Blog Readers:How disappointing. Mike Riemer will be a perfect fit on the school board. Don't answer our questions. Instead, give the Cappucci response. "Check the district website for answers." Nice.
In regards to the question of whether I asked the other candidates the same 14 questions I posed to Mr. Hill, the answer is that I sent the questions to Mr. Riemer recently and received the following reply:
"Council PTA has compiled a list of questions for the school board candidates. Please visit the website and review the responses.
Thank you for your interest in our community schools."
Replies from Mr. Moorehead are still pending. I did not ask these questions of Ms. Birks or Mr. Remely, as their positions are well known.
Although Mr. Hill answered only four of my 14 questions for reasons that he has delineated in an earlier post in this thread, I give him high marks for being willing to address the remaining questions in a face-to-face meeting (I forgot to ask him if he has Skype! - that would solve the face-to-face issue).
Addendum:
The list of PTA questions and candidates' responses referenced by Mr. Riemer may be found here: http://www.mtlsd.org/district/districtpta/schoolboardcandidatesqanda.asp
OK, so I read the responses to the PTA's questions in the link provided by Richard Gideon. What a joke. Mary Birks forgot to include how she rolls her eyes at Scott Goldman whenever he expresses his opinion. Riemer thinks we have a very lean budget already. It is not clear to me what he means by reviewing the drug and alcohol policy. Does he want to change that? The PTA question was, "Do you have any specific changes you want to make to school district policies..."
So who are the officers on PTA Council?
2012-2013 Officers
President
Sheryl Cohen
skccreations@aol.com
1st Vice President
Julie Maselko
themaselkos@gmail.com
2nd Vice President
Sara Dougherty
tjdsjd@verizon.net
3rd Vice President/Superintendent
Dr. Timothy Steinhauer
tsteinhauer@mtlsd.net
Treasurer
Jennie Bhojwani
jenniebhoj@hotmail.com
Recording Secretary
Teresa Saxton
4saxtons@comcast.net
Corresponding Secretary
Julie Daubner
geo.mom@verizon.net
Historian
Hannah Vaughn
hvaughan@mac.com
2013-2014 Elected Officers
President
Julie Daubner
geo.mom@verizon.net
1st Vice President
Sara Dougherty
tjdsjd@verizon.net
2nd Vice President
Julie Maselko
themaselkos@gmail.com
3rd Vice President/Superintendent
Dr. Timothy Steinhauer
tsteinhauer@mtlsd.net
Treasurer
Jennie Bhojwani
jenniebhoj@hotmail.com
Recording Secretary
Teresa Saxton
4saxtons@comcast.net
Corresponding Secretary
Julie Smith
juliejsmith23@hotmail.com
Historian
Hannah Vaughn
hvaughan@mac.com
Just an FYI, President Sheryl Cohen was Josephine Posti's campaign treasurer when Jo ran with Rob Gardner. President Elect Julie Daubner is Elaine Cappucci's sister. Ms. Daubner went from 2012-13 Corresponding Secretary to 2013-14 President. Interesting.
25 comments:
Only reading Birks' and Remely's responses to the obviously softball questions something struck me as funny.
6. How have the recent state budget cuts directly impacted Mt. Lebanon schools?
Remely answers this question that seems to be more accurate than Mrs. Birks' response.
First off, this is an obvious leading question designed to back the administrators and teachers union. To ask a question like that, it must first be established if the claimed budget cuts really occurred.
From the PA Dept. Of Education they claim: "2013-2014 Fiscal Year The Governor's Budget for 2013-2014 includes $5,493,629,000 for the Basic Education Funding appropriation. This is a $90,000,000 increase (1.67 percent) over the amount appropriated in 2012-2013."
A $90 million increase over appropriations hardly seems like a cut - does it?!
Don't take my word for the above, read it for yourself at: http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/education_budget/8699/basic_education_funding/539259
Unfortunately, because the candidates aren't available for follow-up questions, voters can never get to the truth.
Plus, if you're going to ask a question like this, it would be informative to find out just how much of an increase the candidate would lobby for. $90 million in new money isn't enough? How about $900 million? A billion?
Then the next question that should be asked is " where do you propose the increase revenue come from?"
State revenue is running below forecast. So the only way the state can send more is to tax more!
