Just so you know...a year later HA!

Remember all the hoopla about field signage last year? Just so you know...  It included this eblast from Dave Franklin:

 Here is an eblast sent from Dave Franklin.  His wife is head of YSA.  

From: "Mt. Lebanon Baseball Association - LEBO BASEBALL" <mtlbball2012@gmail.com>
Date: May 7, 2012 10:04:56 PM EDT
To:
Subject: MLBA - Field Signage Amendment Proposal

Friends:
Tomorrow night the Commissioners will vote on a proposed amendment to Mt. Lebanon’s current signage ordinance. The purpose of the amendment is to allow tasteful signs to be placed at our municipal fields, the stadium and at similar venues. This amendment will allow for the solicitation of sponsors (local businesses, larger companies, etc), who in turn will be featured on these signs. Importantly, these sponsorships will allow the municipality and/or the youth sports associations to raise much needed funds for field maintenance and improvements.
If you support this proposal, please take 3 minutes out of your day to send a short email to the Commissioners (commission@mtlebanon.org) expressing your support for an amendment to Chapter XX (Zoning) of the Mt. Lebanon Code, Part 8, Section 823.5 (Authorized Signs).
Thanks,
Dave Franklin

All good things come to those who wait.  The very last issue discussed this evening at the reconvened Commission Discussion Session was, "Internal signs at athletic facilities." David Donnellan gave his report.  I am still laughing.

There was one sign sold.  It was taken down because the sports people objected to the color and the placement. A little background: The Public Information Office tried to sell signage for the municipal fields. They had hired an intern who abruptly quit. So all this talk and pressure from the sports groups saying we must have signs... They will save the world... We can sell a bizillion signs.  In the end, ONE stinkin' sign was sold and it wasn't sold by YSA.

I asked David Donnellan who was the advertiser.  It was Covenant. They paid $500 plus $150 for the sign to be made and placed at Dixon in Center Field. The revenue went into a fund to benefit the fields. It was decided that the new Sports Advisory Board should look into this and make a recommendation which could include rewording the amendment.

Speaking of the Sports Advisory Board, Dave Franklin (Parks Advisory Board), Joy Pajak (Women's Golf) and Walt Henry (Indoor Tennis) made a brief presentation.  Dave gave a list of recommendations.  Number one on his list was that the municipality fund the turf and lighting for Mellon Field since we are a community. Gee, I didn't see that one coming.

Right-to-work...right-to-play

I was reading about Michigan's right-to-work law that was passed and started to think about Mt. Lebanon's future.

Let me back up. Wikipedia defines right-to-work laws as:

A right-to-work law is a statute in the United States of America that prohibits union security agreements, or agreements between labor unions and employers that govern the extent to which an established union can require employees' membership, payment of union dues, or fees as a condition of employment, either before or after hiring. "Right-to-work" laws do not, as the short phrase might suggest, aim to provide a general guarantee of employment to people seeking work, but rather are a government regulation of the contractual agreements between employers and labor unions that prevents them from excluding non-union workers.

KDKA reports that Pennsylvania could follow.  Could Pennsylvania Be Next For Right To Work Legislation?  Local unions are on alert, according to KDKA.

What would that mean to Mt. Lebanon?  It has been said that the MTL school board is cheerleading for the unions. I don't know if that is necessarily true, but it occurred to me that the YSA, for all intents and purposes, has unionized the ball fields in Mt. Lebanon. In effect, the new Sports Advisory Board is representing groups which are required to pay "dues"  to use school district facilities. The municipality collects no money for use of fields. Isn't that essentially what the Joint Maintenance Agreement is? It was initially an agreement to maintain school district fields. The YSA controls ALL fields for its members, in essence, the right-to -play. By the way, what is the status of the Joint Maintenance Agreement?

Gotta love those SPINELESS bloggers

Here it is - the email referenced in the following comment:

An email that was between an Association leader and Mrs. Fraasch back in the Spring paints a very different picture to all the sympathy towards the sports group. I received a forwarded email that the Association leader sent to Mrs. Fraasch and it would make anyone think twice about the ill mannered behavior. She handled it in such a professional manner. It was apparent that the leader wanted us all to be backing his agenda for turf but it showed most of us sympathy towards Mrs. Fraasch and that she is willing to negotiate if members of the YSA were even remotely civil. This has not be a civil discussion on behalf of the sports groups and I think it is really a shame for Lebo. No one that saw the email would blame her if she left the fields people without an improvement. Actually a bunch of us have supported her since the email was distributed.

October 12, 2012 5:38 PM

Kelly - I appreciate the time you spent as well. However I did give you some compelling proof regarding turf as well as some insight as to field conditions and I don't think you read what I gave you or even listened to what I said.

