But superintendents aren't the only ones who receive sound, financial advice from their organizations. The American School Board Journal cautions its members when making district investments. Collateral Damage, written by Charles K. Trainor, an ASBJ contributing editor, is a certified fraud examiner and certified internal auditor. His article makes me curious as to how MTLSD's available funds are invested. According to Jan Klein's July 1 document to the school board, there is
- $1.7 million in the Asbestos Fund
- $6.35 million in the General Capital Project Fund
- $3.24 million in Excess General Funds remaining form 2011, 2012, and 2013 (estimated)
I wonder if Charles K. Trainor, president of Management Audit Consultants, Inc., would come to Mt. Lebanon since we have been using the same auditors for twenty five years. Jan Klein has quite a bit of money stashed away. I hope it has been invested wisely. For some reason, the school board directors don't want to touch it.
Please note:
It is August and the 2013-14 Final Budget has not been posted.
No word on level funding on the district website.
Next school board meeting is August 12, 2013.
160 comments:
The District budget books, CAFR's and State AG audits probably disclose where all funds are deposited and invested.
with 3.24 million left over in the general excess fund, why can't the school district turf the fields? is there a policy difference between the directors and the commissioners (who now want to pay to turf the school district's fields)? are the school directors just toying with the kids athletic programs? or is this just another example that it all too often is just not "about the kids" when the school district sets policy? it is a very curious situation.....
you say the school district "has quite a bit of money stashed away" --- are they building a retirement fund (oh, I forgot, the school district is a perpetual existence entity).....is this prudent given the current demands and needs of the community for programming and activities? why don't the municipal commissioners inquire as to all of this before voting to give our limited municipal resources away for use to meet the responsibilities of the school district (such as turfing the school district's fields)?
Most of the district's money is in a money market fund. It used to be in Mellon Bank.
Mellon Bank is a safer depository than a money market fund but the Board is short on funds and is stretching for the extra interest to fund their spending.
If the money market fund only pays back 95 cents on the dollar invested it will be depressing to see how much money the district is missing.
it really doesn't matter if they put the money in a hole in the ground (although it is interesting that they put the funds in a place where they will get less than 100 cents on dollar back--how prudent)...the point is that they are holding on to balances which could be used to do that which they say cannot be done because of a shortage of funds....the issue seems to be how candid and truthful the district is with its constituents and how naive the youth sports volunteers may be......the ancillary question is whether the school board and the commission are working on a plan to divert the taxing power of the municipality in a ruse to evade the ad valorem taxing limitations imposed by law on the school district, funding a turfing of the fields only being a cover for a "new funding technique".....the game is interesting if anyone is watching the play....
Maybe Pursuing Ketchup identified the commission as a possible donor. At least to me, that was an easy $700,000 donation, using our municipal tax dollars to fund another school district project.
Elaine
Legally speaking I don't believe the district has the ability to indefinitely carry these balances year after year. They should have been assigned every year by the end of the next fiscal year. But clearly that hasn't happened.
Perhaps this is another reason we need a new auditor.
it is also curious that as this thread draws a bead on the underlying power issues, the usual apologists are not commenting here---too close to the nerve, perhaps?
Or they dont want to be in the same sinking boat as those who will be indicted.
so, this is what is actually happening in the guise of simply having the municipality pay for the turfing of the athletic fields (which are owned by the school district):
1. the school district wants to supplement its budget, but has maxed out on taxing limit (paying for gilt-edged excessive "taj mahal" bricks and mortar at the expense of maintence (turf) and academic programming (the money is already committed)...
2. the municipality has not taxed to the maximum rate, so it increases its ad valorem rate (or it simply makes available "unallocated" surplus) for say, maintenance or improving - say turfing - athletic fields owned by the school district -- though the expenditure under such a scheme could be for anything...
3. the school district now has access to greater ad valorem taxing power than it legally has in its own right....
Now, imagine taking it in reverse....suppose, for example, the school district decided to "contribute" because of the "public benefit" and its own interest in adequate fire protection, by buying a new fire truck for the municipality with school district funds...would anyone think this inappropriate? It is the blending of the two taxing powers that is improper. It is a species of short-circuiting a merger of the municipality and the school district, which would require public scrutiny and approval from the community (that is, something not in the immediate and personal control of the office holders)..but nonetheless manipulating taxing power and policy to the same end...this is all another clever manipulation of the people's business without an opportunity for the people to participate...government by scheme, using methods that may not be authorized....
take another example, suppose the school district, noting the plight of the flooded homeowners, decided to improve drainage in the community...would anyone criticize the school district for diverting resources from its own specialized mission?
the single most curious thing about the turfing tempest is that we are asked to believe that the commissioners (including an attorney and a banker) are proposing to spend public money improving property they do not own without ever having even mentioned the matter to the owner of the property - the school board....can any reasonable person accept this as likely? it seems sometimes that our "leaders" really believe that the public either pay no attention or are quite gullible...alternatively we might ask how great the analytical powers of the authors of such machinations might be....
i suggest it is time for those on the commission who have proposed to spend municipal funds on school district property to explain exactly how this is procedurally, jurisdictionally, and legally appropriate....and particularly to explain how they justify putting this measure before the commission without ever consulting with the school board itself (assuming such an expenditure were proper)....this is public decision making either in a vacuum or by reckless abandon of the context and implications of their proposal......
The Swamp Fox
while we are asking questions about the thoughtfulness of public actions, would anyone else be interested in the school board's justification of paying for the privilege of depositing millions of dollars? forget getting any interest, they are paying reverse interest (which presumably means that such funds also have to be made up at some point from new ad valorem tax revenues)----is this good stewardship of the public fisc?
The Swamp Fox
just a side note to our "educators" --- do you know enough US history to know what the reference to "Swamp Fox" might be and can you understand how it might be pertinent to this discussion?
The Swamp Fox
another likely implication of the putatively one-sided proposal to have the municipality pay to turf the school district's fields: would it not be a logical next step to have the municipal "unallocated surplus" pay for all extracurricular activities rather than have the district pay (which it won't because they will require the already tax-paying parents to pony-up); then the band; then what (administrators or teachers?? -- why not bond payments?)....where does it end?
The Swamp Fox
10:32 AM, according to the newspaper, Elaine Cappucci claimed that no one has approached the school board regarding turfing a field. That is an out right lie. I was at the one and only Joint Discussion Session on Feb. 28, 2012, you know- the one where Posti was praying for me because of the hate in my heart, Elaine Cappucci was there when Dave Brumfield and Kristen Linfante suggesting turfing a middle school field "for the good of the community."
Elaine
it would appear, Mme. Moderator, that perhaps we cannot take (at least certain commissioners) at their word---would they care to "extend and revise" their comments, perhaps some "emandations" are in order?
The Swamp Fox
Thank you, Swamp Fox, for addressing me as Mme. Moderator. No one has ever called me that before and I have been called a lot of things!
Here is the link to the podcast where Brumfield is suggesting turfing a school district field. Joint Leadership Meeting Feb. 28, 2012
Elaine
Does anyone remember... when the SD/Commission Liason Group was being proposed didn't Cappucci and Posti argue for the meetings to be held out of public view?
Mme. Moderator: Civic civility is a lost art in this community, particularly in the nasty lack of respect shown towards the public (especially if they have independent ideas) by our commissioners and school directors. We can show them a nicer way in community participation....but you know, you can only lead a horse to water, you cannot make it drink....
The Swamp Fox
11;36, the important meetings where decisions are truly made, alliances formed, and trade-offs agreed upon are all in private and we may never be able to change that. We may, however, demand that our elected officials exercise deliberate and complete transparency as a matter of respect for their constituents -- this is after all a very local government which should be as close to the entire community as possible....failing to reveal their intentions openly only creates a sense of distance and distrust between the public and our officials...it is a shame that they seem actually to believe that they know so much better that we have to be handled by manipulation rather than by persuasion, or to allow the possibility that they may not always be right and sometimes should yield to the popular view (as opposed to avoiding elections on issues where there is clearly substantial public interest and controversy)....if they claim to represent us, they should stoop to figure out what we support and what we don't....
The Swamp Fox
Francis, have many candidates have run campaigns promising to increase transparency?
It appears the more they promise transparency, the more opaque the entity becomes.
Certain office holders and their kin/friends were very vocal that the "What the Kluck" town hall wasn't open and available to everyone. The accusation that some how that group was going to stage a coup and take over the local governing bodies.
Yet these same "town hall protesters" have no problem in engaging in backdoor quid pro quo deals and clandestine meetings.
Take for instance the field signs. They got an ordinance passed hastily with no idea of how it was going to be managed, who would be redponsible, and how the revenue was going to be handled.
The commissioners would hone the fine details later. Then suddenly without public notice, signs - well lets make that... sign, are sold.
No discussion on rates, supervision "or accounting.
Hell of a way to run a railroad!
There is a Home Rule Committee working right know on making revisions to the charter.
Hopefully, the first thing this group will do is put some teeth in it.
Commenters: I would suggest to you that the revisions that may come from the current committee may surprise you in the agenda they reveal---look for a proposal for a city form of government, with a mayor and a council, incorporating the school district (and its debt) into a unified body...everything that is happening now leads to that conclusion.
It may well prove to be a fond hope that seeing discontent our existing office holders would "reform" their conduct, perhaps even respond to reasonable inquiry and criticism, but you are undoubtedly right that the leopard will not change its spots. Nonetheless, lets give them a chance so we can oppose those who will not engage community life with an open mind in a true electoral contest (if any decent person can be found to stomach the cesspool of back-biting and conspiracy into which Mt. Lebanon has somehow sunk in recent years).
We need to be optimistic if we hope to avoid municipal bankruptcy.....any merger of municipality and school district will only be a short-term postponement of this likely outcome of public overspending (the rub is that they don't even provide the essential services that the community-from the youth sports alliance to our esteemed moderator--demand as they let the money slip away)....
