Letter to the Editor: High School Renovation Accounting

Here are the latest figures for the Mt. Lebanon High School renovation (or reconstruction) project:
Total project hardware cost through the end of July, 2015: $86,390,431
Total project cost, including "soft costs," through the end of July, 2015: $102,375,450
(To put this in perspective, the total project cost through July, 2015, represents $3,089.46 for every man, woman, and child in Mt. Lebanon)

During the "Construction Update" of 10 August 2015 it was announced that there were no change orders (CO) in the pipeline for August, 2015. However, that does not mean the end of additional charges. We will likely see more change orders coming next month. Here is the latest accounting of change orders through the end of July, 2015:
Total Spent: $4,545,383.57 (includes refunds)
Average Transaction: $16,772.63 (includes refunds)
Median Transaction: $10,081.00 (includes refunds)
Count: 271 Transactions (total CO's and refunds)

The following table breaks out expenses and refunds separately
Average CO: $20,809.03
Average refund: -$36,762.79
Median CO: $11,064.50
Median refund: -$7,774.00
Total spent on CO's: $5,243,876.57
Total refunds: -$698,493.00
BALANCE: $4,545,383.57
Contingency Fund (FORMERLY $4,276,000.00 – add $538,000.00): $4,814,000.00
Available Balance: $268,616.43
% used: 94.42%

There have been 38 months of change orders, averaging $119,615.36 per month. For the first seven months of 2015 the monthly average is $73,773.57. The District spent all of its original contingency amount as of February of 2015, requiring an infusion of over a half-million dollars of additional cash. While it is true that the amount of money spent on change orders per month is decreasing, the project is not over and there are many unknowns associated with the upcoming building demolition. Despite assurances at the beginning of this project - oft repeated, at least until the late Fall of 2014 - the original contingency fund amount of $4,276,000 was not sufficient to cover the expected additional costs of construction. It remains to be seen whether the additional infusion of $538,000 will see the project through to the end.

Stay tuned.

Richard Gideon

CHANGE ORDER ACCOUNTING THROUGH DECEMBER 2014

Lebo Citizens reader and Mt. Lebanon resident, Richard Gideon has been following the high school renovation change orders very closely.  Thank you, RG, for your end of year accounting. The numbers listed in the sidebar include January 2015 change orders, as approved during the January 19, 2015 school board meeting.

Here are the official figures concerning change orders for the high school reconstruction project through the end of December, 2014:

Total spent: $4,028,968.57

Average Change Order (includes refunds): $15,924.78
Median Change Order (includes refunds): $9,797.00
Beginning Contingency: $4,276,000.00
Balance (31 Dec 2014): $247,031.43
% used (31 Dec 2014): 94.22%

The total spent thus far reflects another, rather irritating, situation. A couple of months ago I noticed that a change order in favor of Farfield Electric going back to July of 2013 (7/15/13 EL-37-133 Farfield, Light fixture changes in both interior & exterior locations due to code, 28,907.00) had been changed from $28,907 to $28,097, resulting in an $810.00 discrepancy in my spreadsheet. I wrote to Mrs. Klein asking her to verify which one of the two figures is correct. Mrs. Klein replied saying, "We checked our records and found it was in fact a typographical error which we have corrected for December’s report." And here is where we have a problem; Mrs. Klein did not confirm a figure, she just said "...it was in fact a typographical error..". What does "it" refer to?; the $28,907 figure or $28,097. I assumed it was the $28,097 amount (and wrote about it on this Blog), but after listening to the podcast of the School Board meeting in December it became clear that Mrs. Klein was referring to the original $28,907 figure. This was confirmed when I received, yesterday, the latest Change Order PDF accounting through December, 2014, which listed $28,097. Here is the exact line from that document:

7/15/13 EL‐37‐133 Farfield Light fixture changes in both interior & exterior locations due to code requirements, maintenance issues & fire department review. 28,097.00

To be perfectly fair to Mrs. Klein, perhaps I should have worded my message differently (and not assumed!); but in fairness to me, I did ask for verification of which one of the two figures was correct, and instead of a number I got a pronoun. A subsequent message to Mrs. Klein about the issue was not answered.

One interesting note is that the December change orders totaled "only" $49,311.00; the lowest monthly total since July, 2013, when a series of refund adjustments resulted in a negative CO balance for that month of -$29,292! Even so, the average monthly total for change orders since the project began is now $129,966.73*. In theory, the average monthly CO total, given a starting account value of $4,276,000 spread over 41 months (the project "life"), cannot exceed $104.292.68.  

I have predicted that the District will run out of money before the project is completed, based on its rate of expenditure, and I'll stick to that prediction. However, it will be quite interesting to see what the District proposes to do to stop this "money bleed."  

Richard Gideon
-------------------
*In the interest of disclosure, there have been a total of 31 monthly periods of change orders since the project began, totaling $4,028,968.57, resulting in an average of $129,966.73/month.

Letter to the Editor: HIGH SCHOOL CONTINGENCY FUND

Lebo Citizens reader and Mt. Lebanon resident, Richard Gideon has been following the change orders for quite some time now; keeping spreadsheets, corresponding with Jan Klein, and filing Right To Knows, when necessary. Below is Mr. Gideon's Letter to the Editor concerning the High School Contingency Fund.