Quite honestly, the information you have obtained (if any) about the fields in Mt. Lebanon municipality is wrong. I offered to show you problems, explained to you what the problems are and I feel you really don't care to listen. If you believe that $840, 000 will fix your parks and recreation field problem your friends the bloggers really have you fooled!

It is obvious that the Town Hall Meeting meant nothing to you. You have your own agenda on what YOU want to do and that is your prerogative. However, you are are doing a disservice to the the youth of Mt. Lebanon (not to mention the taxpayers) - due to your own agenda.

You really can't believe that the citizens of USC, Peters and Bethel Park all have no regard for health and safety when they installed their artificial surfaces? We have had an artificial surface at the high school since the early 70's....it has been used by countless athletes, rec dept. programs (at no cost to the municipality!) and many other kids, parents, coaches and just about anyone who wanted to step foot on it!! No one has experienced any health problems!

Mt. Lebanon Commissioners have made 2 very bad investments to parks and recreation (Twin Hills & McNeilly)...yet they do nothing to solve, rectify or even consider a solution to these problems. Building another grass field (which will not help) at the public works is absurd....again your bloggers have you fooled. Why not ask your rec department and youth leagues - why go to individuals who are not familiar with athletic fields?

I more than cautioned each commission when they were going to purchase these parcels - and I can't tell you enough what a mistake it will be financially and how ineffective another grass field will be. Your not looking at ALL the possibilities or ALL the benefits of a turf field.

Perhaps maybe the YSA should start charging ALL users of fields for the $12/player user fee's....are you able to explain that to the cheerleaders, micro soccer and t-ball programs? They use the same fields we do and pay nothing!

I am putting my name and phone number on this correspondence as I am sure it will get passed along to all the SPINELESS bloggers in Mt. Lebanon. Maybe a good fund raiser for fields would be "Public Debates".......Bloggers vs. Field Rats....think they would show??

Yours in Youth Athletics

Chip Dalesandro

412-600-7118

My first inclination was to not respond, however, I feel it’s necessary to respond so things can move on from your remarks.

This would be a good example as to why things haven’t moved forward in the past few years and that the YSA needed new leadership. A hot-headed email like that can make a Commissioner choose a multitude of other issues to focus on rather than something like Recreation. If you want me to move onto my “own agenda” I would be happy to and you will be sitting here without any movement for 4 years.

I have put in over 120 hours into meeting with folks about Parks/Fields/Recreation and 87 hours of those come from sports/YSA representatives, not bloggers. Actually 7 hours were meeting with bloggers. 26 hours were from the general community interested in the issue and current/former Commissioners. So to say that I am only listening to one side of the community is an insult and completely false.

The problem here is that not all of YSA wants turf and others would prefer looking at what we have before investing the money into something new. This ideology has been confirmed time-and-time again by your members and I happen to agree with them.

Your second problem, whether you were involved or not, you have a large group of sports associations that promised funding of the purchase of McNeilly and its’ development (not turf, but field space) since Krebbs was not working. So you have a community confidence problem, because a large group of this community feels that the associations owe them money and should at the very least follow through on written promises.

So, I guess I haven’t asked this to you, why didn’t you fundraise back then when you had the space bought for the sports/fields? Field space was purchased,a design created by Municipal Engineers and a plan that you could throw money into. This community has essentially put in over $2 million dollars (from taxes) into a field that will never be used and $0 was given by the sports associations. Today, if the sports groups would have pulled together, they would have the fields in use. Who essentially dropped the ball? Feel free to answer, but the truth is perception is sometimes everything and the community is concerned and not just the "bloggers."

You have brought up some relevant points in your email that I have been trying to get to the bottom of. I’m not sure our user fee schedule are fair and some might need to pay more. Do I want to see “pay as you go” not sure that’s a good option, but possible at this point. Do I see health issues related to turf? Yes, MRSA was a direct relation to our turf at the high school to name one. One year ago, I knew little about turf and started to do research. I have read hundreds of article pro/against the use of turf, including the items you gave to me last week. A couple of issues I have are the possible health issues that many (pro/against) articles note. I am willing to keep digging and even discussed some concerns/possibilities with Mark Flaherty today.

Let me wrap this up, Chip you can send all the nasty emails you want, call me dear in a belittling manner and yell all you like in public. I don’t care, but the bottom line is it doesn’t help you, the YSA or anyone else in this community. It simply pisses people off, so they are more incline to do the exact opposite of what you would like to see get accomplished.

Kelly

Joint Maintenance Agreement for 2013

Last night was a bad night for me at the Commission meeting. During the Discussion Session, John Bendel wants to look at using the Rec Bond for turfing fields, including looking at turfing Mellon - again. He wants to study this some more. Why he won't take as much time over deer culling is beyond me. 