The Swamp Fox
9:41 AM, following your logic concerning the purchase of a fire truck, how about the school district fund the purchase of a golf course tractor, since they do have a golf team? The commissioners voted down the purchase. Maybe if we tell the commissioners that it would benefit the school district golf team, they would throw it back in. After all, families move here for youth sports. Shhh, don't say that to Collier Little League.
Elaine
Let us refocus on the systemic issues: how is the taxing power exercised and what are the respective responsibilities of the municipality and the school board? keep in mind that the "reform" that the fiscally irresponsible are likely to promote through the Home Rule Committee is more centralized power in a smaller group of people---moving ever further away from a local government that is responsive and responsible to the residents of this community....
the true reform would be consolidation with other local governments to eliminate duplicative and top-heavy administrative mechanisms--what makes no sense is that Lebo pretends to be separate from our immediate neighbors in St. Clair and even Bethel Park (would you prefer to have BPs school board who have really managed-and controlled-in the interest of the citizens as opposed to what we have on high?)--we need to open government up, not find ways to narrow the corridors of power so that they are impenetrable from the outside
The Swamp Fox
As you may have suspected, Mme. Moderator, 9:41 was me, before the "reveal" You correctly identify how complex and confused the matter has become because of the failure of our local officials to trouble with the niceties of procedure and the limits of power--it must be nice to be rich on other people's money.
The Swamp Fox
Mr. Fox, from what I'm told from someone with very inside information, you might want to careful in what you wish for regarding Bethel Park SD.
As for merging our municipality and school district... apparently that is what we basically have now in one form or another.
Elaine, do you even know where the kids on the Collier Little League team live? Of course you don't. If you did, you'd stop using it to try and make some feeble point.
Dave Franklin
Dave, I believe I know where they live. Collier is made up of Nevillewood, Presto, Kirwan Heights, and Rennerdale - a place that is so desirable to live that houses sell via word of mouth and never have to be listed. It is home of my favorite JoAnn Fabrics, Settlers Cabin, and Jan Klein. Even Ruby's Dry Cleaners knows where it is because they bought a sign for Webb Park field, you know the field that has wall to wall signs. Perhaps you should talk with them about signage. They might be able to give you a few tips.
While you are at it, why don't you go to a school board meeting and fill in Elaine Cappucci about the need and the Commission's desire to turf Mellon Field?
Elaine
You bring up a good question Dave.
Why don't our kids compete in the Little League?
From wiki:
Little League Baseball and Softball (officially, Little League Baseball, Incorporated) is a non-profit organization in South Williamsport, Pennsylvania, United States, which organizes local youth baseball and softball leagues throughout the U.S. and the rest of the world.
Founded by Carl Stotz in 1939 as a three-team league in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, Little League Baseball encourages local volunteers to organize and operate Little League programs that are annually chartered through Little League International. Each league can structure itself to best serve the children in the area in which the league operates. Several specific divisions of Little League baseball and softball are available to children ages 4 to 18. The organization holds a congressional charter under Title 36 of the United States Code.[1]
The organization's administrative office is located in South Williamsport. The first Little League Baseball World Series was played in Williamsport in 1947. The Little League International Complex hosts the annual Little League Baseball World Series at Howard J. Lamade Stadium and Little League Volunteer Stadium, and is also the site of the Peter J. McGovern Little League Museum, which provides a history of Little League Baseball and Softball through interactive exhibits for children.
Claim to fame: Largest organized youth sports organization in the world
Motto: Courage, Character and Loyalty"
Is it possible the rules and accountability are too strict? It can't possibly be money. We're made of money, so why wouldn't we want our kids competing at an international level?
Mr. Franklin---Collier is on its way to be THE place to live---it's big, beautiful, has lovely housing developments and the vast majority of people are not snobs.
Not only that, but elected officials actually LISTEN to their residents!
Is Webb Park Field turf or grass?
Mr. Franklin is an accomplished practitioner of the rhetorical arts--he claimed he was a highly experienced expert in the field of raising money through sponsorships and athletic-based advertising--yet, as Mme. Moderator points out, if anything is "feeble" (that was his perhaps sharp characterization of an opposing point of view) it is the result of his "expert" assistance (one very small sign and not much money).
Perhaps Mr. Franklin's knowledge of public law also leads to his support of having the municipality pay for the school district's improvements-I guess the source of the money doesn't matter (why don't we apply for foreign assistance from some generous government overseas--that's actually been done before by a county in Tennessee seeking to repair some old bridges--and the Russians did give them some cash!)
Yet, it is encouraging that Mr. Franklin is reading our small community chat here. Thank you for your attention, Mr. Franklin. I am sure Mme. Moderator and the rest of we outsiders would be honored to have the Power Elite of Mt. Lebanon join our grass roots discussion--all we ask is civility.
On the point of civility, I would be bold enough to suggest that Mr. Franklin owes Mme. Moderator an apology for his unfortunate turn of phrase by which I am sure he did not intend to be as mean as his rhetoric came across.
The Swamp Fox
Webb Field, as well as the fields under construction in the new and huge Collier Park, are all GRASS. There are no turf fields, but somehow a group of 11 and 12-year olds became the U.S. baseball champions for their division.
Swamp Fox, "grass roots discussion"-- nice double entente.
Perhaps Mr. Franklin, a busy attorney, is taken away by serious obligations, but I am sure his high integrity and generous nature will lead him to offer the suggested apology yet this evening. Apologies are always best while the sting of insult is fresh.
Thank you for your consideration, Mr. Franklin.
The Swamp Fox
Correction for 3:55 - double entendre.
3:55 I thank you for the compliment, though the double entendre was modest...my larger hope is for an actual entente, raprochemente, or at least a civil exchange with Mr. Franklin and his allies, who are powerful
Your friend,
The Swamp Fox
I continue to be amazed that too many ML residents are impressed by items that are fancy, expensive and frilly.
I think we can---and should---do better.
4:24 With regard to your concern with the superficiality of some people, I tend to agree, but we also must recognize that "there is no accounting for taste" and we should not hold overblown or gaudy taste against anyone. If anything, lack of restraint may in fact simply reflect the nature and character of some of our neighbors-it would be consistent with glass, brick and mortar palaces, limitless raises regardless of merit, levels of public compensation for executive officers with relatively modest responsibilities compared to those with greater burdens who are paid far less, and I could go on.
Seriously, your concern with lack of personal restraint is at the very core of the lack of civility and respect for diversity of opinion that is too typical of our local elite (self-importance is inconsistent with good manners). It is also an essential condition of their willingness to tax us to their maximum power with no regard for anything but their wants, even if such wants are excessive.
The Swamp Fox
You're welcome, Mr. Fox. Unfortunately, reaching an entente with Mr. Franklin, Brumfield and crew is highly doubtful.
In my opinion, if they truly had the best interest of the kids and taxpayers at heart, they would first come up with some plan for puttung the $2 million land purchases (McNeilly & Twin Hills) to use or divesting before looking for new fields to carpet.
I for one would be open to new proposals once we figure out what to do with those older plans for recreational facilities that failed.
I'd say the SAB has a case of ADD.
4:37 In my opinion, you are as wise as you are fluent. Well said, my friend.
The Swamp Fox
I wonder if our commissioners have considered why they should fund a lawn mower for the golf course instead of turf for football and baseball players?
Golfers don’t have some of their players in jail every week.
Golfers don’t kick dirt on, or throw bottles at, other people.
Professional golfers are paid in direct proportion to how well they play.
Golfers don’t hold out for more money, or demand new contracts, because of another player’s deal.
Golfers don’t demand that taxpayers pay for the courses on which they play.
When golfers make a mistake, nobody is there to cover for them or back them up.
The PGA raises more money for charity in one year than the NFL does in 2 years.
You can watch the best golfers in the world up close, at a tournament, for $25 or $30.
Even in the nose bleed section a ticket to the Super Bowl will cost you over $300, or $1,000 from a scalper.
Golfers cannot fail 70% of the time and make $9,000,000 a season, like football and baseball players do.
Golfers keep their clothes on while they are being interviewed.
Golf doesn’t have free agency. In their prime, Palmer, Norman, and other stars would shake your hand and say they were happy to meet you. In his prime Jose Canseco wore T-shirts that read “Leave Me Alone.”
At a golf tournament (unlike taxpayer-funded sports stadiums and arenas) you won’t hear a steady stream of four letter words and nasty name calling while you’re hoping that no one spills beer on you.
Why should the commissioners spend $38,500 on a municipal tractor, when they can spend $700,000 on a school district field?
Elaine
So they can cut the grass?
Connie
Yeah, Connie. It IS pretty obvious to you and me, but the Three Stooges seem to have less concern for the municipal golf course than they do with a school district field. They would rather spend nineteen times that amount on a middle school ball field. I wonder when the Jefferson parents are going to ask the commission for a $700,000 contribution for new turf. Maybe KO and Seton-La Salle will want aid for their Mt. Lebanon fields.
Elaine
Doesn't the municipal golf course bring in money? I would think that alone would justify some maintenance and certainly the cost of a new tractor.
It's unfortunate that too many people in this community are more concerned with how things look than how things are.
11:08, in 2007 the golf course received approximately $375,000 from a bond issuance.
In 2012, the golf course received about $50,000 in unassigned funds to purchase a new mower. Most recently, the $4.8 million bond that was just floated included $500,000 in new funds for the golf course.
All of this is on top of the $300,000 or so that is earmarked for the golf course as part of our annual budget. With the exception of the $500,000 that will be used the re-grade two holes, I think all of this is money well spent. The golf course is a great facility. I would have preferred that the $500,000 go into general maintenance or some more meaningful upgrades. I don't think it's been in really good shape since Matt stepped down as the head professional.
Dave Franklin
Good morning, Mr. Franklin. I see from your entry this morning that you have been up and blogging. While I read with interest your views about the relative merits of various spending items in the budget from later posts, I do not yet notice your apology to Mme. Moderator for the ill-mannered insult you wrote about her on this blog yesterday. Did you forget to apologize or did you mean to be mean (bullies are NOT welcome in this discussion). I expect and hope you will do the gentlemanly thing and correct the overblown rhetoric of your "feeble" comment.