As of the end of October, 2014, the high school reconstruction contingency fund was 90.1% depleted.  Here are the numbers:
Change Order (CO) Total:  $3,852,473.57
Change Order Average:     $15,724.38*
Median CO:                         $9,797.00
Number of CO's:  245
*Including refunds
    
Contingency fund beginning balance:  $4,276,000.00
Current Balance (October):                    $423,526.43

Change orders must be vetted and approved, then voted upon by the school board before they are paid.  Therefore, an official accounting by the Mt. Lebanon School District is not available to the public until the month following board approval.  Because the district has shifted payment of various CO's out of the contingency fund and into the Capital Projects fund I wait to request the change order listing until after the business meeting vote.  More on that in a moment.  However, based on the numbers announced by the district, here are the projected totals for November:

Projected CO's (November):         $127,994.00
Projected total:                               $3,980,467.57
Projected Contingency Balance:  $295,532.43
Projected used:  93.09%

The MLSD is currently spending its contingency fund at the rate of $132,843.92/month.  Should this rate of expense continue the district will run out of money by February, 2015.  I should point out that at the construction update on 10 November 2014, Mr. Berkebile stated that the project was "..34 months out of a 41 month project."  He also stated that the project is slated to be completed "..by the end of next year."  This throws some understandable confusion into the numbers.  My estimation, based on the rate of expenditure from confirmed October figures, is that the district will be short approximately $630,000, if the project ends by June, 2015.  However, if the project goes to the end of 2015 then all bets are off.  (If you have not heard the last construction update I highly recommend it; especially the 25 minute mark onward.)

When I requested the October, 2014 contingency fund listing and reconciled it with my own spreadsheet I found a discrepancy of $810.  After combing through the numbers I found the difference was due to a contradiction in a change order for Farfield Electric that occurred back in June, 2013.  The original figure was $28,907, but the October, 2014 CO PDF showed that figure to be $28,097.  At first I thought that the original figure must have been wrong or entered incorrectly back in 2013.  But after a couple of messages to Jan Klein it turns out the number was reported incorrectly on the October, 2014 PDF.  Ms. Klein told me the figure would be changed back to the original amount in the December report.  Therefore the numbers shown above, as of the end of October, are correct.  On this Blog the running total extends though November, and is eight cents higher than the projected figures shown above due to an original figure, early in the project, that had not been rounded.  

Richard Gideon

A thoughtful response from a commissioner

Lebo Citizens reader, Richard Gideon, recently sent these questions to the Commission. Commissioner Fraasch's answers are in red.

Commissioners:
After listening to the last commission meeting on 12 August 2014 I have a few questions that I'd like to ask your Honors:

• A resident asked Commissioner Bendel if he thought artificial turf was "an essential need."  Mr. Bendel replied that "it's a need."  May I conclude from that exchange that the commission agrees that it is not part of the core responsibilities of Mt. Lebanon to provide artificial turf to the community?  
• I would agree that it is not a core responsibility.  However as I look back these last three years, we do a lot that isn't our core responsibility whether still in the community's best interest or possibly not.  The conversation with Mr. Bendel and the resident was about essential need vs need.  I personally believe that we have need at maintaining the fields we have and if the opportunity arises to add a field to do so, as you know, I don't think that I would have done very well in the debate because I don't see turf as an essential need or even a need.
• Earlier in the meeting (if I remember the timeline correctly) Mr. Bendel told the same resident that one of the benefits of artificial turf is that it would eliminate the necessity of our field sports teams to occasionally play or practice on fields located outside the municipality.  Why is playing on a field outside the boundaries of Mt. Lebanon a bad thing?  If venues are available and nearby, what difference does it make where they are located?   Some of the venues are not nearby and I think that is the concern.  I agree with Mr. Bendel that it would be optimal to have some of these teams play here in Mt Lebanon, but I also agree with you Mr. Gideon if you can't what's the big deal if it's nearby (30-40 mins).  

I don't want to put Mr. Bendel on the spot, so any one of you who is so inclined may answer those questions as well. In addition to the above, I have been wrestling with a couple of other issues related to field turf, but not necessarily exclusive to it. It has been stated that placing artificial turf on our Cedar Boulevard fields will attract new, young families into the municipality. With that in mind, I have the following questions:

• What constitutes the demographics for a "new, young family?"  It certainly can't be Millennials (18 to 29); a recent survey by the Reason-Rupe Poll, in cooperation with the Pew Foundation, shows that most Millennials are unmarried (71%), only 19% currently own a home or condo, and what's more important, most Millennials don't have the money it would take to live In Mt. Lebanon.  I assume you are targeting the over 30 crowd.  I read that poll as well and I think even more so that age group is looking at condo and townhouse living with move-in ready and you are right we don't have a lot of that housing stock here.  That is why SF, Peters, and others are booming.  I am not sure what demographic the Commission is looking at specifically because I don't think it has ever been discussed.
• Since Mt. Lebanon is (almost) completely built-out, and a large percentage of homes (probably more than half) are older, post WWII vintage houses with limited floor space, it becomes rather apparent that attracting "new, young families" will be a zero sum game; i.e., some person, couple, or family in a desirable house will have to "go away" for the new young family to move in.  Of course this is not 100% correct, but I think you would all agree that the amount of space available for new construction is severely limited.  It also becomes rather obvious that the people who will have to go are elderly couples or elderly singles, "empty nest" families, or families consisting of only one child.  Does the commission have a plan to encourage these people to go away?  (By the way, I'm not being "flippant"; these are questions that other communities are debating!)  I understand your question and the answer is no I don't believe we do.  We also don't have a comprehensive plan if they stay and I mean our public transportation isn't there. We don't have sidewalks everywhere either and we are currently working on our accessibility practices for buildings/roads. 
• Should you achieve your goal of attracting moderate to large numbers of new, young families into Mt. Lebanon it will undoubtedly put a strain on field services - we're assuming these families want their kiddos to play field sports - and the school district.  This, in turn, will necessitate increased spending on the part of both the municipality and the district (for example, the artificial turf will experience more use due to the increased number of kids using it).  Spending comes from revenues, and revenues come mostly from real estate and earned income taxes.  If the number of new families is limited by the availability of desirable housing, then these families will perforce have to be very high income earners (probably duel-incomes). Given these things, what constitutes the profile of your target family?  In other words, what should they have in terms of net income (because real estate taxes are paid out of net income, not gross); ideally, how many kids should each family have; and what would be the typical value of a home they would purchase?  In a community, and especially a "built-out" one, there must be an optimum ratio between the under 18 population and non-essential services provided to them by taxpayers.  This is my personal opinion, not the Commissions.  We highly rely on our families to do volunteerism in the schools which almost requires a stay at home parent.  Our school system is making some headway, but still relies/assumes that most students have one parent that stays home so we already have a disparity, because our taxes almost require dual income.  Most families in the country, cannot afford one parent staying home and affording our cost of living in Mt Lebanon for purchasing real estate but also times are changing and both parents are becoming more ambitious about their careers and don't want to take time off to raise the children.  So our school district still lives in part in the days where "Johnny" could come home for lunch or expect Johnny's mom to do the PTA/Science group and Writing Lab.  When we begin looking at this shift as a community/school we will see full-day Kindergarten, comprehensive after school programming for all kids, and maybe some school programs eliminated.  I think we would see major differences in school/community if we became more dual parent focused.  Until then, I believe that is why we are seeing more rentals and that will continue to grow.  Young families, single moms want to have their child attend a safe school/live in a safe neighborhood and they pull the funds together to rent.  I also see many retirees or recent widows that want to live in a safe area but don't want to be responsible for the daily care of a house so they rent. Ward 5 continues to grow in rental living every year and some properties do take decent care of the rental, others most definitely do not.  To answer your question in a number ratio, I am not sure, but I understand your question and see the issues every time I talk to residents.
• What is your estimate of home price inflation that will be required to sustain a growth of, say, 10% in the under 18 demographic over a period of eight years (I chose eight years because that's the replacement time for artificial field turf) - keeping in mind that the total population of Mt. Lebanon would not rise by the same amount?  Same question, but with an increase of 20%?  To guide your thinking on this, consider a hypothetical town with two families, A and B, each consisting of five "under 18" kids and two adults.  The total number of kids is 10, and the total population is 14.  Family B moves away and is replaced by family C, consisting of six kids and two adults.  The number of kids in total has increased by 10%, but the total population has increased by seven percent.  That additional kid, not being a producer, will put additional strain on the municipality and school system, thus raising the costs for both.  I am not sure.
• Finally, what is the criteria for public financing of special interest entertainments?  (Again, I'm not being flippant.  Each organized field sport, such as baseball, football, lacrosse, etc.,  is a special interest.  That does not mean field sports are bad things; it simply means they are not "essential needs" and do not serve over 50% of the community.)  As a private pilot I'd love to see an airfield in Mt. Lebanon - it would save me from driving to the Allegheny County Airport (if I were still flying, that is!).  I am sure other Mt. Lebanon pilots would agree.  Now that may be a little grandiose, so how about a zip-line facility - perhaps in Bird Park?  That would be fun, and it would certainly attract the more adventurous types of young families and their kids.  So, hypothetically speaking, if I were to provide a quarter of the costs for a zip-line could I depend upon the municipality to fund the rest?  There isn't a criteria.  Anyone could come to us and if a Commissioner or staff person has an interest in moving the idea forward it can be possible.  Zip line, Denis Theater, Horsing facility, airport,  what have you.

I hope this information helps.  I can definitely expand my personal thoughts, opinions etc by phone or over coffee as well.

Thanks Mr. Gideon.

Kelly

Flag at the Veterans Memorial

Last year at this time, Lebo Citizens reader Richard Gideon submitted the following editorial concerning the flag at the Veterans Memorial. The U.S. Flag at the Mt. Lebanon Veterans Memorial.

Being a vexillologist, Richard:

...was curious about the height of the flag pole and the size of the flag to be flown from it. As this is a memorial to our military veterans and those killed in our nation's wars, I was reasonably sure the flag would be "G-spec" - meaning it would meet the current requirements that the U.S. Flag have an aspect ratio of 1.9:1; but I was curious about what size the architect had chosen. As it turns out, I was wrong to make that assumption.

About two weeks prior to the dedication ceremony, I made preliminary efforts to contact some of the people who were on the memorial committee, asking them about the height of the pole and the size of the flag to be flown. I heard back from two members, but neither one had the answers. One recommended that I contact the Mt. Lebanon PIO person, Ms. Susan Morgans. I anon wrote to Ms. Morgans, explaining to her that I was a professional Vexillologist and a registered Government Contractor, and my primary business was supplying military streamers and flags to military departments and organizations. I asked her for the height of the pole and the size of the flag. Her response was as follows:

"The architects are well aware of the specs and the flag and pole conform. Thanks."

Yesterday, I received the following email from Mr. Gideon:

I am very pleased to report that a new U.S. Flag meeting the U.S. CODE, TITLE 4 (which includes EO10834 and PL94-344) and DDD-F-416F (a Department of Defense document describing proper U.S. Flags for use on military reservations) is now flying at the Mt. Lebanon Veterans' Memorial. It measures 8'11 3/8in x17' and is made out of parachute grade Nylon material. I was just up there and took a number of photos. When the wind catches it the sight is awe inspiring!

 V/r
Richard Gideon

Richard included a photo in his email.  Spectacular, Richard.  Thank you for your efforts!

"Thank you for your interest in our community schools."