The usual sports people were there to speak about turf.  I had to save my minutes for deer culling, so I never even addressed turfing a school district field, let alone any Mt. Lebanon field. The sports people supported the YSA proposal and dissed the Robb Hollow plan.  Only problem with supporting the YSA plan is that their days may be numbered.

Dave Brumfield made three recommendations for the next Joint Maintenance Agreement.

• Negotiate a longer term
• Have individual groups who want field preferences sign the JMA separately
• Draw up guidelines for using fields.  Include field use rules.

If anyone has any other suggestions, I am sure the Commission would welcome them.

Another one bites the dust

I understand that Aqua Club has dropped out of YSA. Smart move. YSA only cares about fields, as far as I am concerned. What about Ice Hockey? Are they in YSA? Or is that another group ready to jump ship? So much for the YSA proposal for Middle and Wildcat Fields.

I see that Tuesday's Commission Discussion Session agenda has been published. Let me guess. Update on Robb Hollow athletic field proposal will probably turn into a discussion about artificial turf. Fifteen minutes has been allotted for the discussion.

A related topic on the agenda is the Joint Maintenance Agreement. Discussion of joint maintenance agreement. Fifteen minutes for this one too. Hey, maybe the school board directors allocated a couple of minutes of their ever popular community coffees to some commissioners so that they could discuss the JMA. With groups dropping out of YSA, I don't see how MTLSD is going to be able to collect from YSA. Maybe a lawsuit is in order. That always seems to be SOP when things don't sit well with the school board.

Posti too busy for Commission

At last week's Commission discussion meeting, Joint Discussion Meetings was an agenda item. Evidently, the Commission has been trying to set up another meeting between the School Board and the Commission to discuss, among other things, the Joint Maintenance Agreement. Remember that fateful night when Josephine Posti said that I have hate in my heart, so she was praying for me? Apology to Josephine Posti That meeting included Dave Brumfield, Kristen Linfante, Steve Feller, Elaine Cappucci, and Josephine Posti.  There has not been another meeting since February 28.

In Citizens' Comments, I expressed my feelings and thanked Dave and Kristen for all the abuse they were getting from Josephine Posti. It was revealed during the Discussion Session that Josephine wanted to see an agenda before she would commit to another meeting. I had said that if the Commission felt that they should have another meeting, then they should have a meeting. This time, the Commission wanted to have a public meeting with as many Commissioners and School Board Directors present, as possible.

In so many words, Josephine blew off the Commission. So I filed a Right To Know on September 13, 2012, asking for all communication between the Commission and School Board Directors concerning joint meetings between Municipal and School Board representatives. 

Here it is. Not only is she much too busy for any meetings, but Josephine also encouraged the Commissioners to attend the School Board coffees along with the rest of us.
Joint Discussion Communication

Joint Maintenance Agreement Approved 4-1

Last night's podcasts have been uploaded on to Lebocitizens.com. The end of Part 1 of the Discussion Session includes the JMA. I believe all of the commissioners asked Staff questions about the Joint Maintenance Agreement. Dave Donnellan emailed all the sports groups, Dr. Steinhauer, and Jan Klein in March asking about the Joint Maintenance Agreement.  He never heard back. On June 6, Jan Klein contacted Dave Donnellan to say that the YSA was not sure if they could move forward as an organization. There were two meetings held since then, June 26 and July 18. Last week, Klein got back to Donnellan to verify that the YSA and School District came to an agreement. The Commission did not get any information about the JMA until Friday when they received their packets.

During last night's discussion, Kristen Linfante, school board liaison, revealed that she was in touch with Elaine Cappucci, Commission liaison, to say that the School District was more concerned with maintaining the field maintenance rather than the YSA portion of the agreement. Kristen also said that we are the only municipality that requires sports groups to pay to use the fields. She wonders if the School District should even charge them at all. I guess that is a preview of coming attractions. Of course.

Kelly Fraasch and Matt Kluck asked to table the vote, but were outvoted. In the end, Kelly said that she would approve this six month extension only. Six months gives the municipality the ability to get out of the fiscal year with being reimbursed for the work that was budgeted for 2012. Six months gives all parties involved to decide to continue the JMA or to go with user fees. Six months also gives the YSA time to decide if they will continue as an organization. Matt Kluck was the only commissioner to oppose the six month agreement.

New JMA Amendment signed by Mrs. Dave Franklin

Through a Right To Know, here is the link to the Joint Maintenance Agreement Amendment signed by Timothy Steinhauer and Stacy Franklin, a.k.a. Mrs. Dave Franklin, on August 20, 2012. You may remember how Dave said on August 24, 2012 at 1:11 PM:

I'm not a member of the YSA. I never have been. I actively participate in several associations that are part of and contribute to the YSA, but I have no formal position or voice within the YSA itself. In fact, assertions to the contrary only underscore the misconceptions and frankly the lies that have been published here, not only about me but about the YSA.