Thank you for your consideration.
The Swamp Fox
You want to play that game, Dave? How many millions are being spent on athletics for the school district? And your pals on the commission want to spend $700,000 more on the school district athletics, but won't replace a 1999 tractor for a stinkin' $38,500?
I would like to know when you are going to go to a school board meeting and address their field issues.
Which brings us back to the topic at hand. The district is sitting on millions. Why are they hoarding it and not using any of it while talking about wrapping bonds? Why have you tied up so much of the commission meetings with turf discussions, when the district could turf both middle schools and still have millions of dollars remaining?
Elaine
nYou know, the issue is not whether the municipality should chose a tractor over turf, the question posed by the proposal to spend $700,000 of municipal funds on school district obligations, thereby invading the municipal tax for school expenses in excess of the legal limit on school ad valorem revenues.
So, people, let's keep our eyes on the ball and look to the tax and budgeting issues, not to the line items. Although, I must agree that the matter of excessive line items is also a big concern in this town (can anyone explain why we pay our two ranking employees more than the executive heads of the county and the City of Pittsburgh make?). This much is of concern even before we get to the question of competence in the management of the public safety building construction and other matters that, each independently, should have been the basis for termination of those responsible.
The Swamp Fox
If you will indulge me, Mme. Moderator, may I inquire as to why we hear only from a proxy (Mr. Franklin) and not from the members of the municipal council who have sponsored and supported the proposed raid on the township treasury? Perhaps our elected elite don't trouble with what the mere rabble down in the precincts think.
The Swamp Fox
Mr. Franklin: It is an interesting question raised by Mme. Moderator as to why you press the municipality on the question of improving the school district's land, but do not press the school board for their choices on spending -- why don't they turf the fields with the ready cash they hold on hand? Has the approval of the HS renovation set a ceiling on what the SB will do for the youth athletic program now that the board does not need them anymore to get what the members of the board want?
Good points Mr. Fox.
Another would be why we need two high priced PIOs, one for the school district and one for the municipality.
Since the subject of merging some operations for these two entities have been brought up in numerous meetings, why wouldn't consolidating public information be on the table? Seems like a no brainer.
Also, Mr. Franklin, no opinion on joining the Little League system? Shouldn't our kids be given the opportunity to possibly compete on the world stage?
Speaking of proxies, it would be interesting to know, Mr. Franklin, are you the designee on these issues on behalf of any commissioner or school board member? Have you discussed this blog or the points we are discussing here with any of them? Have you agreed or been asked to carry water here? It would seem that you suddenly appeared in this discussion after speculation as to why the usual apologists for our elitist politicians had been silent---were you the answer to our prayers or the messenger from Olympus?
The Swamp Fox
9:36: I think Mr. Franklin has "hit and run" having completed his assigned mission with us. We may not hear from him again--after all, he has reduced us to dust in the wind with his blinding logic and soaring rhetoric, has he not? Just as he seems not even to have a qualm about his name-calling (a Mt. Lebo Elite specialty). Oh well, someone has already admonished me not to expect him to listen or compromise.
you know, 9:36, in thinking about it there doesn't seem to be a significant need for a PIO at all in such a small place....our municipal manager and council members should be able to handle that all by themselves....(or would we be over-taxing the manager with so much responsibility?)
The Swamp Fox
I will join all of you later in the day as we continue our vigil for an apology from Mr. Franklin, and perhaps an explanation as to why he fails to see any responsibility in the school board for the condition of their own fields. I can't wait.
For now, I have other swamps to drain.
The Swamp Fox
I'm not sure what game I'm playing. I supported most of the expenditures at the golf course, and although I don't support the specifics of the latest $500,000 I do think that sort of investment (or more) needs to be made to the golf course every so often. My family has always used it, so I want to keep it in good shape.
The issue of turfing a middle school field has nothing to do with the high school project. It's about improving one of the 5 fields we have. We all pay for them. My tax dollars go to feed both the school district and muni budgets, and both entities use the fields. The plan focuses on improving what we have, and not debating whose property it's on. Not sure why that's even relevant.
My goal is not to convince you Elaine or the handful of anonymous posters who have a burr in their saddle on this issue. Unlike many groups (the deer folks in particular), I only show up at meetings when the issue is on the agenda. If I'm cluttering your meeting by showing up, well I suppose I can't help you with that.
Interstingly though, if you search the tags "turf" and "Dave Franklin" on this blog, you'll come up with a ton of hits. So I guess I should thank you for keeping this issue front of mind when the Commission isn't talking about it.
Dave Franklin
Mr. Franklin, whether he responds or not, should be inconsequential. He is after all bottom line... just another resident.
The real issue concerning taxpayers is why expenditures keep escalating. Like any product, there is a limit to how much buyers will pay. Are we rraching that point?
For instance, for yeaes the school district makes a show every budget discussion about asking depadtments to cut 5% from their budget. They've been supposedily doing this for years. Remely even remarked once we've trimmed all the fat, the next cuts will require cuttung the into the muscle. I believe it was along those lines.
But amazingly, when you look at the last 5 or 10 year's expenditures we see them rise by nearly $2 million almost every year. Even more amazing as you watch enrollments drop during the same period.
Declining enrollment, 5% department cuts and escalating expenditures year after year. In private industry this would be cause for panic and massive shake ups in management.
For the school district and municipality, their solution to their situations is... lets find ways to spend even more money!
No apology, huh Dave? I didn't think you had it in you.
I have only seen you apologize once on Real Lebo, so I guess you have exceeded your limit.
You write: "My tax dollars go to feed both the school district and muni budgets, and both entities use the fields. The plan focuses on improving what we have, and not debating whose property it's on. Not sure why that's even relevant." It is relevant because it is two separate taxing bodies. I think "The Swamp Fox" has explained it in terms you should understand. He sounds like an attorney, perhaps a better one since you are having trouble grasping it.
I don't have a problem with you coming to commission meetings. I always get a kick out of how you avoid to make eye contact with me. What I do have a problem with is your Three Amigos constantly discussing turf for the field du jour.
Elaine
As for the Collier Little League, there is absolutely no comparison between that program and the Mt. Lebanon Baseball Association. The Collier Little League has had success in the last few years for about 20 families and for that they should be congratulated. It takes a huge amount of time, money and commitment from those kids and adults to reach the stage that they have been on the last few years. It must be noted though that the kids who play in the World Series qualifier represent a group of about 11 kids, pulled from about 8 different communities, who probably don't play the in-house form of baseball that we play in Mt. Lebanon. Like I said, it's a great experience for them, but we have a different model in Mt. Lebanon.
In Mt. Lebanon we have elected to focus on providing a fantastic baseball experience for about 1,000in Mt. Lebanon kids since the 1950s. Our mission - give every kid who wants to play baseball, the opportunity to play. Most Little League chartered leagues support baseball programs support teams for kids ranging from age 8-13. Collier, for example, has about 14 total teams in that age range. By comparison, Mt. Lebanon Baseball supports about baseball programs for kids ranging from 6 to 18. This year we had about 65 total teams under our sueprvision for kids from 6 to 18. I think its fair to say that we have one of the best in-house rec baseball programs in Pennsylvania.
In addition, following the rec program, we support travel baseball teams for kids ranging from age 7-15. These teams are primariliy supported (financially) by parents, and we ensure that they do not conflict with our in-house programs. Again, our mission is to provide a great program for every kid and not just 11 or 12.
Hope that helps explain the rationale for not joining Little League.
Dave Franklin
Once again... Mr. Franklin. No opinion on joining an international sports association and letting our kids compete on the world stage? Is is after all - "for the kids." Why wouldn't we want them to find out if they can cut it or not?
It is beginning to appear Mr. Franklin that sports and competition aren't mportant to you. It appears you have some fixation with spending other people's money and artificial turf.
The "game," Mr. Franklin, is an open exchange among citizens who may not actually agree on matters of policy, in a civil voice, with due respect for the full diversity of opinion. If that is a "game" to you, the rest of us on here can understand since you function in the local political structure which is utterly intolerant of intellectual diversity and any concept of accommodation or compromise.
The source of taxation matters because the people have explicitly imposed limits on the school district and the municipality, separately, each within its own sphere of responsibility. As a lawyer, you should have some notion - and respect for - due process.
And, speaking of "due," why are so obstinate on withholding a respectful apology for your mean tone with our dedicated Mme. Moderator?
I do find it mildly ironic that you and your family actually use the golf course and therefore consider expenditures on it legitimate, which is not the criteria, is it? Are we all just fighting to get our own piece of the action or are we a community cooperatively seeking the best quality of life we can achieve within our available resources?
As to "anonymous" comments, consider the very intolerant and spiteful environment the elite of this town have created. Why would educated people be concerned about anonymity if common decency and respect set the tone among our politicians and activists? Perhaps your allies have created a social problem in Lebo -- have you ever considered the possibility that you might be wrong?
The Swamp Fox
No it doesn't Mr. Franklin.
Mr. Franklin.... Whaaaat? You post: "As for the Collier Little League, there is absolutely no comparison between that program and the Mt. Lebanon Baseball Association. The Collier Little League has had success in the last few years for about 20 families and for that they should be congratulated. It takes a huge amount of time, money and commitment from those kids and adults to reach the stage that they have been on the last few years. It must be noted though that the kids who play in the World Series qualifier represent a group of about 11 kids"
Success for about 20 familes-- really? How many competed to reach the top? Isn't that what sports and athletics are about?
Are you trying to claim that only 11 kids benefit from playing in Little League, while 1,000s benefit from Lebo bubbleball? C'mon get real!
You bring up age groups in our programs, travel ball etc.
Little League covers the same span, it also covers softball so why wouldn't we consolidate everything under the Little League umbrella? Wouldn't that simplify things.
