apply. Is that right?
1:31 AM, not exactly correct. Mt.Lebanon only allowed dogs on leashes in Bird Park and Robb Hollow. No Dogs Allowed signs went up in Twin Hills, causing a stir with residents since there were bags available for dog waste (still don't know how to describe it) in Twin Hills. This was sending mixed messages. Either they are allowed or they aren't. VP Kristen Linfante, presiding at the meeting when the amended ordinance was introduced, explained that the original ordinance was passed before the Twin Hills purchase. Last night, the vote was unanimous amending the ordinance to allow dogs on six foot leashes in Twin Hills. The No Dogs Allowed signs were removed from Twin Hills, so dogs are good to go, sort of speak.
According to our solicitor, since Mt. Lebanon owns the property, they can allow dogs in that park, even though it is in Scott, where dogs are not allowed in parks.
Does that help?
Elaine
I might add that the solicitor never gave his opinion publicly. When questioned after the meeting, Matt Kluck explained it to a few of us.
Also, there were no eComments.
Elaine
So the park is in Scott Township but Mt. Lebanon owns it. Dogs were permitted at one time but then an ordinance was passed that prohibited dogs even though elsewhere in Mt. Lebanon dogs ARE allowed on leashes. And there's no right of way to the property.
So if I buy property in Scott in addition the property I own in Lebo, can I ignore the laws in Scott? I'm being serious. Maybe we can get an attorney to chime in. This is a bit nuts. but on the bright side, maybe we could sell the land back to Scott Township for a few million.
Maybe the Commission can fund a bus service to the new Lebo dog park in Scott so the rest of us can send our dogs to do their business in Scott instead of the bubble.
See, it was easy! All of your complaints and conspiracy theories were for naught!
Elaine:
This whole Twin Hills thing is slightly irritating. I'm glad local residents can walk their dogs on leash in the park, as far as Mt. Lebanon is concerned, but that does not answer the question about sovereignty. The Commission had a perfect opportunity to explain to the public why Mt. Lebanon can legislate for a piece of land it owns but is wholly contained within Scott Township, thus putting the matter to rest. I know for a fact that I was not the only person to E-mail members of the Commission on this subject. Also, what was so sensitive in the solicitor's opinion that it could not have been released to the public?
What did Matt Kluck have to say on the matter?
I'm extremely disappointed in the Commission; they are acting like the District.
RG
Is Mount Lebanon paying for "doggie bags" for wealthy Twin Hills residents?
RG, I am a little surprised as to how the commissioners handled it. It was a roll call vote. Many times, commissioners would make statements explaining their votes prior to a roll call vote. Nothing was said. Yes, there were emails back and forth.
I am not aware of any conspiracy theories, 9:39 AM. Are we not allowed to question anything, buddy? Are we then labeled as critics or crazies?
RG, I was standing near Matt Kluck when a resident asked him if the commission reads the blog. How could the vote go through without any discussion, without any answers to our questions. All Matt said was that the solicitor said it was private property and that we could allow dogs on leashes, if Mt. Lebanon chooses.
What I witnessed last night was totally out of character for the Commission. It was more like watching the School Board.
Elaine
Sure sounds like some kind of a deal was cut. If our money was spent doing it, aren't we entitled to know?
9:39 would you please show us or post the conspiracy theories to which you refer?
Let's look at it this way.
In 1995 had we turfed one of the existing fields for Mr. Franklin and friends instead of spending $1 million for dirt doggie paths, we now would be faced wirh replacing that Turf for around $600,000 to $800,000 or so.
So maybe it was a smart move. Tsk, tsk.
EG:
Private property?!!! So Mt. Lebanon can do anything it wants with property it owns but is located in some other political subdivision on the grounds that it is private property? And this was said with a straight face? And here, for all my 38 years of residency, I thought Mt. Lebanon was an incorporated public political subdivision. Well at least it explains why a lot of people think of the place as a private club.
This anonymous comment was submitted on a very old thread, so I am approving it here for all to see.