Viewing the PTA names in and associations is interesting. Non Profit Vote organization writes this about candidate forums.
NonProfitVote.org
http://www.nonprofitvote.org/nve-candidate-forums-and-appearances.html
"Sponsoring or co-sponsoring a candidate forum demonstrates to the candidates that your community cares about what the candidates’ positions are and the election outcome. It shows that your organization is a leader in local civic affairs. Candidate forums require a time commitment to recruit the attendance of candidates and your audience."
Our PTA quickly cancelled the communities opportunity to show our candidates that we care about education.
11:41 Thanks for bringing facts into the conversation. I have read all of the responses to question six and Hill appears to be the only candidate that has looked at the District's website and states the facts (no recent decrease in state funding). Here is the link that shows state total funding to Mt Lebanon hasn't recently decreased
http://www.mtlsd.org/district/budget/stuff/proposed_final_budget_2013_14.pdf and elsewhere the District's website also shows state general education funding hasn't recently decreased either. I don't get it, do the other candidates really not know state funding hasn't decreased or are they avoiding saying it for some other reason (although it makes them look uninformed). Is Hill naive for being so direct and will he be punished in the polls. Scary stuff!
I notice that you are still afraid of listing the names of your "nonpartisan" committee.
Yes, 1:22 PM. I am very afraid. Let's move on, shall we?
Elaine
And 1:22 you're still afraid to divulge yours... Why?
That is the last comment I am approving concerning my forum committee. It is a moot point. Let's stay on topic.
Elaine
Mr. Moorhead's response to question #6 shines a light on what is wrong in the district today.
Here's the question and his response.
"6. How have the recent state budget cuts directly impacted Mt. Lebanon schools?
By all objective measures, Mt. Lebanon School District is one of the very best in the state. In my discussions with teachers, I am advised that recent state funding cuts have made it more difficult to deliver the high quality education which Mt. Lebanon residents expect. In short, state funding reductions have forced our teachers to do more with less."
Did everyone catch that? "IN MY DISCUSSIONS WITH TEACHERS [caps mine], I am advised that recent state funding cuts have made it more difficult to deliver the high quality education which Mt. Lebanon residents expect."
Perhaps Mr. Morehead and the other candidates and current directors should meet with the CPA, the guy that understand's finances... Mr. Hill. Here is response to question #6.
"The district's funding from the state [WAS NOT CUT] for the current school year [NOR IS IT PROJECTED TO BE CUT NEXT YEAR,]. Both the state's basic education funding and total education funding to the district for the 2013 -2014 school year are projected to increase. In the current school year, the state's basic education funding to the district was approximately flat and total education funding to the district increased."
Perhaps we need school directors that don't automatically accept information from people that have their own interest in mind and get directors that can actually do research, think about the facts and the implications of their votes.
We've had enough of talking heads.
1:20, Mr. Hill is the only respondent of the five candidates that accurately addresses question #6.
Wonder how the union will try to take his legs out from under him?
I sure hope this guy gets on the board if only to hear him correct Mr. Cooper when he says things like "a .55 mill increase is like a zero mill increase."
My favorite Council PTA questions is number 7: "Do you support vouchers and/or school choice legislation? What effects would such legislation have on the district budget and programming?"
Multiple studies from the Reason Foundation, CATO, and The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice show that high performing traditional public schools have nothing to fear from school choice. (For a great overview of the subject see "Annual Privatization Report 2013: Education" from the Reason Foundation.) If Pennsylvania were to become like Sweden, where school choice is understood to be a right, parents in "high performing" districts such as Mt. Lebanon's would likely continue to send their kids to their district schools.
So who benefits from school choice?: The child of a single mother in Duquesne - a mother who is as concerned about her child's education as the "pristine" Mt. Lebanon family - would. Believe it or not, many minority families would like nothing better than to see their kids get a "Mt. Lebanon quality" education, and it has been shown time and time again, in cities such as New Orleans and Baltimore, that it can be done; if parents are permitted the choice to send their kids to performing charter, private, or religious schools, as opposed to being forced to send their kids to failing traditional public schools. So when candidates for public office state they are against vouchers or tax dollars going to Charter, private, or religious schools they are sending a well received signal to their supporters that the state's balkanized school district system is correct as it stands.