There is also American Legion ball for the older players as well as the high school teams.
So the argument that we're covering nore age groups is dubious at best.
Why would we want to isolate our players from national and international competition?
It's impossible to believe that 1,000 kids all get the same amount of playing time...those who play are either the best ones available or are the coaches' kids.
I would bet that the number of kids playing baseball drops significantly as the kids get older.
11:22: perhaps it is more about control and keeping "the way it has always been" (or perhaps about who). It is all about the ambitious and ideological adults here --- those who are intent on having their way, with no regard for the social fabric of the town in which we all live --- these political elite are unyielding and uncaring about the truly larger issues of community and social cohesion. They make it all about the kids only in the sense that they hide behind the kids in their relentless political push (not dissimilar from the way Saddam Hussein's troops used to put a cohort of children up front to give pause to the civilized forces they opposed). What message are we sending to the children of this community if they learn the tactics and ugliness of such "leadership"?
The Swamp Fox
I wonder how many dads have to drag the baseball fields so their kids are good enough to play. Who drags fields, Mr. Franklin?
How much money gets spent on the adult population in ML?
After all, it's the adults who work and pay the taxes. What do those with grown children get from the community?
Readers and commenters: Have you all noticed how Mr. Franklin has no fear of posting his name? As a member of the Ruling Elite of Mt. Lebanon he knows that the opposition they face to their ideas is principled and civil---the power structure and its adherents have no need to be concerned about retribution, character assassination, or other unpleasantness because we on the other side of the issues are respectful, intellectually tolerant, and mindful of personal restraint and social convention. Perhaps Mr. Franklin should consider his remarks and wonder why things are the way they are. This is the core problem: an oppressive and brutal Power Elite that will brook no citizen independence. They just want us to let them do what they want and march like dutiful lemmings over the fiscal cliff. It must be interesting to live in their reality when the only people who disagree with them are always wrong. The flip side of that is the burden of having to govern in the face of the troglodyte opposition, so I guess they have my sympathy.
The Swamp Fox
Mr. or Ms. Swamp Fox, Dave has submitted his share of anonymous comments. He has no fear because his buddy, Dave Brumfield will write in here to request that we stop picking on his pal. Of course, when the PIO or other muni officials come after me, Mr. Brumfield is MIA. Tht is to be expected given what a Crystal Drive neighbor has said about Dave's feelings toward the blog and how I get under Dave's skin.
Elaine
Mr. Fox, sorry I have to comment and break ranks with you slightly. I think that making a comparison to Hussein's troops and the Lebo Sports people is a little over the top.
I get what you are trying to say, but think maybe the phrase that they are trying to be "big fish in a small pond" would suffice.
I hate when this blog dissplves into so much hyperbole and fluffery.
Like Mr. Franklin claiming that only 20 families and eleven kids benefitted from the "expensive" Collier Little League experience.
Or his claim that "we have one of the best in-house rec programs in Pennsylvania." Not sure how he substantiates that claim, but how does that compare with this claim in the Little League History on their site.
"From those humble beginnings, Little League Baseball has become the world’s largest organized youth sports program. In the space of just six decades, Little League grew from three teams to nearly 200,000 teams, in all 50 U.S. states and more than 80 countries.
And the basic goal remains the same as it did in 1939, to give the children of the world a game that provides fundamental principles (sportsmanship, fair play and teamwork) they can use later in life to become good citizens."
200,000 teams in 50 states and 80 countries teaching "sportsmanship, fair play and teamwork" plus good citizenship. Hmmm, big fish, little pond or compete on an international stage, tough decision... NOT!
Just read your 12:07 post and that I do agree with. There does seem to be a little group that like to employ character assassination when things or people don't follow their agenda. Don't know if this is a recent development or new to the bubble.
1112:41: You are correct about "fluffery" but I did not intend to say that the youth sports advocates (I may be among them) use tactics analogous to those of Saddam, rather my reference was truly aimed at the school board who justify not listening to any contrary opinion on the putative basis that they are the only ones who advocate "for the kids..." Such is a presumption beneath contempt in that it is self-justifying pomposity and it is insulting in that it implies that any opposition to their position is "against" the best interests of the kids.....I don't think we really do disagree on that much at all.
Nonetheless, I appreciate your demonstration of the respect and self-doubt that are hallmarks of the views of we dissenters. Such modesty is unknown among the Lebo Power Elite.
The Swamp Fox
Mr. Fox, no argument with that post.
I doubt the word introspection appears in the Lebo Elite Dictionary.
I'm pretty sure that to these elistist, the possibility never occurs to them that whether they are right or wrong, there just might be the possibility that a large number of people just don't want what they want.
As an example, I'm not a fan of turf. That doesn't mean nobody gets it because I don't want it. I'd even go against myself and support Mr. Franklin's turf wishes if he and his pals put their heads together and got us out from under the $2 million debt of the useless Twin Hills/McNeilly properties before sticking us with another $1 million expenditure.
No, instead they completely ignore those boondoggles like they have no impact on the financial situation.
Its... I want, I want, I want!!! And like an impetuous little child, once they get what they want, their interest soon wanes and they're off on a quest for another new toy.
I wish Mr. Franklin would just simply his post to "Buy me _ _ _ _" and be done with it. We know where he's going with his submmissions.
2:26, you've eloquently made the case for why there should be referendum votes on major projects.
Paying the bills with tax dollars is one thing, but hog-wild spending with our money is something else.
Lucy G
Correction:
I wish Mr. Franklin would just 'simplify' his post to "Buy me _ _ _ _" and be done with it. We know where he's going with his submmissions.
Or he could just type "TURF!" We'd know pretty much who it was from and what it means. He wouldn't even have to sign it. It would save him a lot of time which he could use to formulate plans with his SAB buddies on just what the hell we're going to do with MxNeilly and Twin Hills.
Mr. Franklin: I will address you directly again because I really do want your views on the question of whether "piggybacking" the taxing authority of the municipality to cover expenses not budgeted by the school district is a legal "workaround" of the taxing limitations imposed by law on the school district. Or, is it unlawfu? Does it depend on whether the school directors knew in advance?
A related question is whether it is lawful for the municipality to impose a tax for the purpose of paying an obligation of the school district? Is it lawful for the municipality to spend "unallocated" excess ad valorem exactions on school district property?
Why do you think there are limits on the school district's taxing power? Is it true that the school directors and the commissioners have no idea whether the proposal to turf school fields with municipal tax funds is lawful or not?
It is a very unusual situation. Do you believe that the school board actually has no idea what plans some of the commissioners were making to turf the fields? If you believe they did not know, what does that tell you about liaison and coordination between the two institutions? Do you agree with me that it is highly improbable that the proposal was not agreed to among at least some of the members of each body, in advance? If the school directors did know, why would they misrepresent the fact to the public?
Should commissioners and school directors ask such questions early and publicly as part of their fiduciary duties to the rest of us? Can you begin to see why this is all very troubling?
Thank you for your consideration.
The Swamp Fox
In light of the lack of accounting under the old Joint Maintenance Agreement, any collaboration between the municipal, school district and YSA needs to be examined with a fine tooth comb.
Mr. Fox, I will gladly answer your questions - perhaps not all of them, but I will try.
First, it was the SAB that suggested that the community (not the municipality and not the school board specifically) work towards turfing a field. Period. It wa sour idea. No one else's. As you may know, the SAB was created by the Commission and it represents about 10 different sports groups in our town, from men's tennis to lacrosses, from women's gold to football. Our meetings are also attended by a Commissioner, the Director of the Rec Dept, a School Board member and the school district's athletic director. There is no hidden agenda, no back door meetings and the public is always welcome. We start each meeting with Citizen's Comments, just like the Commission meetings. To date, we have had none. In fact, thus far the only resident who has attended our meetings is Mr. Huston. As best I can tell, he sits with a recorder and plays word search games. His choice on how to spend the first Thursday of every month I suppose.
So, despite the concern and passion you all have for this issue, no one in this community of 35,000+ has felt moved enough to come to a meeting. No one. Hide behind words "elite", "pomposity" whatever word you like, but those who ae most troubled about this debate have NEVER elected to engage in this discussion at an SAB meting and only a couple showed up to oppose it at the last Commission session. Those are the facts, plain and simple.
As for McNeilly and Twin Hills, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone involved with the youth sports associations in 2013 who had any role in those acquisitions. Nevertheless, in 2011 many of us supported Dan Miller's efforts to coordinate a bond (similar to the one that was just approved) to develop McNeilly and fix the pool. As you certainly know, McNeilly can only be used for recreation. This bond was the best opportunity to fulfill that designated purpose. Unfortunately, Commissioners Kluck and DeIlius voted against that bond, and all but permanently damned McNeilly into nothingness. For my money, Kluck and DeIlius failed us all in rejecting that bond, and I've told Matt that myself. That's what adults do. They meet, use their names, share opinions, sometimes disagree, sometimes agree, shake hands and move on. Matt and I are long time friends.
As for the the current discussion of unassigned funds, there have been no discussions with the school board. Aside from one discussion session, there hasn't even been a meeting with the Commission. Despite what you read here, this all very new to everyone and there is no conspiracy.
Also, by anyone's accounting a turf field at Mellon, Jefferson, Wildcat, where ever, will likely run in excess of $1 million. If we convince the Commission to allocate $600,000 of the unassigned funds, the sports associations still have a huge hole to fill. We are willing to take on that task. If we fail, the municipality gets its $600,000 back to spend on something else. I would assume that most of you would just as soon see us fail. That's fine. It only motivates me, but in the end, if we fail, you win. If we succeed, then I suppose it's much ado about nothing because we will have done what you've asked us to do.
Either way, show up at the next meeting, state your name and your opinion and get on with life. The system works for the people who show up.