Here is part of the amendment showing YSA's contribution being reduced to $23,000.

1. Paragraph 5 of the Agreement is hereby amended by the addition of the following sentence: "For the 2011-2012 school year, YSA's contribution is reduced to $23,000 due to a reduction in the number of fields, and YSA agrees to pay such $23,000 contribution on or before August 31,2012."

A compromise on artificial turf?

Monday's commission agenda looks like the commissioners have come to a compromise. Based on Dave Franklin's petition showing 285 supporters (Petition for synthetic turf on Middle and Wildcat Fields) the Commission will be voting on an action to create an ad hoc committee to raise funds for an eco-friendly turf on any field in Mt. Lebanon.

Recommended Action: Move to authorize the Municipal Manager to secure proposals and retain a financial advisor and bond counsel for a $5.5 million recreation bond issue and begin the process to create an ad hoc committee to raise funds to install an eco-friendly turf field on an athletic field in Mt. Lebanon.

285 supporters is a good start for YSA's fundraising campaign.  Skateboarders were able to fund a skatepark that could have come to Mt. Lebanon, so this should be a cakewalk for YSA folks. If YSA can raise the funds, they can build it at Mellon or Wildcat or Middle Fields, or anywhere else for that matter.  You proved your point. The Veterans Memorial was built this way, so get busy and start your fundraising. I am glad that you linked your petition to Lebo Fields, Dave. You will be able to get more support that way. Good luck guys.

YSA is costing the kids $7,000 UPDATED

At Monday's meeting, the Board approved the Joint Maintenance Agreement extension even though the agreement had expired. At approximately the 38.5 minute mark on the podcast, during "Comments from Residents and Taxpayers Concerning Action Items for This Meeting," David Huston urged the Board not to approve the following:

Joint Maintenance Agreement Amendment: RESOLVED, That the Amendment to the Joint Maintenance Agreement dated as of July 1, 2010 is amended in the form presented, and the Superintendent is authorized to execute such Amendment on behalf of the District.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Joint Maintenance Agreement between the District, the Municipality and the Youth Sports Alliance is extended for a period of six months, through December 31, 2012, with the District paying $35,700 to the Municipality for services similar to those provided previously, and the Youth Sports Alliance paying between $10,000 and $11,000 to the District (based on the number of participating children), and with other terms and schedules to be specified in an Extension Agreement acceptable to the Superintendent and the Solicitor, and to be signed by the Superintendent.

David gave the following reasons:

• The amendment is for an expired agreement.
• The Municipality is not a party to this agreement.
• The YSA's "contribution" is being reduced from $30,000 to $23,000.
• The Board is catering to the YSA's payment schedule, so that it is convenient for YSA.

Listen to Tom Peterson's explanation. I have not been able to provide an audio clip of this portion of the meeting, so tune in at the 38.5 minute mark of the podcast. Of course, Timmy was grateful for the YSA. Jan Klein also spoke. Josephine chimed in to say that since the YSA is made up of volunteers with turnover of officers, discrepancies could occur. The relationship is a collaboration, so the District will not come down on them punitively. The Board wants to work creatively with YSA so that they (the YSA) can continue to do good for our children.

The discussion resumed at the time of the vote. See 01:10:48 of the podcast. By reducing the YSA's contribution by $7,000, the taxpayers (or the students) will take the hit since there will be less revenue collected. Mary Birks needed help with that. We cut staff so that we could reduce costs, but since the YSA is collaborating with the School District and they do good for our children, it is OK to reduce their "contribution" by $7,000. The vote was unanimous.

Update August 21, 2012 9:30 AM Audio clip of both parts of the YSA discussion.

Can they do this?

The School District has posted their agenda for this Monday's meeting.

(6) Joint Maintenance Agreement Amendment: RESOLVED, That the Amendment to the Joint Maintenance Agreement dated as of July 1, 2010 is amended in the form presented, and the Superintendent is authorized to execute such Amendment on behalf of the District.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Joint Maintenance Agreement between the District, the Municipality and the Youth Sports Alliance is extended for a period of six months, through December 31, 2012, with the District paying $35,700 to the Municipality for services similar to those provided previously, and the Youth Sports

Alliance paying between $10,000 and $11,000 to the District (based on the number of participating children), and with other terms and schedules to be specified in an Extension Agreement acceptable to the Superintendent and the Solicitor, and to be signed by the Superintendent.

Has the Municipality signed off on this? I thought there were a gazillion kids involved in Youth Sports. Now YSA will be paying based on the number of participating children? Gee, they (meaning both MTLSD and YSA) can't account for YSA payments, how will they keep track of the number of kids? And our super Super is signing this? The man who lies at meetings? At least they are now calling it by its proper name, Joint Maintenance Agreement. Can the District get a discount on multiple orange jumpsuits? Any extra large ones for the Commissioners? Oh, this really stinks.