Elaine
"Elaine, Why does the muni of Mt. Lebanon want to put up another blog that doesn't demean the muni like yours? That's the "talk" in the hallways of Mt. Lebo muni, girl ! on Reintroducing Dan Remely UPDATED 3X"
Anonymous at 10:42 AM
For Richard Gideon re "Private Property":
The solicitor's interpretation makes perfect sense to me. There is private and public land within Scott, and they have chosen to prohibit dogs on Scott Township public land (i.e. parks), as is their prerogative.
If you had bought that parcel, it would be your private property; you and your guests would be free to walk your dogs on that land anytime you wanted. You could also prohibit dog walking.
So rather than being a public Scott park, the parcel is a plot of land owned by the municipality of Mt Lebanon.
1:27. I get it but the problem is, Mt. Lebanon is not a private entity. any land owned by "Mt. Lebanon" is public land, correct?
Mr. Adler:
First, thanks for signing your name.
If I had purchased that land as a private individual I would agree with you. The land, however, was purchased by a public corporation; the Municipality of Mt. Lebanon, to be operated as a public park. Mt. Lebanon cannot discriminate with respect to persons as to who uses the park. As a private individual I have the right to admit or not whomever I please from my property (a rapidly fading right); unless it's a government official with a warrant. Now if Mt. Lebanon felt the land was private property it need not have gone to the trouble of writing a public ordinance for it. Question: Is the land posted as "Private Property?"
The Municipality is sending mixed signals concerning Twin Hills. If the solicitor feels the land is private property why not say so publicly? Certainly one of the Commissioners could have asked him about it in open session. Second, one may be allowed a pardonable curiosity as to why the Municipality did not press Scott to cede the land at the time of the sale, so that the Municipality's borders could be redrawn around it - then we wouldn't be having this conversation. As it is it seems the town wants it both ways; to own it, control it, but not have it within its legal borders for reasons known only to the commissioners of 1995.
It would be interesting to find out how much interaction between Mt. Lebanon and Scott Township has taken place on this issue. I'd also like to hear what Scott's solicitor has to say about it.
Please, call me Dave... "1:27" is a bit too impersonal for me.
Yes, land owned by Mt Lebanon is indeed public. What I was trying to say is that since our municipality owns the land, our commissioners have the authority to allow us to walk our dogs there.
The analogy was an illustration of why the landowner decides instead of Scott Township, and why the parcel is not necessarily subject to other Scott park guidelines.
Dave
P.S. While I respect the privacy concerns of my neighbors, I will generally not converse with Anonymous. The next time you have a question for me, please identify yourself. Thanks!
Blog readers:
On April 21, 2013 at 10:59 AM, I posted in this thread three questions concerning Twin Hill that I had sent to the Commission. This afternoon I received a courteous reply from Philip Weis, the municipality's solicitor. I found his answers to be very interesting.
With respect to my first question Mr. Weis confirmed my assumption that Scott retains sovereignty over Twin Hills because the property remains in Scott: "That is correct. The property remains in Scott." As to whether Scott's laws would trump Mt. Lebanon's ordinances: "Scott’s ordinances would apply, but they do not necessarily “trump” Mt. Lebanon’s ordinances. In particular, Mt. Lebanon’s park rules continue to apply to Twin Hills." To the third question of whether Mt. Lebanon would have to comply with Scott's ordinances or ask for a waiver: "We are in the process of determining exactly what Scott’s rules are."
In my letter to the Commission I had also commented on the question of why Mt. Lebanon would not have negotiated with Scott Township to cede the land to Mt. Lebanon as part of the sale. Mr. Weis replied, "Very generally, redrawing municipal boundaries is not easy; the statutes allow complete merger and the creation of new boroughs for example, but do not easily allow for a smaller annexation. In any event, court approval and submission to voters is normally required."
It would seem that there may be a residual issue between Mt. Lebanon and Scott Township; I make that assumption based on Mr Weis's comment that Mt. Lebanon is "in the process of determining exactly what Scott’s rules are." But I found Mr. Weis's comments concerning why Mt. Lebanon didn't press Scott to cede them the land the most interesting; apparently the 1995 Commission simply didn't want to go through the process, which would have required court approval and a referendum.