Dave Franklin
The system? The system? Dave, the SAB is an advisory board. As you and Kristen like to say, PERIOD. The last meeting was canceled. The one before that was an ordeal to get recorded by the municipality. That is why David Huston shows up with his recorder. He is doing that for me. I have no desire to sit with you for all those hours. It is a dog and pony show. You want turf. PERIOD. If it isn't at Mellon, it is McNeilly. If not McNeilly, it is Wildcat and Middle. Most likely, it is all of the above. You are wrong about where the turf idea came from. You were not at the Joint Discussion Session. I have the only recording of that meeting which I shared on my website, Lebocitizens.com. Looking at Field Failure, Brumfield's only post on davebrumfield.com, Dave formed the SAB, which he first called the Youth Sports Advisory or YSA for short - has a certain ring to it, doesn't it, Dave? Ayway, he didn't want the commission to be bogged down with more fields discussions. Good plan, Dave B. That worked well.
Actually, turfing Mellon even goes back to Dan Miller's days. So cut the crap, Dave. BTW, we have gone from $700,000 for turfing Mellon to $600,000, Dave? And if you fail, the Municipality gets its $600,000 back to spend it some other way? That is damn nice of you. I am sure everyone who is still cleaning up from the flooding will be happy with that news. You make me sick.
Elaine
First off Mr. Franklin did it ever occur to you that people don't attend SAB meetings simply because they believe it to be a useless execise.
Similiar to the HS renovation hearing designed with the sole purpose of llowing taxpayers to voice their opinions on the renovation. Amazing thing about that hearing, one of the directors announced publicially their intention to vote yea on the project before the hearing even took place. So much for lisstening to and examining public input.
Regarding Mr. Huston, if he wants to sit in the meeting and play solitaire whats the big deal? He's there and it is not like he doesn't voice his opinions or ask questions in other meetings. Perhaps he hasn't heard something yet he feels is worthy of a comment. Perhaps he is just providing a service for other residents. You do love though to single people out, don't you Mr. F?
Then the other odd comment. You write that the SB has a reprrsentative on the SAB. Odd, Mrs. Cappucci claims no knowledge of any turf plans.
But you're telling us the SAB which includes a school board member suggested turfing a school district field.
So now we have the SAB school district seat filled by an individual that doesn't confer with the school board president on the affairs of the SAB? Then why are they there?
As for your comment blaming Kluck and JoeD for not developing McNeilly and absolving youth sports of any participation in the purchase. Badderdash!
Regardless of whether any current SAB members had anything to do with the purchase of it or Twin Hills, the noney was spent for the purposes of recreation. Two millions dollars that could have gone to field maintenance or your previous turf. You whisk it away like or never mind, had nothing to do with me. Whether it did or not, it useless property bought for sports and burning money that could be going to storm drain maintenance, the pool, golf course or whatever.
As a taxpayer, I can't afford for my share of municipal taxes setting unused in vacant lots.
So since these were purchased for sports, its your SABs responsibility to use them or figurecaway to get rid of them.
Then I might be inclined to listen to additional sports spending.
By the way, I believe Mr. Diaz came up with a proposal to create a public/private sports venture for the McNeilly property. Which You Mr. Franklin along with either the YSA or Commissioner Blumfield rejected without much discussion.
That is correct, 6:05 PM. It gets better. Kristen Linfante was supposed to call back Mr. Diaz and never did. Mr. Diaz washed his hands of Mt. Lebanon and rightly so. They treated him like crap. Just like so many other professionals in this town.
Elaine
Mr. Diaz wanted Mt. Lebanon to pay him $400/hr to hunt for private developers for McNeilly and to lobby for lifting the recreation restrictions on the property. I offered to do it for $300. :)
Dave Franklin
Mr. Franklin:
I think it should be pointed out that many people who are against spending municipal funds to carpet a field for the express benefit of a minority of the community's population are not against sports, children, or any combination thereof. It's just that we think there are certain priorities that need to be considered, and that turfing a field at taxpayer expense is not at the top of the list. Frankly, I'll bet you'll agree with me.
But I would like to play "Devil's Advocate":
1. How much money do think you and your sports friends can bring to the table by, say, year's end?
2. I have sent the commissioners many studies from the Reason Foundation - as you know, I'm a sponsor - showing how municipalities can benefit by privatizing their recreational facilities. Has anyone on the commission shared these studies with you?
3. There was some talk (or rumor?) of the sports cartel arranging for corporate donations for the fields. Is this true?; and if so, to what extent?
Thank you for the invitation to speak at your meetings; if I can arrange it I just might take you up on it. Unfortunately, I am busy in the evenings with my overseas clients and usually can't make these evening sessions, and that goes not only for your group but also the school board and the commission.
To Blog readers: Mr. Franklin and I go back a couple of years. We have had some interesting exchanges. We do not agree on much of anything - he being a statist and I a libertarian - but he has always been polite to me. I don't think Mr. Franklin is an "evil" man - but being much younger than me, just misguided! :)
RG
Then why didn't you? Or is this something your SAB will do for free?
Elaine
Yep, and Mr. Franklin has the audacity to suggest that people aren't moved enough to come to his kangaroo SAB meetings.
Then he in the preceeding breath mocks a gentleman that attends.
Residents stepped up and try to discuss community topics at a town hall. What the Kluck happened to that effort?
Unbelieveable, Mr. Franklin.
Mr. Diaz wanted McNeilly to be a transportation hub for city commuters. That's a bit outside of our mission statement. As I've mentioned in a number of previous posts, any significant improvements in Lebo that involve turf will likely include significant private funds. So, yes, we'll locate those funds ourselves - for free.
Dave Franklin
RG, I don't too don't think Mr. Franklin is evil and suggested comparing he or anyone else was a bit extreme.
I agree with you that he may be misguided or at least single-minded.
When he does engage with singling out people like Mr. Huston or less than polite comment directed at Elaine, he is on the edge of being malicious.
That is not to say there hasn't been stuff slung both ways.The question becomes, why is it necessary.
Why do lawn signs have to torn up, snickering from the seats as people talk at SB or commission meetings, candidate poll signs torn down and on an on.
Uh huh. just like all the revenue coming from signage that you lobbied for. Dave, how about starting with the school district? They are sitting on millions.
There is another heavy storm at the moment. How many residents are afraid to leave their home right now? Why don't you let the commission do their job and you do yours with naming rights. The school district even updated a policy on naming rights. Go get 'em, tiger.
Elaine
Mr. Franklin, that wasn't what I was lead to believe about Mr. Diaz's plan. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but you determined it was out of 'our' mission statement so the plan was dropped and now the site sits empty.
As for locating we couldn't even round up field sign advertisers, why should we believe $600,000 or more is going to appear?
$600,000 in matching sports group funds is an admirable plan, but is this one more pie-in-the-sky promise?
Mr. Franklin, is it not fair to view promises with a suspucious eye? Lets recount.
Twin Hills
McNeily
$45 million elementary schools renovations plus a new HS pool
A $250,000 nanatorium plan
The infamous 2 lattes a month - $90 million HS project
The $30 million PK ffundraiser
The Joint Maintenance Field Agreement
Seems fair that taxpayers are a little gun shy don't you think?
Wasn't their also a plan to turf Wildcat and Middle Fields for $800,000?
Everyone: It seems clear that Mr. Franklin has not considered, and will not address, the fundamental questions regarding the abuse of local taxing powers. He seeks to hide behind his private efforts as a citizen, but does admit that he proceeds from an official platform, a political appointment that he actively sought. He also admits that school board and commission representatives officially participated in discussion of the proposal to use tax revenues in excess of those permitted by law to the school district. As an expert in the field, why does Mr. Franklin not give his professional opinion (based on some actual legal authority-if he has done any research at all) as to the legality of his proposed end-run on the limit of the taxing authority of the school district?
He is happy to invite everyone to a hollow process -- is anyone following this discussion of the opinion that Mr. Franklin would be open minded with regard to criticisms of his plans (has he demonstrated that in this discussion)?
It is also mildly amusing to note that Mr. Franklin considers himself an expert in the technical aspects of every proposal -- from land development, to sponsor advertising, to government rules affecting permitted uses at McNeilly--he is federal lobbyist, grantsman, developer, dealmaker, financier, salesman, citizen, etc, and seems to know more than anyone about everything, including things he has never done, and some he has not done well (remember that one lone athletic advertisement sign, Mr. Franklin-you offered to that for free and we got the best that "free" could buy).
Precisely in which field does your expertise lie, Mr. Franklin? You say you specialize in sports-related naming and advertising, what else do you have significant experience doing professionally? You might also offer to do my dentistry, but I don't think it would be a bargain at any price.
Finally, it is most curious how Mr. Franklin, who has continued to write at length here, and assures us he is civil, has ignored the call for him to apologize Mme. Moderator over his rude "feeble" remark. It is just consistent with the manner in which he fails to address the many serious public health and safety hazards (such as repeated flooding and other infrastructure needs) while assuming that the highest priority is turfing grass fields on which generations of Lebanites have played.
You refuse to treat seriously any idea that is not yours, Mr. Franklin. Perhaps that is why so many people doubt your sincerity.
The Swamp Fox
The 2013 sports group may not have had a recent active role regarding Twin Hills, but many residents in both ML and adjoining Scott are well aware that that purchase had political overtones to it.
John Fernsler was the Ward 1 commissioner then and the word is residents were complaining about kids playing in the woods and having campfires. The residents wanted ML and not Scott to police the area.
So, $1 million of taxpayers'money was used to give these complainers extended backyards.
If this sounds outrageous and unfair, it's because IT IS! It's no wonder people smirk about ML.
Yeah, and because of stupid, costly decisions like this Mt. Lebanon residents will get stuck having to pay for wetlands correction at the site.
Another brilliant Mt. Lebanon move...
Good night all. I'd like to say "I'll see you at the next meeting" but I know that will never happen.