Updates on Recreation Proposal

Kelly Fraasch updated her blog to include her updated recreation proposal which she presented last night. As before, she has provided a link to her revised proposal.  http://www.kellyfraasch.com/2012/08/15/updates-on-recreation-proposal/

Kelly's initial proposal included lights at Middle and Wildcat Fields. I understand that Dave Franklin felt that lights were not necessary. So Kelly removed them from her revised proposal.  My gut feeling is that YSA didn't want to fork over the money that they proposed in their turf presentation. Isn't that just like them to offer something and then not deliver? Want to read Dave's slant on this? Read his blog at http://lebofields.blogspot.com/2012/08/robb-hollow_14.html#comment-form I just love to promote Dave's blog. He can never say that I don't present both sides. Haven't seen him do that for my blog.

At last night's commission meeting, I had to get something off my chest. On Monday evening, I attended Carnegie's skate park public hearing. I recorded it and emailed it to the commissioners. As I said in Citizens Comments, I hope that the commissioners take the time to listen to it. I may post it here, but have to switch computers to do that, if anyone is interested in listening to it. What a difference there is between the two communities. Carnegie has a mayor and six councilmen and women. We, of course, have a manager and five commissioners. Carnegie doesn't have a swimming pool, ice rink, golf course, and their best field is no better than our worst field. Yet, I heard nothing but excitement from these folks. Not Larry "I'm excited" excitement, but honest to goodness excitement. They take pride in their community. They spoke of fundraising. Carnegie had proposed a smaller skatepark for their kids, but the residents were thrilled to find out that a larger, nicer skatepark could possibly be built in Carnegie. I heard words like, "We're so lucky to have this opportunity" and "Thank you." It was refreshing. Here in Mt. Lebanon, we get empty promises, demands for artificial turf, entitlement, arrogance, and have grown men acting like spoiled brats. It isn't all about field sports. I think the YSA people have a lesson to learn here.

"A gift to this District"

The YSA is the School District's best friend, according to last night's meeting. The YSA volunteers to maintain our fields. They don't have to do it. Anything the YSA contributes is a gift to this District. According to Dr. Steinhauer, YSA has paid $328,000 in support of fields.

There was a comprehensive Recreation, Park, and Open Space Plan done in 2002 by Pashek Associates. It is a very large document, over 149 MB, but can be viewed here on the Municipal website. To save time, consider Pashek pages 2-4 & 2-5 particularly, and all 8 "highlights" particularly items 6 and 7.  They can be viewed here. The YSA contributions are not a gift to the District. They are responsible for daily preparation for its own use of the fields including dragging, brooming and lining of the fields.

This brings us to the Joint Maintenance Agreement. We have yet another story about YSA's payments. They are NOT up to date on their payments. According to Dr. Steinhauer, the YSA has made their $30,000 payment for the 2010-2011 school year, but the 2011-2012 payment will be changed to $23,000 since Article 4 in the Joint Maintenance Agreement Extension states:

4. The total cost for each year of this agreement shall be paid by the District in monthly installments. The monthly payments by the District to the Municipality shall be $6,941.66 ($83,300/ 12), payable on or before the 256’ day of each month. The agreement will be amended and price cost renegotiated should there be a reduction in total fields being maintained or alteration ofthe playing surface.

The School District has been in negotiations with YSA, and have decided to lower their $30,000 per year commitment to $23,000 due to any inconvenience as a result of the high school renovation and the reduction of fields.  Furthermore, the School District is considering a six month extension contract which would align more with the YSA's collection of dues. According to Dr. Steinhauer, the YSA contribution will be reduced to $10,000 or $11,000 for the six month extension. Dr. Steinhauer stated that the Municipality is reducing the School District's JMA responsibility to $35,700. I have not been able to verify this with the Municipality. Here is the audio clip of the JMA portion of last night's meeting.

School Board Agenda Part 4...Joint "Field" Agreement

There is too much going on with the August 13 agenda to have it all in one post, so I thought I would break it up into parts. Here's Part 4....Joint "Field" Agreement.

Joint Field Agreement Revision and Extension with Municipality and YSA – The Municipality and the YSA have been in discussion with the District concerning revision of the current agreement to account for fewer fields in play as a result of the construction at the high school. Also in discussion is the possible extension of the Joint Field Agreement for a six month period through the end of this calendar year recognizing that there are fewer fields for the youth sport groups to use. The proposed changes will be reviewed with the Board at the meeting.

First of all, it is the Joint Maintenance Agreement, not Joint Field Agreement. Extending the agreement for a six month period, as I interpret it, means extending the expired contract six more months. I am confused by their logic. If there are fewer fields for the youth sports groups to use, why are we extending it? And what about that minor detail called the $30,000 fee?