Call me crazy, but wouldn't the intelligent, neighborly approach been to contact Scott, tell them what was being proposed and make them an offer?
They don't have parks open to dogs so let them use ours. Maybe suggest, share the cost of building/maintainig a leash free area that people can walk to thru the park.
I'm sure there are Scott residents hungry for a play area for their dogs just as there are in Mt. Lebanon.
That way we split the cost of creating a dog park, maybe the best in the area. No, our commissioners take the approach of "shoot first, ask questions later."
Here are the last four paragraphs of an Aug. 24, 1994 Post-Gazette article written by reporter Harry Tkach and titled "Scott gives go-ahead for park":
"A walking trail is being discussed for the new park, which would be the first to serve Mt. Lebanon's 1st Ward. Mt. Lebanon has eight parks, totaling 142.5 acres, plus a 96.3-acre municipal golf course and park.
The Scott planning commission recommended approval last month of Mt. Lebanon's application. Scott's planners, however, attached three conditions, to which Mt. Lebanon has agreed. They are that any physical improvements to the site must be approved by Scott, more engineering work must be done and submitted to Scott and Mt. Lebanon must sign an agreement that its police and firefighters will respond to calls in the park.
Last night, an additional condition was added, stating that Mt. Lebanon and not Scott would be responsible for any problems that might occur on the property unless they were caused by Scott employees.
If the deal is closed, Mt. Lebanon intends to formally declare the site a public park forever and petition for tax exemption."
They're in the process of determining exactly what Scott's rules are?? Now???
Elaine
With no right-of-way into Scott Park from Mount Lebanon, and the Mount Lebanon police enforcing the laws, the kids might think it is a great place for a 4/20 party.
10:36, Scott Park is owned by Scott Twp. and fully contained within Scott Twp. and all ajacent property is in Scott Twp.
Twin Hills park 64-L-300 has a right of way from the Western end of Twin Hills Drive in Mt. Lebanon.
If Twin Hills park is owned by Mt. Lebanon and situated in Scott Township, can Mt. Lebanon residents speak during at Scott Township meetings during the public comment period? Mt. Lebanon residents do own a piece of Scott Township.
Following your logic, we could speak as residents of USC, Scott, and Baldwin. Then of course, that would mean that Greentree, Castle Shannon, and Dormont residents can come to our meetings because they pay their taxes for KO.
Hmm. That is an interesting thought.
Elaine
Elaine, a Baldwin Twp. resident has spoken at one of our municipal meetings regarding flooding from McNeilly Park.
Does Keystone Oaks have less restrictive rules than Mt. Lebanon ordinances? This does get interesting.
There was an issue with a USC resident speaking to our board on the high school project a number of years ago.
I think they allowed him to speak despite protest from the pro-HS people.
Here's the article:
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-south/mt-lebanon-school-directors-want-only-residents-to-speak-at-meetings-398961/
"The school directors, Sue Rose, Josephine Posti and Elaine Cappucci, said it was inappropriate for the board to permit former Upper St. Clair School Director Mark Trombetta to address the Mt. Lebanon board during the public comment section of its June 9 discussion meeting."
Posti and Cappucci have no problem allowing non-resident organized labor District staff and teachers to address the board during public comments regarding the overall budget, a blatent violation of the PA School Code of 1949:
Section 1112-A. Matters of Inherent Managerial Policy.--Employers shall not be required to bargain over matters of inherent managerial policy. Those matters shall include, but shall not be limited to, such areas of discretion or policy as the functions and programs of the employer, standards of services, its overall budget, utilization of technology, the organizational structure and selection and direction of personnel.
does anybody know what's up with my Comm Kristen linfante?? somebody must put a bug up her butt because all she is concerned about in lebo is the animals.. the deer and now the unleashed dogs..!! before you know it,, she try to have all the township cats licensed and restricted from roaming freely outside!!!
Linfante could worry a lot less about auto/deer accidents if people would observe the speed limit.
Post a Comment