Dave Franklin
Recollecting the vote for the field development at McNeilly Kluck rescinded his vote favoring the field development because two commissioners changed the plan to use the bond issue differently. They decided to put the majority of the bond issue money toward the swimming pool complex instead of completing the plan for McNeilly park. The money from the bond issue, after the pool allocation, was inadequate to complete the field plan for McNeilly which included one full sized baseball diamond(Mt. Lebanon does not have a regulation, full-sized baseball field) and two full sized field sport regulation fields. None were to be turfed because the issue at the time was that the amount of fields was insufficient. It was a waste of money to start a project that would never be completed at McNeilly. Kluck is not responsible for the field problem.
Best of luck again,
Connie
Oooooh that Dave, really can't resist jabbing when the heat is on and people try to show there justication for not buying another million dollars worth of sports related stuff.
Tell me Mr. Franklin, is the only way to communicate with our commissioners and school directors in commission or board meetings?
4,000 residents signed a petition that asked the school board not to spend more than $75,000,000 dollars on the high school renovation. 51% percent voiced the same in the Act 34 hearing.
The board stated they had an equal number supporting the project, but they never showed their position, 4,000 never showed up at a school board meeting.
So Mr. Franklin, sleep well. You'll get your turf.
Actually we have 2 full sized baseball fields. I'm not suggesting that Matt is the cause of the field problem, but he's refused to vote in favor of borrowing any money for recreation improvements.
Dave Franklin
Good for Mr. Kluck!
Wish we had more representatives that refuse to vote for incomplete or ill-defined plans.
Mr. Franklin I'd suggest that if the SAB really wants to turf a field like Mellon, you present a precise plan with the t's crossed and the i's dotted.
With some guarantee of your $600,00 commitment. Like maybe $100,000 on the table, YSA promisory notes don't cut it any more.
I wonder how PK and the perpetually excitablle Mr. Lebowitz are going to view Mr. Franklin and crew hitting donors for $600,000 to turf a school district field while they're out beating the bushes to raise $6,000,000 for the school district fundraising drive.
This will be an interesting race, who will scrounge up $600,000 first?
Mr. Franklin,
The more you talk, the less credibility you have. You have been labeled for a reason. You and your friends do not live up to your promises on either public/private partnership dollars promised or athletic signs delivered. No wonder the bond money went to the bottom of the ML pool. Those you consider your commission buddies deserted you.
The more you ask for turf the less sense your arguments make and it the more it reflects inadequate argument skills on your part. You offer insults instead of documented need for field reclamation.
You really need more than a big mouth to spend $800,000 of scarce municipal funds on a school district that wasted $35,000,000 on the high school project.
The more you insult folks about your turf want, the less I want to spend on school and municipal taxes because I don't trust you or your intensions, Mr. Franklin, and I don't trust your friends either.
And, I am now considering withdrawing my support for the $6,000,000 fund raising the district wants to do. It seems to me there is too much pressure from deadbeat athletic supporters and needy unions to shower money upon public officials who will just throw money at any noisy speaker.
But I do have to thank you for something, Mr. Franklin. You have shown me just how corrupt and dysfunctional Mount Lebanon's governing bodies really are on both the Republican and Democratic sides. You and your ilk have managed to discourage good representation on either the commission or the school board.
Congratulations, Mr. Franklin, the Mount Lebanon Elite have discouraged good government in your own town. Eckert Seamen's must be very proud of their new hire!
Can anyone tell me the logic in Mr. Franklin's comment at 5:03?
He writes:
"Also, by anyone's accounting a turf field at Mellon, Jefferson, Wildcat, where ever, will likely run in excess of $1 million. If we convince the Commission to allocate $600,000 of the unassigned funds, the sports associations still have a huge hole to fill. We are willing to take on that task. If we fail, the municipality gets its $600,000 back to spend on something else. I would assume that most of you would just as soon see us fail. That's fine. It only motivates me, but in the end, if we fail, you win. If we succeed, then I suppose it's much ado about nothing because we will have done what you've asked us to do."
He assumes most of us would like to see him fail... that motivates him. So there no compromise with him, no lets work together to get something done. No the more HE THINKS we wish his project to fail, the more motivated he is to do it.
But the oddest part-- we win if his side fails, but if they succeed its much ado about nothing because he/they will have done exactly what we've asked them to do. What?????
If his group fails... we win!
If they succeed... its nothing because its what we wanted them to do. Seriously?
Now how can anyone possibly argue with logic like that?
I hate to break it to Mr. Franklin, but according to the following website Mt. Lebanon doesn't have a regulation high & college regulation baseball field, let alone a full size major league field.
He's welcome if he so chooses, to refute my evidence suppporting Connie's 9:12 pm claim that Lebo doesn't have a regulation full size field.
My guess is he won't.
Wonder if anyone has talked to this H&K company about getting our grass fields in tip top shape. They claim to have a materoal that reduces field matenance costs.
Everyone: Well, we seem to have come full circle. The viewpoint represented by our Mr. Franklin is clearly one based on "we have the power and you don't" thinking He is not interested in facts, experience, or compromise. He shows no concern for legitimate public health and safety needs, and will not even discuss the basis for public policy priorities, let alone the legality of the means he proposes to advance his own proposals. I cannot imagine how any reasonable person could say that he has engaged us in a thoughtful process of analysis or persuasion--it is just more elitist "but I know better than you do."
It is such a shame that a community as rich in professional talent and experience as Mt. Lebanon should suffer under such a low brow regime. But what can you expect when our school board crows of its achievements as we seem permanently to have lost our place of preeminence in education within the region---and our college acceptances reflect the fact with the best schools taking fewer and fewer of our students as a trend. This is a great country because we have proven that ANYONE can be a school director, no matter how limited their vision.
The Swamp Fox
Just a coda: Mr. Franklin doesn't even seem sincere when he says "Good night" (see above), as he did not mean even that (see his post "good night" post responding, again, without touching the merits, of later comments. You know, Mr. Franklin, credibility is made up of many small things, like consistency, truth, and follow-through.
The Swamp Fox
I think I will adopt the position that Mr Gideon and Mr Cannon have wisely adopted in the past. If you want me to engage in conversation or answer your questions, please use your name.
Dave Franklin
Mr. Fox, you do have to concede Mr. Franklin's position that they have the power and we don't.
With Brumfield, Linfante and Brendel in the majority on the commission and Fraasch consistently trying to compromise, his people are in control on the municipal side without a doubt.
It is pretty much the same on the school district side. With Goldman the occassional dissenter, his group controls that body as well.
So he's right at least on that subject.
The question becomes how do we change things.
You refer to the communities professional and experienced talent. You should also add apathetic to the description. 30% voter is in a community likeTL is embarrassing.
Mr. Franklin throws down the guantlet, daring us to pack the meetings on turf. We won't so he wins, not because he's right, but rather because he can get out his athletic supporters.
Dave,
I use my name and you have yet to respond to any of my questions.
Elaine
Ask away Elaine. In trying to keep up, I've lost track iof what they are. I have nothing to hide.
Dave Franklin
Why run away Mr. Franklin?
An anonymous post disputes your claim that we have two regulation fields.
Wouldn't it be far more gentlemanly to provide evidemce suppprting your claim or admit they you were mistaken or misled?
Its not that big a deal, no one is going to jail for perjury. We either have two regulation fields as you claim or we have no regulation fields as Connie claims.
Connie used her name by the way. Oh wait, your rules, now she must use her full name.
Here's a suggestion Mr. Franklin, why don't you ask our Recreation Manager if we have two regulations or not and get back to us. He is on the public payroll anfd should be able to give you the definiative answer.
That way you don't have to debate with your neighbors.
Mr. Franklin:
I appreciate you willingness to address questions adduced on this Blog. In case you missed them, I asked you three questions yesterday. See August 7, 2013 at 6:25 PM.
You know all, our well paid public servants, the rec dirrctor, athletiic director or either one of the PIOs, should be able to resolve the issue as to the number of regulation sized ball fields that exist in Mt. Lebanon.
That would be the easiest way to stop the bickering on at least one issue. But, they won't its easier to hide out. Maybe one of our elected office holders can ask the question, after all isn't this something they need to know before rhey spend $1.2 million turfing a field.
It'd be awful to spend that kind of money and not have a regulation field.
Funny, Its Elaine's blog, but Franklin thinks he gets to establish the rules. Elaine allows anonymous comments from people she agrees with or not, those are HER rules.
This isn't a public forum were contributors control the conversation and in my opinion if you aren't going to abide by Elaine's rules - you should take you ball and go home. Or Elaine should banish you, but that is her decision.
Set up your own blog, post whatever facfual or fictional material you wish. Make assumptions about your neighbors up the whazoo, its a free country.
Mr. Franklin wants The Fox to unmask. Sounds like Sergeant Garcia and Zorro. I think he realizes that it isn't going to happen for all the reasons that have been laid out here before.
Mr. Franklin's resort to the over-cute comparison to Mr. Canon's refusal to respond to "anonymous" comments is too cute, by far. First, Mr. Canon was the object of ridicule and character assassination, while Mr. Franklin is not only such a victim, but he is the author of inappropriate comments (where is that apology to Mme. Moderator, Mr. Franklin?).
All the comments to you, sir, have been fact-based and fair. Your refusal to respond on the merits has been patent. So, pretend as you will, but we all do know who you really are, and I don't mean your name, sir, but I refer to your methods.
So, if you think it effective (or necessary) to refuse to respond to reasonable and important questions about your proposals to spend our money, we will all understand the game you are playing. You really should show more respect for your neighbors.
The Swamp Fox
None of us is perfect, but i hope all the readers, including Mr. Franklin, note that i meant he is NOT the victim of ridicule or abuse here, as Mr. Canon was.
Just to be clear.
The Swamp Fox
Sorry Mr. Gideon, I completely missed you post. I was busy dodging the other arrows. I'm happy to respond.
1. Based on a variety of factors, including donations from associations and increased registration fees, I'm optimistic that we could raise about $300,000 in the first 12 monts. This would not include any corporate money, which I will address in #3. This estimate is my own estimate based on my experience and knowledge of the various associations. It is by no means a concrete number, but I'm sure someone will use it against me at some point.
