Dan Remely is incorrect about the time needed to replace a school board director. As with finding a replacement for James Fraasch, the process must be completed in thirty days, not two or three months as he first claimed. David Huston was correct. Another thing that bothered me when I watched the meeting this morning, the school board directors reacted inappropriately towards Mr. Huston's comments. Personal attacks were made towards Mr. Huston, and that was uncalled for. He was merely pointing out policy and tried to handle the situation as delicately as possible. I see it as another example of bullying, which the school board does so well. It is unfortunate that Director Sue Rose has been out of commission for as long as she had been, but there was no communication until last night's agenda about her status. We were due an explanation, don't you think? And for school board directors to be insulted, was not necessary or appropriate. The community was uninformed again.
Steve Diaz's ongoing conversation with Dale Ostergaard has been fruitful. It will be a topic of future discussion. Thank you, Dale. Here is another letter from Steve Diaz.
Bond restrictions?
Dale and Members of the Board: I have been advised that the bonds you sold on behalf of the district for the "renovation" project, commencing in the Fall of 2009, may be restricted to construction and renovation purposes. Such restrictions may now limit your options given the failure of your effort to move forward with the project as proposed. Given this fact, what are you doing with the money in the interim? We are certainly paying interest on it. Are you drawing any income off the idle funds? If you are drawing such income, is the district subject to IRS arbitrage penalties if the funds are not spent within a certain time (say, two years)? What is the full scope of permitted uses of the proceeds? What do you intend to do under the obligations of the bonds as issued?
If you can only spend the money on "renovation" and construction, what happens if you cannot deliver the project you promised to the public as reflected in the Act 34 Handbook and the glossy brochure you mailed out to all of us? Or, what happens, as now seems quite likely, if you cannot even commence construction before the end of October of this year? Do you have any constraint of law or policy to revisit major changes in the scope or nature of the work with the public, or anyone else? I realize that you, as a collective body, feel absolutely no obligation to advise the public of your plans or activities (I think one of your number put it most accurately at the public meeting when you passed the "no release of email without the author's consent" rule, saying: "If they don't know we have it, they cannot seek it under the Right to Know")---but will you tell me, now that I ask, how you plan to proceed? The current hearings and agenda items seem a jumble of posturing and confusion, with no clear approach. You seem just to want to build anything, to prove you did something. It is actually amusing (but for the devastating financial and educational results) to watch your members scramble for "solutions" that entail back-tracking from everything you formerly said was "essential" to the project, and now trying to claim as your own the very criticisms of the original proposal The 4,000 put before you time and again only to be ridiculed and bullied by your undemocratic antics.
All the while, not the board corporately, nor any individual member has stepped forward to take any measure of personal responsibility for your stewardship or oversight of the project. For example, how about the chairman of the renovation committee, Mr. Remely, and his erstwhile side-kick, Ms. ("it's only a latte a day") Cappucci, or other board members, such as Mary Birks, who rather than listen to the public at the Act 34 hearings, first told the public that those hearings were "too late" an occasion to raise any objections (have you actually read Act 34?), before lecturing the public on why only your now discredited and failed plan was acceptable to you. Does it occur to any member of the board that the "buck stops here"? If the public is not to hold each of you personally responsible for your project, to whom do we turn? Why do you think the school board is elected by the people? The members of the board need to demonstrate the courage of their convictions, to accept the consequences of their own public acts, and to admit that "Sun Gods" they are not, nor do they enjoy a Divine Right to rule over us. If you are responsible, you should at least be mature enough to say so, admit error and arrogance, apologize to your constituents who have placed a public trust in your hands - but whom you have failed.
You can certainly continue to "stonewall" and hope the scandal will blow over. You can tough it out. Hide behind your secrecy and your bullying (and the bullies you send out to intimidate your legitimate critics). But, you cannot face your neighbors walking through Uptown, or at the dry-cleaners or the grocery, with any assurance that behind the polite greetings, or the discrete evasion of face-to-face contact that the old admiration and support is still there. Sometimes, on the other hand, you do show symptoms of shame by avoiding contact with your local critics, as, yes, has been noted in recent select table-hopping by Ms. Cappucci and Mr. Remeley, for example. The point is that you have not only lost respect in this community, you are dividing us and causing deep social and economic injury. Is that why you "offered" to serve? The best service you can do at this time for Mt. Lebanon is to show your own respect for the people who live here, who parent the students you are supposed to be educating, and who pay the bills you rack up, even when the interest we pay is for money that you leave laying around for years with no legitimate use, by taking responsibility for the taking and use of our money and the education of our children. Your cavalier and ineffective stewardship has degraded the effectiveness of this school district and threatens our strong and proud academic tradition. You cannot substitute intrigue for policy, or bullying for leadership.
Dale, you recently asked me why only one "outsider" is running for the school board, given all that I have raised. It is a good and telling question, the answer to which is as sad as it is obvious: the school board has created an atmosphere of fear and intimidation in which people are afraid of what the board members and their cronies will do to harass them and their families. It is very troubling that 4,000 people would sign an historically unprecedented petition in opposition to your center-piece policy, but then give rise to only a single candidacy at the next election for multiple directors. You decry student bullying, as you should, but how can you not see the impact of your own bullying on the social and political life of our town? So, the ball is in your court: will you engage the authors of what you now concede are very practical concerns with your program, or will you continue to demonstrate hubris and arrogance beyond sufferance? It is your decision as to how you want to engage the public and how you will comport your duty of public responsibility now that you have committed to pursue the authority of elected office.
Respectfully. Steve Diaz
Jan Klein reported at last night's meeting, that she was having a conference call with the financial advisor this morning. I hope the issue of IRS penalties is discussed, as well as bond restrictions. The podcast is online at 7/11/11 School Board Discussion Meeting.
