Ohhhh boy, this is a goodie! Remember how we have a sound bite of President Cappucci giving a resident a hard time over the budget? How she and the resident disagree on how transparent the Board has been? The lack of documents shared with the public? Well guess what I just got back from the PA Department of Education?
Right To Know Response from the PDE.
Not only are Elaine Cappucci and the rest of the school board members keeping the budget from us, they are also keeping the budget away from the Pennsylvania Department of Education.
From the PA School Code of 1949, Section 687(2)(b):
Within fifteen (15) days after the adoption of the budget, the board of school directors shall file a copy of the same in the office of the Department of Public Instruction.
A follow up email to the PDE has been sent:
Mr. Hanft,
The Mt. Lebanon School District voted on the final budget 20-MAY-2013.
See page five (5) of attached business meeting summary.
From the Pa School Code of 1949, Section 687(2)(b):
Within fifteen (15) days after the adoption of the budget, the board of school directors shall file a copy of the same in the office of the Department of Public Instruction.
Fifteen (15) calendar days from 20-MAY-2013 was 04-JUN-2013.
Today is 19-JUN-2013, an additional fifteen (15) days, making it now thirty (30) calendar days.
My RTK request response, attached, demonstrates the PDE does not have the final budget.
This is a clear violation of the Pa School Code of 1949.
What is the penalty to the Mt. Lebanon School District for this violation of law?
Update 4:15 PM Mr. Hanft responded with:
At the time PDE received your RTKL request, due to a clerical error, it was not apparent that the budget had been received. However, Mt. Lebanon SD had timely filed its budget. I have attached a copy and apologize for the oversight. Thank you.
Benjamin T. Hanft | Division Chief
Division of Subsidy Data and Administration
Department of Education | Bureau of Budget and Fiscal Management
333 Market Street | Hbg PA 17126
Phone: 717.787.5423 | Fax: 717.772.4106
www.education.state.pa.usDivision of Subsidy Data and AdministrationDepartment of Education | Bureau of Budget and Fiscal Management333 Market Street | Hbg PA 17126Phone: 717.787.5423 | Fax: 717.772.4106www.education.state.pa.us
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONThis message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender and then delete the communication from your electronic mail system.
Now we are waiting for a time stamped copy of the budget they received, not the one with today's date on it. I guess when confronted with irrefutable facts, government has to fess up lest you take the next steps and go public to expose the deceptions. Yeah, blame it on a clerical error when you're caught.
Update June 19, 2013 4:31 PM Here is the latest email from the PDE with a nine page budget sent to them.
From: bhanft@pa.gov
CC: ra-educationsecretary@pa.gov
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 16:17:05 -0400
Subject: RE: Mt. Lebanon School District final budget 2013-14
Attached is the original paper copy received by the Department of Education.
Benjamin T. Hanft, Chief
Division of Subsidy Data and AdministrationBureau of Budget and Fiscal Management
30 comments:
Can I have that with mustard?
Yes, the state never makes clerical errors.
This smells.
Why are the document printed dates in different locations? If they were generated by the PDE printer they wouldn't be in different locations would they?
Plus, aren't documents supposed to be signed by the required board members to be considered approved and accurate to be official?
I am in the process of comparing all the different versions of the budget. The first one from the PDE is 23 pages and is unsigned. The one that is posted on the MTLSD website is 24 pages and signed. The second one from the PDE is only 9 pages, but signed. What the Kluck?
Elaine
Me thinks the phones were abuzzin' back'n forth from LEBO to Harrisburg this pm.
What is so ridiculous about this is-- why didn't the PDE just reply it's not here yet?
No one was going to do anything if it was late, which is rather obvious since Mr. Hanft didn't know if he had it or not. Why play these silly games like there are deadlines, Act limits or repercussions.
It's a joke.
Notice Mr. Hanft's title:
Benjamin T. Hanft,
Chief Division of Subsidy Data and AdministrationBureau of Budget and Fiscal Management
Could this cause continued problems with our bond subsidy that is overdue?
Notice also that the email was Cc: to the education secretary of the State:
If ML is lucky the State will conduct a forensic audit of our district's accounting.
To: bhanft
Cc: ra-educationsecretary
Subject: Mt. Lebanon School District final budget 2013
7:48 PM And this is precisely why the public has no confidence in, respect for or trust in government at all levels. Are you reading this PA Atty General, PA Auditor General, School Fraud hotline, PA State Senator Matt Smith, PA State Rep Dan Miller - WHAT DO YOU PLAN TO DO ABOUT IT ?