2. No, but in my experience they have a lot thrown at them both in the way of board packet materials and other info from residents. I wouldn't think less of them for not sharing it. I have my reservations about privatising fields, only because I don't think there is any money to be made. Athletic fields are generally not profit centers. That said, everything is still on the table.
3. Absolutely. The amount to be raised from corporate sponsors will certainly be driven by the type of project we can offer them. Corp sponsors like projects that have high visibility and and newsworthy moments. These moments are what drive interest and opportunity. At present, we don't really have a project to market to anyone that might be interested in sponsoring it. In other words, we have nothing to sell at the moment. I am optimistic that if we can get a commitment from the Commission for some of the unassigned funds and also agree on a location, we can then approach sponsors with an inventory of signage and other possible sponsorship opportunities. As an aside, I have received a number of inquiries from local companies and families who would all be willing to contribute to a turf project. Obviously, that's very encouraging but we still need to get a ways down the road before we can ask those folks for a check.
Let me know if this answers your questions and thanks for giving me the opportunity to explain where we are to date.
Dave Franklin
Sounds like a lot more of what we have heard before, Mr. Franklin. What have you got that is new or different? It is always said about the business cycle that "it is different this time" - and just as often the greatest fool who was unlucky enough to be the last to agree gets caught holding the bag. Your suggestion of understandably unnamed potential donors is less than persuasive primarily because of your track record and lack of vision (you only propose turf, not much to "sell" there, is there?). Again, you want us to "trust" you, and put our money on that. Sorry, not a sufficient record to support that one.
The Swamp Fox
Wait a minute. "I am optimistic that if we can get a commitment from the Commission for some of the unassigned funds and also agree on a location, we can then approach sponsors with an inventory of signage and other possible sponsorship opportunities."
A commitment from the Commission? Agree on a location? As I have asked you previously, Dave, when are you going to approach the school district about the conditions of their fields? How about asking a piece of the millions just sitting in their funds?
So it IS fields du jour. Last I heard, it was Mellon. There are flooding issues with Mellon and you expect the commission to deal with THAT flooding, and ignore all your neighbors' needs due to their flooding issues. You could very well have scrolled up to read my questions, Dave. You chose not to.
Elaine
And finally Mr. Gideon, in the event such issues keep you away at night (sarcasm intended), I have confirmed with one of the high school baseball coaches that both Mellon and Wildcat are indeed regulation baseball fields.
Dave Franklin
Elaine, if we look at Mellon there will obviously be a discussion with the school board. As you know, the discussion regarding the allocation of undesignated funds is what we are focused on right now. It is the most critical piece of the puzzle. As part of any discussion regarding the improvement of a school field, we will of course ask the school district if they have funds to contribute to the project. To be perfectly frank, these conversations and decisions are no where close to being as finalized or set in stone as you portray them to be. I wish they were. My life would be much easier. There is still a lot of work to be done.
Dave Franklin
Mr. Franklin: Here is a simple question for you: why would anyone agree to pay for advertising on a turfed field who would not do so on a grass field? Do you have any basis for such a speculation that does not have any obvious merit on its face?
Also, why will you not respond to the question as to whether the health and safety issues of residential flooding should not be higher budget priorities for our municipal commission than the luxury of turfing fields?
Thanks for looking at things from another perspective.
The Swamp Fox
Mr. or Ms. Swamp Fox: Moe, Larry and Curly have the final say on unassigned funds. Franklin can say or do whatever he wants. He doesn't make the final decision. I think he has lost sight of that. If we could get the Three Stooges to stop lurking and actually post something here, I think they are the ones who need to justify their actions. They are ignoring residents' critical needs. Flooding is a serious issue. They are putting ball fields ahead of anything else. What is interesting is the Three Stooges are coaches and/or have children who will benefit from these improvements.
For whatever reason, the commission is interested in Mellon field, yet when the Joint Maintenance Agreement expired, all municipal maintenance stopped. They don't want to maintain them for free, just turf them for free. I understand.
Once Mellon gets turfed, and the field is plastered with signs (ha ha) where are the visitors going to park? The library parking lot? The church parking lot? Let's not think things through again, folks.
We have gone from the turf vs. natural grass debate to which field the municipality will turf. Fantastic.
Elaine
Mme. Moderator: You are a voice of reason. It also still troubles me that the commission would be asked to make a capital expenditure on the school district's property without a request to do so from the school district. Wouldn't that be the logical point of beginning? All this apart from the basic question of whether it is allowable to use municipal tax dollars for a school district capital obligation (the school district alone, not the commission could actually contract for such improvements).
The Swamp Fox
Dave, I would much rather your life be much easier than it is too. Why not go for the low hanging fruit?
Elaine
I have an idea: let's all agree to fund a contract to paint Mr. Franklin's house, and ask him if he likes the color we have picked later? Does he have any reason to believe the school district will turf the fields if they get money from the municipality? If so, why won't they ask for it themselves? It seems to me quite extraordinary that one public entity would use surrogates to approach another for such a request, especially given the close association and cooperation (including a formal liaison committee between them). Am I missing something here?
The Swamp Fox
The Swamp Fox
Everyone: Does anyone else find it peculiar that the question jumps around as Mme. Moderator has already noted? Are we talking about a project the school board supports? If not, why are we talking about raising money for it at all? Are we talking about which field to turf? Are we talking about a proposal to raise private funds, based on which we should enter into a binding public contract before the funds are raised? Who's on first?
The Swamp Fox
Mr. Franklin writes: "As an aside, I have received a number of inquiries from local companies and families who would all be willing to contribute to a turf project. Obviously, that's very encouraging but we still need to get a ways down the road before we can ask those folks for a check."
Personally his position troubles me a lot.
He thinks we need to "get a ways down the road" before asking the people that support his fields plan to contribute.
But, he has no problem telling people that don't support turf - that believe there are more pressing issues in the community requiring money - to start down a road they don't want to travel! Or at least want to wait for a better time to start planning for the trip.
He states he is "optimistic" that $300,000 'could' be raised in the first twelve months, but has no letters of intent, pledges or commitments.
I'd find his statements more believable if he laid a pledge on the table along the lines of this.
"Dear Mt Lebanon Commissioners:
My company pledges to support financially the community's goal of building a turfed sports facility. We pledge a contribution in the amount of $XXX,XXX payable when the shovels hit the ground.
Sincerely,
John Q. Warbucks
CEO, Widgets R Us"
Its great that Mr. Franklin is optimistic, bless him. Optimism unfortunately doesn't pay the bills.
Mr. Franklin, I'm anonymous and not asking for a reply from you. You can if you wish. Or take my suggestion under consideration to advance yoir project if you wamt, i'm more interested in reading if my neighbors agree with me.
"And finally Mr. Gideon, in the event such issues keep you away at night (sarcasm intended), I have confirmed with one of the high school baseball coaches that both Mellon and Wildcat are indeed regulation baseball fields."
Mr. Franklin:
You've confused me with some of the other posters. I have no interest in the size of our baseball fields, nor did I bring up the subject.
With respect to the studies from Reason concerning parks and recreation, none of these were looking at privatized, "for profit" facilities. They were either PPP's or private "non-profit" ventures run in the public interest.
Way back in the stone age, when I liven in East Hampton, Long Island, some of the recreational facilities were run as private non-profits, open to the public on a casual basis, but reserved for "special use" at a fee. They were not supported with tax dollars; rather by generous donations from the rich (and even not-so-rich) folks in the spirit of "noblesse oblige."
As I'm sure you may remember, my biggest issue is not with turf or dirt or playing time; it is the idea of making thousands of people pay for something they likely will never use.
Mt. Lebanon is not a rich town like East Hampton; but some folks here think it is. Maybe it's time to put that theory to the test. Do you think your group could take over a few municipal fields, turf them, and run them in the public interest at no expense to the taxpayers?
Elaine, you are 100% correct. I don't get a vote. Only the commissioners can decide how to spend the undesignated funds. That is the issue in the table. If they want to put money towards turf then we are going to have to look to make up the difference between their contribution and the total cost. That will involve requests to individuals, companies and the school board. I though I said that already.
Right now however, the commission is dealing with how to spend the unassigned funds. They are looking for ideas. They spent 2 commission discussion sessions and one public hearing taking suggestions. Some of us think that money should be spent on turfing a field. A number of them spoke at the public hearing. Others think it should be spent on other items, some of which I agree with and others I do not. Ultimately, the commission decides. Not me. Frankly, I'm not sure why folks have spent 100+ comments arguing with me. I don't make the decision.
Maybe the high school coach will inform us of which regulations they are adhering too?
A search of regualtions for WPIAL ballfiedld dimensions bring this site up.
http://www.turffiles.ncsu.edu/PDFFiles/005036/AG-725_Baseball_Field_Layout_Construction.pdf
In the diagram it states and I quote:
"Backstop, grandstand or fence: minimum 60ft. from Home plate to foul lines"
I'll admit I'd never used a tape measure at any of our fields, but I'm willing to bet there isn't a 60' ft gap.
As for the pitching mound, it states this on page 3, item 10.
"A regulation pitchers mound is 101/2" compared to the surface level of home plate."
Unless things have changed drastically over this past year, I don't think I've seen an elevated pitchers mound on any Lebo ballfield.
I cold be wrong, admittedly I'm not an expert. This above document has a lot of interesting information at the very least for baseball fanatics.
Richard, I think the simple answer is I don't know. I think we are headed in the right direction by acknowledging that things like a turf project will need significant private support, but I don't know if we're to the point of taking it over just yet. That's my honest assessment.
I agree with Mr. Gideon. We already have what would loosely be defined as public/private ventures.
The tennis facility, ice rink, golf course, the municipal commissioners parking lot!!!!, so why not a sports field.
Mr. Franklin says he has interested parties waiting on the sidelines with checks at the ready. Why not start down that road, several of us 'wingnuts' are already support the idea.