Even though these comments were submitted under another post, I believe they deserve their own space on this blog. The following comments were submitted by Richard Gideon under Primary and Special Election News UPDATED:

Blog Readers:
In regards to the question of whether I asked the other candidates the same 14 questions I posed to Mr. Hill, the answer is that I sent the questions to Mr. Riemer recently and received the following reply:

"Council PTA has compiled a list of questions for the school board candidates. Please visit the website and review the responses.

Thank you for your interest in our community schools."

Replies from Mr. Moorehead are still pending. I did not ask these questions of Ms. Birks or Mr. Remely, as their positions are well known.

Although Mr. Hill answered only four of my 14 questions for reasons that he has delineated in an earlier post in this thread, I give him high marks for being willing to address the remaining questions in a face-to-face meeting (I forgot to ask him if he has Skype! - that would solve the face-to-face issue).

Addendum:
The list of PTA questions and candidates' responses referenced by Mr. Riemer may be found here: http://www.mtlsd.org/district/districtpta/schoolboardcandidatesqanda.asp

How disappointing.  Mike Riemer will be a perfect fit on the school board. Don't answer our questions. Instead, give the Cappucci response.  "Check the district website for answers." Nice.

OK, so I read the responses to the PTA's questions in the link provided by Richard Gideon. What a joke. Mary Birks forgot to include how she rolls her eyes at Scott Goldman whenever he expresses his opinion.  Riemer thinks we have a very lean budget already. It is not clear to me what he means by reviewing the drug and alcohol policy. Does he want to change that? The PTA question was, "Do you have any specific changes you want to make to school district policies..."

So who are the officers on PTA Council?   


2012-2013 Officers

President
Sheryl Cohen
skccreations@aol.com

1st Vice President
Julie Maselko
themaselkos@gmail.com

2nd Vice President
Sara Dougherty
tjdsjd@verizon.net

3rd Vice President/Superintendent
Dr. Timothy Steinhauer
tsteinhauer@mtlsd.net

Treasurer
Jennie Bhojwani
jenniebhoj@hotmail.com

Recording Secretary
Teresa Saxton
4saxtons@comcast.net

Corresponding Secretary
Julie Daubner
geo.mom@verizon.net

Historian
Hannah Vaughn
hvaughan@mac.com


2013-2014 Elected Officers

President
Julie Daubner
geo.mom@verizon.net

1st Vice President
Sara Dougherty
tjdsjd@verizon.net

2nd Vice President
Julie Maselko
themaselkos@gmail.com

3rd Vice President/Superintendent
Dr. Timothy Steinhauer
tsteinhauer@mtlsd.net

Treasurer
Jennie Bhojwani
jenniebhoj@hotmail.com

Recording Secretary
Teresa Saxton
4saxtons@comcast.net

Corresponding Secretary
Julie Smith
juliejsmith23@hotmail.com

Historian
Hannah Vaughn
hvaughan@mac.com


Just an FYI, President Sheryl Cohen was Josephine Posti's campaign treasurer when Jo ran with Rob Gardner. President Elect Julie Daubner is Elaine Cappucci's sister. Ms. Daubner went from 2012-13 Corresponding Secretary to 2013-14 President.  Interesting.

MT. LEBANON TAKE-AWAYS FROM THE 2012 GENERAL ELECTION

The following letter to the editor was submitted by frequent Lebo Citizens contributor, Richard Gideon. Mr. Gideon also provided a companion piece to his letter, which can be found here.

MT. LEBANON TAKE-AWAYS FROM THE 2012 GENERAL ELECTION
by Richard Gideon

Our quadrennial exercise in national representative democracy is over and the robo-calls have ceased - thank God! Election 2012 was a good one for Democrats, generally speaking, although the U.S. House of Representatives remains in Republican hands. But do the national and state races portend what may be in store for the Municipality of Mt. Lebanon in 2013? Based on the reactions to the 2012 General Election on this Blog local Republicans seem torn between depression and hostility toward their own party, and fear a socialist takeover. But Mt. Lebanon voters are a combination of the fickle, the uninformed, the shewed, the principled, and the realists. Add a sprinkling of "coin-flippers" and you can get some surprising results at the polls. Let's take a look at the results of all the races on the 2012 ballot and see if there is anything worth noting, and what we might expect to see next year. All of the data presented comes from the Allegheny County Board of Elections, and is for Mt. Lebanon only.

First, there are 26,667 registered voters in Mt. Lebanon, of which 19,666 showed up on 6 November 2012 to cast votes (or sent in absentee ballots). This represents a turnout of 73.75%, and is down from the last presidential election in 2008. Next, there are five wards in Mt. Lebanon, and a total of 38 districts. In the race for President of the United States there were four names on the ballot, representing the Republican, Democratic, Green, and Libertarian parties. The County's website shows a place-holder for the Constitutional Party, but there was no candidate represented.

FEDERAL RACES
Looking at federal races, in Mt. Lebanon 19,599 people cast a vote for president, with 53.2% of the vote going to the Democrats, 45.61% to the Republicans, 0.29% to the Greens, and 0.71% to the Libertarians. In terms of DISTRICTS, 81.58% voted Democratic and 18.42% voted Republican; only seven of the 38 districts voted a Republican majority.

In the race for U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania a total of 19337 votes were cast, with Democrat Robert Casey Jr. winning with 55.15% of the total. Republican Tom Smith picked up 43.32% of the total, and Libertarian Rayburn Douglas Smith received 1.47%. From a district perspective, four went Republican with 34 going Democratic. From this federal race onward there were no other third party candidates.