No one hold their breaths waiting for a response, unless it is Form Letter A, "Thank you for your....."
9:04 you're kidding right!?
Our state reps have already said they're going to Harrisburg to find more money for education.
Which translated means the district gets more because we'll be taxed more.
There was a discussion yesterday on a morning radio talk show about the $300,000 in change orders passed by the Board.
The 8:52 posting is not a complete posting of what was submitted.
Clearly, the place to go now is to the District and request copies of:
All emails, correspondence, and information related to the 2013-2014 Budget that had been received by or submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of Education between the dates of May 20, 2013 and June 19, 2013.
This should have been sent by official correspondence, no?
That should be an easy find for our Right to Know Officer. Plus, it would clear up if this truly was a "clerical error".
Brings to mind Monopoly. There has been a bank error in your favor! Your budget HAS been received on time!
It wouldn't be the first time Ms. Klein had been caught in a lie (remember the HS reimbursement fiasco?)
What did they say?
6:57 AM, that is all that showed up. If you submitted that comment, please resubmit the balance of the comment. If you are a troll, nice try. That is all that came in.
Elaine
A question--so what is the purpose of this filing and its strict (ha) deadlines?
Had Elaine notfiled a RTK would anything been done with the file? Would the PDE cared if it was filed 20 days or 20 weeks after the board approved the final budget?
The additional question must be asked, if Jan sends in the report how does the PDE confirm if it is the actual board approved budget?
Same thing with all the other PlanCon documents. Is there someone at the PDE looking at change orders and questioning something like $23,000 for power to scoreboards and clocks? Or why is winterization on a 72 month project a change order?
Guess I just don't understand the purpose. What's the old saying-- there are no stupid questions.
Watch behind the grassy knoll. I think I see the stage where the Apollo missions were faked.
Give it a break. Not everything is a conspiracy. Sometimes mistakes happen. No harm. What are you hoping to achieve?
I am trying to expose the corruption in our government. What are you hoping to achieve?
Elaine
10:42 If you're responding to the questions asked at 9:44 they never said that mistakes don't happen... they do and I'd be surprised if anyone would say they don't.
With your smarmy "grassy knoll" comment you fail to address any of 9:44's questions.
Just what is the purpose of this paperwork? Is it simple busy work designed to look like someone is monitoring this stuff?
Has the PDE ever questioned change order submissions on any school project in Pennsylvania? Do you know?
Has MTL not received the project reimbursements they claim are late not because the PDE is dragging its feet, but rather because the districts paperwork isn't complete or timely?
Oh by the way, I'm saving your comment. When my SD taxes are late and they want to charge me penalty and interest, I'm going to tell 'em 10:42 said no harm done, mistakes happen!
...and the continued incompetence of staff.
Methinks these protesters know too much. Methinks they know the budget wasn't submitted on time.
What would that mean? It would mean for 1, that Ms. Klein shouldn't be getting a bonus.
10:42 you're right...mistaks happen!
- Bids don't come in under $100 million.
- Shims don't get installed correctly.
- Gym floors aren't level.
- Chillers and boilers don't get water feeds.
- Pool pumps and scoreboards don't get electrical power.
- Floors don't align by 30 inches.
- Walls that aren't plumb.
But hey, "what me worry" right. We are being treated to some pretty construction photos. They're worth $5,000 in bonuses.
Ductwork gets installed thru elevator shafts.
And we're only- what- 27% of the way into the project?
Matt Santoni, in his Trib article today, says the project is 42% complete ? Really Matt ? Have you checked the project schedule chart to see that the project is 4 months behind schedule and is under 26% complete ?
Stop drinking the district Kool-aid Matt and do a little fact checking before you sign your name to those articles.
As you know, I am not a fan of the Trib since they endorsed Dan Remely for State Rep. Today's article,
http://triblive.com/neighborhoods/alleghenyneighborhoods/alleghenyneighborhoodsmore/4210641-74/project-board-building#axzz2WfVd8st4
does quote a third party for a change.
"Jeff Burd, the Ross-based publisher of several construction-industry magazines and watcher of many construction bid processes, said breaking a project up into separately bid pieces, as Mt. Lebanon did when the initial bids were over budget, can disguise errors in the the design."
We tried to tell the board that, Mr. Burd, but they wouldn't listen.
Elaine
At least Mr. Santoni got the following info right, although a really investigative reporter would dig deeper!
He writes: "But other changes have upset observers and board members who said they resulted from apparent gaps in the project's planning. [That kind of blows President Cappucci's remark about confidence in relying on PJDick and Mr. Marciniak riding herd on the project and justification for $1,000 bonuses out of the water doesn't it!]