A closer look at the JMA, YSA, MTL, MTLSD, MTLH, MLAC, TBDC,and any other letters of the alphabet

Fascinating information is pouring in about these groups. I received this link from the July/August 2002 issue of mtl Magazine.  See pages 30 and 31 about fields and YSA. http://ebooks.mtlebanon.org/mtl/mtl-072002/files/31.html  There was talk about turfing Jefferson from the time Smartchan was superintendent ten years ago.  The JMA earned the PASBO (PA Association of School Board Officials) award of achievement, but it doesn't look like PASBO ever reviewed the 990 forms.  According to the article, drainage was already rectified. Lots of interesting information, including The Blue Devil Club and Marcia Taylor's involvement.

I also received more 990's. The Mt. Lebanon Aqua Club does a fiscal year, only their fiscal year is from 1 September to 31 August of the following year. Here are their 990's.
Mt. Lebanon Aqua Club 2008 990
Mt. Lebanon Aqua Club 2009 990
Mt. Lebanon Aqua Club 2010 990

The Mt. Lebanon Hockey Association also reports on a fiscal year basis starting 1 May and ending 30 April the following year. Here are their 990's.
Mt. Lebanon Hockey Association 2009 990
Mt. Lebanon Hockey Association 2010 990
Mt. Lebanon Hockey Association 2011 990

I'm intrigued with all these non-profit groups in Mt. Lebanon - especially the field sports groups.  No one group has $200,000 to contribute towards this scheme to carpet and light Wildcat/Middle fields.  The Soccer Association comes close, with net assets of $179,687 - and MLAC has $131,592.  YSA certainly can't come up with the $200K by themselves - they only have a net worth of $31,918!  They must be counting on contributions from other field sports groups to bring $200,000 to the table.

Another Country Heard From UPDATED

By now, you have received your 2012 letter from The Blue Devil Club. I am glad to see that they took some time to draft a new letter.  It is interesting to compare this year's to last year's letter. The 2011 letter "pitched":

• However, this continued success is even more impressive when you consider that our student-athletes also maintained a collective QPA in excess of 3.25!

• Over 91% of the total funds raised by and through the Blue Devil Club are spent specifically on the student-athletes.

 I hope it was an oversight, but those two statements would be worth repeating if they were true this year. In light of the Joint Maintenance Agreement, sports groups' 990's and the YSA, perhaps over 91% of the total funds were not spent on the "student-athletes." The 2011 letter also mentioned that:

ln the past, the funds were spent to upgrade athletic facilities and/or equipment, assist the Club‘s member sport teams meet temporary shortfalls in their ability to raise the funds necessary to meet annual expenditures, and to provide the “extra things” that help give our student-athletes a first class experience that they will never forget!

What annual expenditures? The YSA's inability to contribute $30,000 a year to maintain School District fields? Zero dollars are spent on Municipal fields. Yet, in the YSA's own words, the best baseball fields are Middle and Wildcat which happen to be Municipal fields. When will the Mt. Lebanon Scholastic Athletic Association, a.k.a. The Blue Devil Club, which includes the following varsity sports: baseball, boys' and girls' basketball, cheerleading, football, boys' and girls' soccer, fast pitch softball, boys' and girls' tennis, softball, volleyball and wrestling start contributing to the municipality for the use of their facilities? Why must the 78% of the households who do not have children in school be expected to fund this organization? Levels of support range from an individual or family membership ($25) to Blue Devil Champion ($1000 or more).

Update July 31, 2012 11:15 PM
Blue Devil Club 2009 990
Blue Devil Club 2010 990
Blue Devil Club 2011 990

From one of the Field Boys

Last week, I emailed the entire commission with the following:

Dave,I would like to see Matt Kluck have more than five minutes to discuss turf. The YSA presentation ran over thirty minutes, even though fifteen
minutes was allocated to the YSA on the June 25 agenda. I hope you do
the right thing and let the discussion resume after the commission
meeting. Elaine Gillen

I received no response. During the Citizens Comments portion of Monday's meeting, I spoke of backwater valves, flooding on Cedar Blvd, asked who sets the agenda, why the YSA proposal was removed from the municipal website, and I would like to see any presentations down the pike posted. It is in the podcast, the first five minutes of the meeting.

Last night, I sent this email to the entire commission:

Commissioners, 

I just approved this comment from Dave Franklin (Lebo Fields): "I recently received a copy of a proposal being circulated by one of
our commissioners about a comprehensive Rec proposal. It covers every
major Rec asset from the tennis courts to the golf course to the pool
to the ice rink to new fields. It touches everything and at a
significant price. I fully support a large portion of this proposal,
but I'm worried that when she presents it you're all going to
Commisionet Fraasch her to move. Really?" My opinion of this Commission is now at an all time low. I am guessing
that Mr. Brumfield is the commissioner who is circulating a proposal.
Dave, are you responsible for keeping Jim Cannon's presentation off of
the municipal website? Elaine Gillen

This morning, I was greeted with this response from Dave Brumfield.