In the race for U.S. House of Representatives for the 18th Congressional District, Republican Tim Murphy easily defeated his Democratic rival Larry Maggi, picking up 56.94% of the 19,068 votes cast to Maggi's 42.86%. But from a District perspective, 37 out of 38 went Republican, with only one voting Democratic; a percentage of 97.37% to 2.63% in favor of the Republicans

PENNSYLVANIA RACES
As the races moved to from federal to state the results started to get more interesting. In the Pennsylvania Attorney General race, Mt. Lebanon cast 18,989 total votes, with 54.19% going to Democrat Kathleen G. Kane, 43.2% for David J. Freed, and 2.56% for Libertarian Marakay J. Rogers. Six out of Mt. Lebanon's 38 Districts voted Republican, and 32 voted Democratic.

In the Pennsylvania State Treasurer's race, Mt. Lebanon gave a win to Democrat Robert M. McCord over Republican Diana Irey Vaughan, with 51.92% vs. 44.2% of the 18,673 votes cast. Patricia M. Fryman won 716 votes and 3.83% of the total as a Libertarian. Eight Mt. Lebanon Districts voted Republican, whilst 30 voted Democratic.

In the race for State Senator from the 37th Senatorial District, 19,203 votes were cast, and Democrat Matt Smith picked up 60.4% of them. Republican D. Raja only managed to win 39.49%. All Mt. Lebanon voting Districts went Democratic. It is rather obvious that a significant number of registered Republicans and Independents voted Democratic, and that Raja was unpopular.

But the race for Pennsylvania Auditor General was probably the most interesting. Of the 18,854 total votes cast, Republican John Maher gathered 48.57% to Democrat Eugene A. DePasquale's 47.46%. Libertarian Betsy Elizabeth Summers picked up 3.91% - 737 votes - which made her a "spoiler" and the only third party candidate acting as such, the difference between Maher and DePasquale being just 209 votes! District wise, 17 went to the Republicans, 19 to the Democrats, and two were ties between the Republican and Democrat, making Summers a "spoiler" in those districts.

Finally, Matt Smith also ran for his seat as Representative from the 42nd District in the Pennsylvania General Assembly unopposed, gathering 16,836 out of 17,178 votes. The remaining 342 votes were write-ins. This was hardly a "race"; but it has the most "no shows," with 2,488 voters skipping it altogether. The fact that 342 people wrote in a selection is worth noting, as 342 represents more people than voted IN TOTAL in 34 out of 38 Mt. Lebanon Districts in 2011!

TAKE-AWAYS
1. Only seven districts in Mt. Lebanon gave any race 100% of the votes it could have received; that race was President of the United States. In all other elections there were always fewer votes cast for a given race than that race might have received. Across the municipality as a whole, no race received 100% of the ballots cast. Put another way, using the POTUS race as an example 19,666 registered votes went to the polls, but the POTUS race received a total of 19,599 votes; meaning 67 people didn't cast a vote for any of the candidates for President, nor did they use the write-in option. Also, as the race became more local the number of people casting votes dropped off. This can be seen by comparing the 19,599 votes for POTUS compared to 17,178 in the unopposed 42nd District "race."

2. Seven thousand and one registered Mt. Lebanon voters did not vote, which is more than the non-voters in the 2008 election (6,751). This is almost twice as many potential votes as the largest margin of any of the races; which was the PA Senatorial race in the 37th District. For most races it is three to four times the difference! In tight races even a few hundred extra voters might change the results of an election. Since "off-year" elections see a substantial drop in voter participation it means that new candidates for local office need to communicate to the community at large if they want to win.

3. While Mt. Lebanon voted the Democrats a majority in most 2012 races, the more local the race the more it came down to the candidate himself as opposed to a party ideology. Republican Tim Murphy handily won the 18th U.S. Congressional race in Mt. Lebanon by 2,646 votes over his Democratic rival plus 38 write-in votes. Conversely, Democrat Matt Smith's margin was an impressive 3,995 votes over his Republican opponent plus 20 write-in votes.

4. Up for grabs in Mt. Lebanon next year are the commission seats of Matt Kluck (Ward 2) and David Brumfield (Ward 4), and the Mt. Lebanon School Board "at large" positions currently held by Josephine Posti, Dale Ostergaard, Mary Birks, and Daniel Remely. Based on the results of the 2012 general election it would appear that Republican Matt Kluck's commission seat is vulnerable. Also, two "Republicans" on the school board, Dale Ostergaard and Daniel Remely, might be vulnerable as well. But while the school board seems to be an impregnable progressive plutocracy - and it certainly is as of this writing - it is not immune to the vicissitudes of the economy; and it is the economy more than any other issue that usually determines how people vote. The major party candidates (who cross-file and therefore run as "Demopublicans") may have a lock on local elections now, but a well-run independent campaign could very well win a Commission's or Director's chair. An independent's chances will likely depend upon a)the local economy next November, and b)the nature of the candidate himself or herself. It won't be easy or pretty, but it can be done.

Bottom line: Although things look rosy for the Democrats and Progressives in Mt. Lebanon, I would not let the results of the Federal elections predetermine the outcome of next year's local contests. The results of various state races seem to indicate that things are more fluid in "Club Lebo" than they appear. Local candidates for the Commission and the School Board that are true independents have a legitimate, although tough, shot at winning those seats. But such candidates need to be flushed out now if they are to have a chance.

You're invited!

Reader and frequent commenter, Richard Gideon will be pointing out the differences between a flag that complies with code and one that most of us commonly see during a free lecture at 2 p.m. Sunday at historic Old St. Luke's Church. 

Expert: Many U.S. flags don't comply with code

June 21, 2012 5:02 am
By Carole Gilbert Brown

While most Americans know how to properly pledge allegiance to their country's flag, it's likely many don't realize that the flag they're saluting probably isn't fabricated to correct specifications.