One example is $10,500 for water lines after earlier revisions moved boilers and chillers to another part of the building but didn't move the water lines to feed them. Another $26,900 was approved in May to reinforce roof joists in the new athletic wing and to support condensing units on its roof; $23,192 was OK'd in February to reroute a duct that was designed to go right through an elevator shaft; and a total $13,818 was approved the same month to install and power sump pumps missing from other elevator shafts.
Jeff Burd, the Ross-based publisher of several construction-industry magazines and watcher of many construction bid processes, said breaking a project up into separately bid pieces, as Mt. Lebanon did when the initial bids were over budget, can disguise errors in the design. [Imagine that, disguise errors in the design! How can that be PJDick and Marciniak are watching over it. Coul;d it be they bids were cut to get it under the Act 34 limit? Still curious on this one... yeah sure we have to have power to the scoreboard and time clocks, but was it charged in the original bid and someone's double dipping? Plus, get enough of these "overlooked" changes and residents might have gotten their referendum.]
For example, a heating, ventilation and air conditioning contractor wouldn't be responsible for making sure the general contractor's structural steel was sufficient to support his condensers, he said.
Contractors would stick very closely to the plans they were presented with in the interest of submitting the lowest bid — even if the plans are incorrect, Burd said. [THERE IT IS THE KEY... ITS WHAT EVERYONE WAS WORRIED ABOUT-- IN THE INTEREST OF SUBMITTING THE LOWEST BID! THEY WANTED THE ATHLETIC TAJ MAHAL AND DAMN THE TORPEDOES!]
“You're going to bid to the plans and specs, which means you're going to bid to the omissions,” Burd said.
Doesn't anybody check numbers?
According to PopCity and other media -- "Mt. Lebanon approves $113.2 million high school renovation project"
But if you add up Matt's figures from his story the original bid and contingencies come to $113.9 million.
Hey what the heck, what's $700,000 among friends?
From the New World Encyclopedia:
"The term bureaucracy came into use shortly before the French Revolution of 1789, and from there spread rapidly to other countries.
In a letter of July 1, 1764, Friedrich Melchior, baron von Grimm declared: "We are obsessed by the idea of regulation, and our Masters of Requests refuse to understand that there is infinity of things in a great state with which a government should not concern itself." Jean Claude Marie Vincent de Gournay sometimes used to say, "We have an illness in France which bids fair to play havoc with us; this illness is called bureaumania." Sometimes he used to invent a fourth or fifth form of government under the heading of "bureaucracy." In another letter of July 15, 1765 Baron Grimm wrote also, "The real spirit of the laws in France is that bureaucracy of which the late Monsieur de Gournay used to complain so greatly; here the offices, clerks, secretaries, inspectors, and intendants are not appointed to benefit the public interest, indeed the public interest appears to have been established so that offices might exist." (Albrow 1970: 16)
Such excerpts illustrate a traditional controversy about bureaucracy, namely the perversion of means and ends so that means become ends in themselves, and the actors lose sight of the greater good. The suggestion here is that, left uncontrolled, the bureaucracy will become increasingly self-serving and corrupt, rather than serving society."
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Bureaucracy
Just about describes the school district situation here, doesn't it!
By the way, has anyone looked at the rendering of the high school on the district's renovation page?
Look closely, nice clean roof lines on the science and athletic wings, hun.
Now look at the construction cameras, not quite the same clean uncluttered look we were sold is it?
I heard a professional bidding expert remark that it's foolish to accept a lower bid because the higher one contains the change orders already built in.
In other words, officials should stop playing games with taxpayers' money and own up from the beginning what the true cost of a project will be.
Tell us the truth for a change, school board!
It's for the children and they just don't care, hun, having been taught that by example of the destruct, oops I meant district administration and staff.
11:44 PM, the lower bid saved the project from going to referendum. We knew that from the start. The school board is soooo tricky. They knew better than Burt Hill Architects who found unstable soil conditions. They knew better than the CAC to go with multiple prime contracts. They knew better than the municipality who had major problems with Nello over the Public Safety Building. The school board has overinflated egos who never make mistakes. They know everything. If we commoners only knew half as much as they do...
Elaine
8:17 A M, The really funny part of the high-school farce is the RCML thinks we need Dan Remely on the school board - to hold down the cost overage and keep the project on schedule. Let us all vote Dan a 6% merit raise on his school board salary and add it to his school board pension.
Post a Comment