It's interesting to read the responses of the five Mt. Lebanon School Board candidates. Mary Birks states, "I do not support using public tax dollars for private/religious schools; I do support the efforts for charter school funding reform, which would alleviate some of the financial stress put on some districts. Many public charters support such legislation in some form, which will allow for greater public access to information as well as accountability measures equal to those required of regular public school districts." Ironically, given her stance on Charters during school board meetings, she does not dismiss Charters out of hand - which is good - and seems simply to be calling for greater accountability. She loses credibility when she adds the phrase "..equal to those required of regular public school districts." Those who have had experience trying to get information from the MLSD will get a chuckle out of that one.
Durwood Hill comes the closest to "getting it." He says, "My approach is to focus my energy on the things I can impact; the decision regarding school choice legislation is not made by the school board. What we can do is manage our district in such a way that parents are thrilled with the quality of education offered and choose to keep their children in the district. If we do that, school choice legislation will have a smaller impact on the district's budget and programming." That's what the Reason Foundation and others are saying.
It seems this Durwood Hill is the surprise candidate.
How refreshing to get something other than the stock PSBA and PSEA responses to questions.
What a great position -- "What we can do is manage our district in such a way that parents are thrilled with the quality of education offered and choose to keep their children in the district."
The more I find out about this guy, the more I like him.
Here's another incredible comment from Mr. Moorhead: "In short, state funding reductions have forced our teachers to do more with less."
I'd love to hear how he figures they doing more for less! Essentially graduation rates and test scores have been flat. Student enrollment has been declining, but that less he refers to -- over the last five years MTLSD expenditures have been going up by an average of $2 million/year.
Trouble is people believe these claims, because it's for the kids, it must be true!
Well folks, it's not for the kids and it's not true.
Correction in mine of May 8, 2013 at 3:58 PM:
"My favorite Council PTA questions is number 7:...," should read "My favorite Council PTA question is number 7:...".
With all the candidate responses about funding cuts and the need for money (except Hill) the PTA didn't think to ask: "If the SAB wants to turf and light one or two district fields, how will you respond?" Has anyone heard anything on the Investigation with an ex-board member's association with PACyber? Plus wasn't there an agreement for Lebo staff to develop programs with PACyber? Or wasn't that agreement ever approved.
The ex-board member associated with PACyber is on the Excellence in Education Supporter List 2013 for Birkes. She would be supportuing lights to see the signage on the field and scoreboard .
Did anyone notice on the linked Q & A responses from candidates that Remely did not provide an answer to the question about his employment ? Is he now unemployed ?
Birks does not support public monies going to private and religious schools. Did you know her Mother was the religious education director at a local Catholic school? I wonder why she doesn't support the education money following the child to the school chosen by the parents?
Youdo have to give Remely for one thing he said thatnone of the others did.
He mentioned lowering spending, but unfortunately his voting record to date doesn't support that he'll actually do that.
As the House candidate he wants to increase statemoney to the schools. Like state or school district revenues... It all comes out of our pockets.
Too much BS from the SB candidates.
9:28 if the increased state spending Remely wants to give to the schools all goes to pensions, salaries and benefits what good is it? How do the kids benefit?
That's the point.
The current board is claiming that they've trimmed all the fat from the budget over the years and now cuts will have to be made in the muscle. If that is true where have the $2 million yearly increases been going?
9:59 knows.
The $2 million in tax increases are going into salary, pensions, healthcare, vision, and dental, benefits for the unions - the kids don't benefit. The benefit costs are $65,000 per year per teacher on top of salaries. Some of the teachers don't even make $65,000 per year and the ones over $100,000 per year are never satisfied. The board hasn't even come close to touching the fat in the budget and Remely wants to add more state taxes on top of real estate taxes. Boo!
4:22 some people will say anything to get elected. Remely gets a State pension and other benefits if he is elected.
How much is the pension?
I assume that anyone elected will receive the same benefit whether it is Brown, Remely or Miller - correct?
Aren't the state pension obligations one factor in the financial mess we are in with the school district, municipal, county and state budgets?
Finally, can the Reps decline the pension? If so, does Matt Smith (D) now receive a pension for his service in the House? I thought I heard that he initially stated he would not collect one and then changed his mind. What are the facts around this issue, does anyone know?
Matt Smith said he would decline the pension if elected. he accepted the pension after election to the House.
Post a Comment