Richard Gideon, 64, a Greene County native who lives in Mt. Lebanon and is a vexillologist, said the majority of correctly made flags flown today are only found in the military.

"When you see a code flag up against a commercial flag, you get a completely different feeling," he said.

He'll point out the differences between a flag that complies with code and one that most of us commonly see during a free lecture at 2 p.m. Sunday in historic Old St. Luke's Church in the Woodville section of Scott.

He plans to give a 15-20 minute lecture followed by a question-and-answer period.

Commercial flags will have the proper appearance in terms of pattern and design, they often lack the right aspect ratio, or correct proportional relationship between width and height, he said. The flag's length should be 1.9 times its width.

A stickler for detail and a history lover who became interested in vexillology -- the study of flags -- while researching his family's genealogy, Mr. Gideon's lecture is timely: 100 years ago this month that President William Howard Taft signed Executive Order 1556, which set uniform specifications and a pattern for the U.S. flag.

"That was the first time in history that the U.S. flag got some specifications," Mr. Gideon said, adding that the nation's rapid growth from 13 to 50 states was starting to make the flag "look like a bed sheet."

Although Taft amended his June 12, 1912, executive order four months later to explain his reasons for the first order, the next and last executive orders involving the flag occurred when Alaska and Hawaii joined the union in 1959 and 1960 during President Dwight D. Eisenhower's term. But, there have never been any penalties placed into the Flag Code, which is why Mr. Gideon believes differently proportioned flags are flying today.

When questions arose about proportion during the Eisenhower Administration, the president indicated that he was more concerned with "the spirit of the law" than strict adherence to specifications.

Although he understands why no one wants to penalize demonstrations of patriotism, Mr. Gideon believes correctly proportioned flags should be displayed at least in some specific places.

"I think public and government buildings ought to fly code flags," he said.

A veteran of the U.S. Air Force, Mr. Gideon started reproducing historic flags in 1994 as a hobby, but turned it into a business, Richard R. Gideon Flags, a year later.

He has authored 37 articles about flags and collaborated on flag books. Information: www.gideonflags.com.

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-west/expert-many-us-flags-dont-comply-with-code-641346/

Yet another "story" about YSA's contributions

Remember what Jan Klein wrote to Richard Gideon in this post, YSA vs. MTLSD - Updated? Remember the YSA 990's that I linked to in the same post?

Then we have the Trib reporting in my post, NSF YSA Makes The Trib!

Then-school Superintendent George Wilson dismissed the amount owed in 2008 because of the group's insufficient funds; and the organization paid the $20,000 balance for 2010 last year.

Now we have Dr. Steinhauer reporting that the Joint Maintenance Agreement has served us well. In fact, the YSA had paid $30,000 in 2008.  Huh? Listen for yourself on the podcast.  It starts at approximately the 58 minute mark. June 11, 2012 School Board Meeting

How many more versions of the story are out there?  Someone is lying to someone somewhere!!!

I do want to thank those school board members who questioned Jan Klein and Dr. Steinhauer. It is appalling how we can't get a straight answer.

The U.S. Flag at the Mt. Lebanon Veterans Memorial

The following letter has been submitted by frequent Lebo Citizens commenter and Mt. Lebanon resident, Richard Gideon. Mr. Gideon is nationally recognized as the nation's leading Vexillologist. Thank you for submitting this informative letter.

To the Editor:

This month we celebrate two important dates dealing with the Flag of the United States. The first one is 14 June, which is our traditional "Flag Day." The second is the anniversary of an act that established what form the flag should take. On 24 June 1912, President William Howard Taft signed Executive Order 1556, which for the first time in our nation's history established uniform specifications and a "pattern" for the U.S. Flag. To commemorate that event Old St. Lukes in Scott Township (330 Old Washington Pike) has graciously offered me space and time to present a Centennial Lecture on the subject, which will occur on the 24th of June, 2012, at 2:00pm - one hundred years to the date of the signing.  All Blog readers are cordially invited to attend. The lecture will be short, but I trust you will find it informative and the "visual aids" interesting. Admission is free.

The necessary research into this subject got me to thinking about the Mt. Lebanon Veterans' Memorial. I was curious about the height of the flag pole and the size of the flag to be flown from it. As this is a memorial to our military veterans and those killed in our nation's wars, I was reasonably sure the flag would be "G-spec" - meaning it would meet the current requirements that the U.S. Flag have an aspect ratio of 1.9:1; but I was curious about what size the architect had chosen. As it turns out, I was wrong to make that assumption.

About two weeks prior to the dedication ceremony, I made preliminary efforts to contact some of the people who were on the memorial committee, asking them about the height of the pole and the size of the flag to be flown. I heard back from two members, but neither one had the answers. One recommended that I contact the Mt. Lebanon PIO person, Ms. Susan Morgans. I anon wrote to Ms. Morgans, explaining to her that I was a professional Vexillologist and a registered Government Contractor, and my primary business was supplying military streamers and flags to military departments and organizations. I asked her for the height of the pole and the size of the flag. Her response was as follows:

"The architects are well aware of the specs and the flag and pole conform. Thanks."

Earlier I had been informed that the Marine Corps League had donated a flag for the Memorial, so I tried contacting that organization. Unfortunately, no one returned my phone call. I then turned to the Internet (which I probably should have done in the beginning), and after some searching found what I was looking for in the Planning Board Minutes of Tuesday, April 26, 2011. On page four is the following entry:

"Mr. Kreuthmeier said they reviewed a proposal with the Veterans memorial committee. The idea was to visually anchor the 45-foot tall flagpole with an 8-foot-by-12-foot flag. The obelisk will list the wars starting with the Revolutionary War at the bottom and working up. They were asked to provide a quote for the back wall of the memorial. They will also have a quote from Plato that will go around the obelisk."