Ms. Gillen,
After having been at work all day, then coaching, attending a board meeting and finally getting home I saw this email.  It is readily apparent that you have no regard for facts when it comes to your blog, email and citizen's comments allegations.  In the last week you have accused me of preventing Mr. Cannon from getting his fair time.  But if you had asked me or Matt Kluck you would know that I had already agreed with Matt that if Mr. Cannon's presentation could fit in regular discussion we would otherwise it would be done after our regular meeting.   Since we had a full agenda from Gateway we were trying to squeeze it in but did not want to take away from Gateway's alotted time so we entered the presentation with 5 minutes as a place holder.
Next you accuse me of circulating Kelly's rec proposal to Dave Franklin.  I would have thought that in one of your conversations with Kelly you would have asked how long Kelly has been circulating her plan to key members of the public to drum up support.  The fact is I have not even had time to open the attachment with the proposal since Kelly sent it to me Monday night.
Then you think I am keeping Mr. Cannon's presentation off the website.  It was actually staff's opinion that it should be kept off.  When asked I told staff that as long as there were no copyright concerns, as some of Mr. Cannon's material was previously published, to put it up.
I would hope that this situation serves as a cautionary tale to keep you from using accusations and insults as your first line of inquiry.  I have replied only to you Kelly and Matt so that you can see I am not trying to embarrass you.  But so that you also know that I am serious about how easily you could have confirmed any of this.  I realize that this may be a somewhat terse email but at this time of night after all of this it is the best I could do.
Dave

First of all, I am not embarrassed by any of this.  It is public information, so I am sharing it with my readers as well as any commissioner who happens to read my blog. One reason why I am posting this is to show that Staff is running the store in Mt. Lebanon, not the commissioners. I would be embarrassed of that, Dave. Second, you never responded to my email about doing the right thing. As it turns out, you did the right thing and permitted the Matt Kluck turf information presentation to be given in the second part of the Discussion Session. By not responding to my email, I would be embarrassed, Dave. Third, I was respectful during my comments at Monday's meeting. Listen to the podcast. To say that I was using accusations and insults should be embarrassing for you, Dave. Fourth, your constant interruptions during Mr. Cannon's PowerPoint was embarrassing.  For you. It showed your true colors. And finally, to say that I have no regard for facts, is humorous, to say the least. I have promoted Lebo Fields, the blog by the other Field Boy, Dave Franklin, several times on my blog. I presented both forms of the YSA proposal and even had a poll which has not been removed to see what kind of support you had in the community with your plan. You can't say that I have kept anything from the public. I also discovered that to find the YSA proposal on the municipal website, one must use the muni website search widget using the keyword, "YSA."  

As of 11:43 AM, the turf information presentation is still not on the municipal website, a website that is funded by you and me. My website and blog, funded by me, shows both sides. So who should be embarrassed, Dave? 

Elaine Gillen 

What? Not everyone wants artificial turf?

I almost missed this.  Thanks to the reader who alerted me to this article in the Almanac. ML residents oppose turfing fields (Saved in Google Docs) I was at the meeting when Ann Stanton passed out photographs of the horrendous traffic congestion on Cedar Blvd. I am willing to post those photos, Ann. Not only do people park illegally on Cedar Blvd. and Cedar Lane, but kids are dropped off on Cedar and run across the street. It is an accident waiting to happen. So let's "add more slots" by adding artificial turf which, in turn, will increase traffic congestion and create more parking issues. Since the artificial turf will permit more games played after rain storms, where will the cars park when Cedar is flooded?

Monday's meetings should be interesting.  Maybe YSA will present their check during the commission meeting public comments, so that they may clear their name of past debts.  Only then should they pick apart Matt Kluck's turf information which will be given during the discussion session.

Latest LeboALERT and Poor Field Conditions UPDATED

This is an important notice from LeboALERT.

 Due to inclement weather & poor field conditions, Lil Sluggers is cancelled today (7/20).


If we had artificial turf, we still wouldn't have Lil Sluggers due to the heavy rain and thunderstorms.


Over on Lebo Fields, Dave Franklin put up a video from Penn State in his latest post, The Facts About Injuries and Turf.  Dave provides an excellent link to Penn State's studies. I found the following information.  http://plantscience.psu.edu/research/centers/ssrc/news/2011/from-the-field-december-2010

So what do these studies tell us? Based on the results of the available research, the notion that athletes are at a greater risk of suffering injury when playing on synthetic turf is not valid, if they are playing on infilled synthetic turf. It is important to look at these studies collectively, as a whole, and not cherry pick the data from one part of one study. The fact of the matter is that while these studies are the best way to track injuries occurring on various surfaces, all research suffers from inherent limitations. For example, it is sometimes difficult to determine whether the surface contributed to an injury. Additionally, lumping all natural grass fields into one category is problematic, as the condition of grass fields can greatly vary. Surely, a hard, compacted field with little turf cover has a greater potential to cause an injury than a finely manicured field. This is true for infilled synthetic turf as well. The age, type, and maintenance of the surface can affect the playing quality. Nevertheless, when looked at collectively, the take away message from the available research is that the rate of injury on natural grass and infilled synthetic turf is comparable. 