Matt Smith's latest email--
"I recently made a visit to Peters Township High School to recognize the varsity dance and lacrosse teams for their outstanding achievement. The lacrosse team won the 2013 WPIAL Division I Girls' Lacrosse Championship. The team defeated Shady Side Academy by a score of 16 to 14 to capture the title."
What kind of field surface do they practice and play on?
2:57 (Dave Franklin?), you still have not answered why you have not gone for the low hanging fruit. Why are you or the parents of the thousands of children not going to the school board to discuss the condition of their fields?
Elaine
"First, it was the SAB that suggested that the community (not the municipality and not the school board specifically) work towards turfing a field. Period. It wa sour idea. No one else's. As you may know, the SAB was created by the Commission and it represents about 10 different sports groups in our town, from men's tennis to lacrosses, from women's gold to football. Our meetings are also attended by a Commissioner, the Director of the Rec Dept, a School Board member and the school district's athletic director. There is no hidden agenda, no back door meetings and the public is always welcome."
-- Dave Franklin, 8/7 @ 5:03
Why wouldn't resident spend time debating with the apparent SAB spokesperson, or at least - to his credit, the one that wishes to engage. That's a compliment Dave.
The commissioners haven't voted yet, wink, wink why would we debate them when a plan hasn't been formulated?
I thought I said we will. About 3 times.
Dave Franklin
no comment from Mr. Franklin, but we are still on the wrong front--if he wants to improve school district property, and he knows that the district has the money, why is he before the commission on this? why should funds be diverted from unmet health and safety needs? he just doesn't respond to any of this....if he actually had a plan with backers, he surely should have approached the school board with it---if they want "help" from the commission, they could ask, but they don't-----the commission can't contract for the work in any event--so why would the commission even consider such a poorly thought through proposal, especially with all the missing pieces, let alone the priorities issue....i would think we should demand a sensible answer from any commissioner on the point...
The Swamp Fox
Elaine, shouldn't the school district SAB liason be presenting those facts? Have we ever seen an SAB report from the liason at a school board meeting.
Have there been any field condition reports lately on the agenda?
How come the school board SAB member isn't chiming in. Surely, he just doesn't sit in the meetings and play word search games! At least Huston records the meetings so there is a record of the conversations.
Mr. Franklin: you need to put your money where your mouth is. Waaaay too many hidden agendas on your part! All talk and no substance.
Dave, you are so frustrating. Like trying to catch a greased pig. Funny, no hints listed here when dealing with you. http://www.wikihow.com/Catch-a-Greased-Pig
Let's try this again. Why didn't you START with the school district concerning the conditions of the fields? You are trying to tie up the limited unassigned funds by going through the commission, while the school board directors are sitting on your pot of gold. It doesn't make sense. I have been asking this all along. Mellon is a school district field. Deal with the school district. Unless, you are doing a bait and switch and will try to fund turfing McNeilly or back to Wildcat and Middle.
You are one slippery son of a gun.
Elaine
According to reports here on remarks from Mrs. Cappucci, neither the SAB school board member or the athletic director fill her in on the SAB plans, even when they concern one her school district's fields.
Isn't that odd? She claims to know nothing about Mellon turf plans, but the SAB and Commissioners Brumfield, Linfante, and Bendel are leaning to committing municipality funds to the Mellon turf effort over almost everything else.
I'd be wlling to bet that there have been no discussion within the SAB on once they get their artificial turfed and lighted field who will be responsible for maintenance, the light bill and replacement cost in 7 to 15 years.
The school district made a concerted effort to lower their utility cost in the HS renovation. Will the SAB undo those gains by sticking them with the bill to power the stadium lights at Mellon?
On the municipal side, anyone from the SAB contact the ESB (Environnmental Sustainability Board - don't ya just love these Busy Bs) about the impact on the environment? It takes a lot of wattage to light a sports field! CO2 and all that, plus light pollution.
I suppose the ESB will recommend No Idling While Unloading Sports Gear, Don't Push Athletes Too Hard They Exhale CO2 and Please Turn Off Lights After Game Signs.
IIf the Board were doing their job correctly they would be putting scarce resources into education instead of athletics.
We have paid $872,000 to raise $6,000,000 for the District. PK has a locally and nationally recognized reputation for raising funds. Mr. Franklin, Chip D., Mr. Brumfield and Friends have an unrecognized reputation for raising funds.
If you were the Board, and really thought about this situation, would you want Franklin & Friends competing with PK for dollars at the same time the District is trying to raise money?
Would you want to be a Board Member that paid PK $872,000 to identify the Municipality as a donor?
Franklin and Friends are trying to compete with an expensive District fund-raising effort.
If I were Mr. Lebowitz, or Dr. Steinhauer, I would be having nightmares about competing fund-raising efforts with PK's contacts and raising questions of duplicated funding. There is nothing that will kill a fund raising effort faster than donors' questions about duplicated funding efforts.
If the Board, the Commission, the Municipal Managers, and Franklin & Friends do not stop the Commission from this path, who will be blamed if the District fund-raising effort fails.
If the $872,000 funding effort fails because of duplicated-funding questions from donors, who will be blamed for squandering $872,000 and $600,000 of Municipal taxes? The Board, the Commission and the Managers of both.
Do we really want $500-Franklin competing with an $872,000 contract let by the District?
John Ewing
I agree, John. And if the commissioners were doing their job correctly, they would be putting scarce unassigned funds into infrastructure instead of more fields, no matter who they belong to. The school board hasn't figured out how to pay for all the 21st century improvements for athletics, I mean, education that was desperately needed.
Now we will have two fundraisers working against each other. Just like the UltraParty being right after First Friday. It is one or the other. Most people couldn't do both.
Don't worry, the SAB has identified a Do Not Call List which was discussed at a previous SAB meeting. Another friendly service of the SAB. Thanks, guys.
Elaine
Absolutely on target, John.
Call me crazy, wouldn't a thinking person, active in the community, connected and obviously aware of the PK fund raising effort at least meet with the people that will approval his plan and ask if its OK for him to start rattlimg the tin cup?
He's distance himself and the SAB from both the school board and the commissioners, claiming they have nothimg to do with it... Yet.
But he's out there hawking it, making sacasistic comments to his neigjbors, dictating to whom and about what he'll talk about. On a blog that is not his.
Talk about gall!
By the way, checked and Mellon Field does not have a pitchers mound of any kind, its level from rubber to plate. Plus there is not 60' of clear space between home plate and the backspot, making pop ups behind the catcher unplayable.
So while the WPIAL may find it acceptable for play it is definitly not regulation for high school or college baseball. Your coach must be talling about some other regulations, Mr. Franklin.
Mr. Ewing, do you really think Mr. Lebowitz or Dr. Steinhauer think that many steps ahead?
I doubt that either one gave a second thought about two large fundraising efforts running simultaneously under the school district banner.
Think about it, in February they're in dire straights, talking about cutting programs, raising parking and extracurricular activity fees. Four months later they're handing out $1,000 bonuses.
Everyone: It seems that we may have to listen to Mr. Franklin in one regard --- he not only does not make the decisions, he may well not even be in on the conversation. Reading all the comments, I draw the conclusion that his entire effort is doomed for all the obvious reasons that just keep tumbling out as one informed commenter after another raises yet another flaw in the "plan." I don't like to admit it, but I think we have flinched at a shadow. Maybe no one from the school board or the commission is commenting because the proposal is practically and politically untenable. But, in the end you have to remember "This is Mt. Lebanon."
So, quoting a real journalist, I sign off -- at least for now -- "Good Night, and Good Luck."
The Swamp Fox
10:13, good grief, I'm already violating my own rule to refute your absurd claim. There is certainly a pitcher's mound at Mellon and while you like to refer to "recommended" measurements for the backstop at a new field under construction, those are not "regulations". I trust you pay some attention to baseball, so you certainly understand and appreciate that the dimensions behind homeplate, in foul territory and to the outfield fences vary in every park, every stadium and every field. The regulated measurements in baseball are the base paths and the pitching distance based on age. In every sense, Mellon and Wildcat are regulation baseball fields for high school baseball.
Dave Franklin
Mr. Franklin, if Mellon and Wildcat are regulation size bubbleball fields, then what's this bs about kids running into each other? D'oh! I answered my own question. Its bs.
Answwr this Mr. Franklin. How do you have a regulation pitchers mound on a field used by multiple age groups pitching from different distances?
High school and college ball require a mound 18' in circumference, 60' 6" from home plate, 10" higher than home plate with a skope of 1" to 1'.
Unfortunately most communities don't have strict regulation fields for every age group.. Nor am I arguing for them.
By the way Wildcat is a helluva nice field for the age groups using it. Grass and all.
John,
The very topic was brought up during a turf board meeting.
Once when I looked up between searching for words, they mentioned a "Do Not Call" list for fundraising. I'm not sure if PK provided the list.
David Huston
Elaine, If you were PK would you care if the deadbeat athletic supporters, I mean the SAB turf board has a Do Not Call List? I would ignore them and go about the business the school district paid me to do , all the while hoping that that haven't already stepped in the way of getting the job done correctly and on a timely basis.
10:45, If Mr. Lebowitz and Dr. Steinhauer don't think that many steps ahead we will need new leadership in the school district.
John Ewing
John: Re your 8:02, I would offer a small observation with which you may agree: it is not so much "new" leadership that we need, but just "leadership" itself as we currently seem to be rudderless and oblivious. Are we on the same page?
The Swamp Fox
Mr. Franklin: A constructive suggestion: why don't you do some homework before you stake out a public position -- your opinions seem to outrun your homework and your grasp of facts and process. I don't think anyone on here has any ill-will towards you, but you do seem habitually to climb out on a limb and then refuse to get back to common ground with your neighbors. It is a matter of style that stymies any potential substance in your positions. Just a neighborly piece of advice from one who would prefer to see us all working to improve life in Lebo rather than engage in "gotcha" and counter-productive politics.
The Swamp Fox
Post a Comment