A U.S. Flag of 8 feet by 12 feet (aspect ratio 1.5:1) is not a code flag. It is a popular commercial size, but for reasons which are better left to my lecture on the 24th, it is not an appropriate military ensign. I so informed Ms. Morgans, along with all of the correspondents to whom I had written earlier; including the Mt. Lebanon Commissioners, some members of the former Mt. Lebanon Veterans' Memorial Committee, and various other interested parties. Ms. Morgans replied, understandably, that she was only repeating what she had been told by the architect, and in replying to me CC'd all in my original message, adding the architect, Mr. Peter Kreuthmeier, to the list. Not long afterward, I received an E-mail from Mr. Kreuthmeier, who opened his message as follows:

"Mr. Gideon is absolutely correct.  We have been aware of these concerns since the inception, and indeed had every intention and made every effort to incorporate a G-spec flag on this project.  We did not do so for several reasons, some practical, some proportional, some manufacturing-related."

Mr. Kreuthmeier went on to say, in essence, that the biggest limiting factor was his desire to use a flag with a fly length of 12 feet, for reasons having to do with the layout of the memorial (including possibly interfering near-by trees), and ready-made flags meeting the U.S. Flag Code were not available in that length (to meet the code a flag with a length of 12 feet would have to be 6 feet, 3 3/4 inches wide). In my earlier message I had suggested that a proper flag for the pole would be a "G-spec" size 6 flag, measuring 8' 11 3/8" (or 8.94 feet) by 17 feet, but that size would have been too long by five feet. I then suggested that a smaller, size 8 flag of 5 feet by 9 1/2 feet would meet the Flag Code and be short of the desired length by only two and a half feet. Mr. Kreuthmeier said he had considered a smaller size in combination with the POW/MIA flag, and although he felt the combination didn't have the "vaboom" he was trying to achieve, he did say,

"In the interest of satisfying the question at hand, I'd presume you can bring some of these flags to the site and we can literally run them up the flagpole. I'd be happy to oblige if there is any interest."

Blog readers may wonder why any of this "flag business" matters, and that's a fair question to ask. Although the U.S. Flag Code "requires" that our national emblem be made in an aspect ratio of 1.9:1 (except for a few specialty flags), there are no penalties for not doing so, and even President Eisenhower felt that meeting the "spirit" of the law was more important than meeting its letter. But a properly made U.S. Flag gives a totally different "feel" to the viewer, as any member of the military can attest - and this is a memorial for Mt. Lebanon's military veterans and those killed in action.

Since the Mt. Lebanon Veterans' Memorial is not on military property the current 8' x 12' flag will likely stay, to vex, if you'll pardon the pun, Vexillologists (and veterans) such as myself. I did feel that a proper code flag would have been more fitting (and apparently, to his credit, so does the architect), but I do understand the problems involved with using one at the Mt. Lebanon Veterans' Memorial site.

I would like to publicly thank all of those to whom I wrote for taking their valuable time to respond to my concerns, even if we did not see eye to eye on the subject.  

Richard Gideon
USAF 1966 - 1970

YSA vs. MTLSD - Updated

The following letter to Lebo Citizens was submitted by reader and frequent commenter Richard Gideon.

YSA vs. MLSD

..by Richard Gideon

Lately there has been a vigorous discussion on this Blog concerning the Youth Sports Alliance (also called the Youth Sports Association in various publications), a 501(c)(3) tax exempt entity, and its commitment to contribute $30,000 a year toward the upkeep of sports fields owned by the Mt. Lebanon School District, but maintained by the Municipality. 

On 1 May 1999, the School District, Municipality and Youth Sports Alliance (YSA) entered into an agreement to improve the quality of athletic fields owned by the School District. That original agreement had been renewed, but is set to expire on 30 June 2012.  According to an earlier post on this Blog, "The School District pays Mt. Lebanon $83,300 per year for both infield renovation work and maintenance of the turf grass athletic fields. The Youth Sports Alliance contributes $30,000 each year to the School District for the services."  But has YSA actually made its stated contributions?  This question was first raised when public information available on the web site GuideStar.org, which publishes IRS 990 forms for 501(c)(3) organizations, seemed to contradict statements made by YSA officials that their organization has kept up its end of the agreement.  GuideStar.org shows the following YSA 990-EZ forms:

YSA 990 2008 Line 28 shows $3597 contributed towards agreement
YSA 990 2009 Line 28 shows $30,000 contributed towards agreement
YSA 990 2010 Line 28 shows $10,000 contributed towards agreement 

Year 2011 is not yet available on GuideStar.org.  

Mr. Chip Dalesandro of YSA paid a personal visit to Elaine Gillen, owner of the Lebo Citizens web site and the Lebo Citizens Blog, on 10 May 2012 and stated that "..all the fees for the joint maintenance agreement are paid in full. They have been paid in full every year."  He advised Ms. Gillen that Jan Klein, Director of Finance for the Mt. Lebanon School District, could verify this information.  I decided to write to Ms. Klein and ask her to verify this statement.  In writing to Ms. Klein I stated that, "I am not part of any organization in Mt. Lebanon that has any connections with either the District or the Municipality.  I am concerned about where my tax dollars are going, and whether my local governments (i.e., the Municipality and the District) are being used for the purposes of advancing the agenda of various, private, organizations; and being used either willingly or not.  I also have a pardonable curiosity about these reporting matters as the result of my profession as a registered Federal Contractor, which requires me to deal with the Department of Defense Financial Accounting System and the Department of the Treasury on a daily basis."  I asked Ms. Klein the following questions:

1) Has YSA contributed $30,000 each year for the years 2008, 2010, and 2011?

      a: If the answer to #1 is yes, is this amount delineated in the District's annual financial statement?

      b: If the answer to #1 is yes, will you provide me with written proof of these payments?

2) If the YSA has NOT made its stated contribution amount for the years 2008, 2010, and 2011, are you accruing that amount in anticipation of payment?

      a: if the answer to #2 is yes, did you disclose that on your annual financial statement?

      b: if the answer to #2 is no, have individuals contributed funds in the name of the YSA sufficient to make up the difference between what YSA reports in filing years 2008 and 2010, such that the total amount credited to YSA is the required $30,000?

In asking these questions I was trying to determine whether there was a discrepancy between what YSA is reporting and what is on the District's books.  Since calendar year 2009 does indeed show that YSA contributed the agreed upon $30,000 it was not at issue.  If the District was showing $30,000 for each year in question I wanted to know if the accounting method was accruing that amount in anticipation of payment - a common technique in business.  I also wanted to leave as much room as possible for the benefit of doubt and honest mistakes, and I did not accuse either the YSA or the District of any shenanigans.  Ms. Klein answered my inquiry on 14 May 2012, in part, as follows:

In response to your questions, we received the following payments from the YSA since December of 2007:

7/27/2009 $30,000

3/10/2010 $10,000

7/27/2012 $30,000*

All of the above amounts have been recorded in our Annual Financial Reports as part of our revenues for the appropriate fiscal year. They are not recorded in a separate line on the report, but rather grouped with other misc income.  Such amounts are subject to annual audit. No additional amounts have been accrued.  No donations from others on behalf of the YSA obligation have been received.

*In a follow-up exchange of messages Ms. Klein wrote that this was, as I suspected, a typo - since this is still May of 2012.  The correct date is 1/27/2012 (27 January 2012).

Noting that the year 2008 was missing (and at first suspecting that 7/27/2012 should have been 7/27/2011) I asked the following question:

Should I then assume, based on your breakdown, that you did not receive any money from YSA in 2008?  They are showing $3597 contributed towards the agreement in that calendar year.  Since your figures are calculated from December, 2007, and your table shows the first payment since that time as being on 27 July 2009, I would like to be sure about this.

Ms. Klein replied, "Those are all of the payments made to the District."  I must admit that I was a little disappointed in this reply, since I felt my follow-up question could have elicited a "yes" or "no" response.

What may be surmised from the preceding discussion is this: 1)The District did not receive a $3597 payment from YSA in 2008 (otherwise their figures would not come out to an even $70,000 for the period of accounting from December, 2007 through 27 January 2012), and 2) there was no contribution made by YSA to the District in 2011, since YSA's 990-EZ forms are based on calendar years, and the last $30,000 payment to the District was made in January of this year.  Since the District has been paying the Municipality the contracted $83,300 per annum for field upkeep the taxpayers have been subsidizing YSA's missing contributions.  

The years 1999 through 2007 are subjects for investigation as well.  I did not ask Ms. Klein about them because I had no 990-EZ evidence to use as the basis for formulating questions.  However, this is something that should be investigated.

I think it is important, at this juncture, to point out that I am not accusing either Ms. Klein or Mr. Dalesandro of any malfeasance.  Ms. Klein was polite and extremely professional in her replies to me.  Mr.  Dalesandro is purported to be an honest man with a heart for kids' sports.  But Mr. Dalesandro is not an accountant and, by his own admission, does not get into the "financials."  What is abundantly clear is that there is a tangled mess of contradictory information concerning the YSA's relationship to the District and the Municipality.  And while it is quite possible all of this "mess" is due to benign neglect, ignorance of the law is no excuse, and it would behoove the YSA, and the District and/or Municipality if necessary, to make corrections to their accounts so that the public may have confidence in what it hears or reads from these sources.


Update May 16, 2012 7:30 a.m. I have been able to obtain a copy of the Joint Maintenance Agreement Extension 

-Elaine

Mt. Lebanon's Attack Against PA Public Charter Schools

The following article is from Mt. Lebanon resident and frequent commenter, Richard Gideon.  Richard, thank you for taking the time to visit YSWP and share your experience with us.

MT. LEBANON'S ATTACK AGAINST PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS
by Richard Gideon

"Degree of Motivation"

 The following letter to the editor comes from Richard Gideon, publisher/editor of American Vexillum^tm magazine - ISSN 1544-5984

Ms. Gillen: 

     A recent article published in Reason magazine sheds some interesting light on the issue of public spending for education.  The US spends more money per student than any other country in the world except Switzerland.  What we get for this money is mediocre science and math test scores, on a national basis.  The student-teacher ratio has fallen and teacher pay has increased dramatically, but compared to countries in the Far East, Scandinavia, and other places in the world, American kids are left in the dust.
     As a former post-secondary teacher (for 23 years), I had to deal with the products of the public schools.  Without exception, it was the "degree of motivation" that was a better indicator of an individual's success than the district from which he or she came (with the exception that kids from private schools, or home-schooled kids, were nearly always in the top of their classes); and this included kids from the "better" districts, such as Mt. Lebanon or Upper St. Clair. 
     In the end, quality education is a mix of teacher skill and viable raw material, not an impressive brick and mortar structure. 
     The Reason article may be viewed on-line here: http://reason.com/archives/2011/02/22/losing-the-brains-race.

Best Wishes,
Richard R. Gideon