OK, so artificial turf adds zero slots to playing time during thunderstorms. Injury rate is comparable to both natural grass and infilled synthetic turf. What about costs?  Surely artificial turf is cheaper according to the YSA. Well, according to the same Penn State link, their studies say no.  Resources

The general conclusions listed under Natural turf or synthetic turf: The numbers game:

• Synthetic infill systems can handle up to six times more traffic than natural turf fields in high-use situations
• Synthetic infill systems are less expensive to construct and maintain than sand-based fields; but they are much more expensive than soil-based fields.
• An existing sand-based field will be less expensive to maintain over a period of 10 years, than constructing and maintaining a new synthetic field that will need to be replaced at the end of that period.
• Existing soil-based fields are the least expensive of all to establish and maintain.

This and the lack of documentation from the School District showing YSA's payments make me question why the Municipality considered the YSA worthy of linking their proposal.  I see that it has since been removed.

Update: Friday, July 20, 2012 3:09 PM An important seminar for the YSA:

	501(c)(3) Status: Keeping it Legal with the IRS
	This full day workshop hosted by the Bayer Center for Nonprofit Management and presented by IRS Exempt Organizations specialists, explains what 501(c)(3) organizations must do to keep their tax-exempt status. Topics covered will include: Tax-exempt status Unrelated business income Employement issues Form 990 series Required disclosures Fee is $50 and includes lunch. This session will take place at the Robert Morris University Holiday Inn at 8256 University Blvd. Moon Township, PA 15108 on Tuesday, September 11 from 8:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.For more information go to www.stayexempt.org. Pre-registration is required. Register online or by calling Shelby Gracey at 412-397-6000.

Josephine Reflects on the State Budget

Over on Center Court blog, Josephine Posti writes:

An editorial that ran in the Post-Gazette on Tuesday that describes the frustrating closed-door state budget process that included "deals" ranging from new teacher evaluations to a Marcellus Shale drilling ban in Bucks and Montgomery Counties. 

The governor's plan links public school teacher performance reviews to student achievement. Is that a bad thing? Is she disappointed that public schools must be accountable?

I don't understand her drilling ban comment. Drillers are PA American Water's largest customers. If she starts railing against drilling, she'll be unemployed quickly.

Josephine continues.

In regards to the teacher evaluation language that was approved, this new evaluation process does not apply to charter schools, further expanding the gap between the accountability and transparency public schools must adhere to while using tax dollars to fund schools without financial or academic oversight by local elected officials or taxpayers.

Oops, there it is. Accountability and transparency that public schools must adhere to. Accountability and transparency. As opposed to the closed-door meetings Posti lobbied for with the commissioners, the stealthy accounting practices with the YSA, and the "let's make sure we don't have a quorum Steinhauer Panera coffee klatches which were revealed in a Right To Know about the feasibility study. The same woman who tells her constituents to file Right To Know requests and when we do, they require 30 day extensions for legal reviews?  I have to check my records to see how much longer I have to wait for my two outstanding RTK requests concerning YSA payments.

Speaking of the feasibility study, how much longer do we have to wait for the Feasibility Study results? Will everything be revealed during the single School Board meeting being held in July. The School Board will hold a combined discussion/regular voting meeting on July 16, 2012 at 7:30 p.m. in the Jefferson Middle School Library. This is a first. Last year, there were two meetings in July. I am anxious to hear about the feasibility study. I understand that one of PK's clients, Washington National Cathedral has this want ad. http://www.nationalcathedral.org/jobs/JOB-5MQTL-76001E.shtml Didn't it work out with Pursuant Ketchum? Everything is written in past tense. http://www.pursuant.com/?s=Washington++national+cathedral As of March, they had only raised $2 million of the $20 million they needed to fix the earthquake damage. http://www.pcusa.org/news/2012/3/13/repairs-funds-are-slow-going-quake-damaged-nationa/ Did this group take over? http://www.oai-usa.com/our-clients/community Sure wish we had that $41,000 plus travel expenses. On that same note, I saw this article in Pittsburgh Business Times where the State disagrees with Cal U over their $6 million fund which was used for things like a feasibility study.  http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/blog/morning-edition/2012/07/state-of-pennsylvania-and-cal-u.html?ana=RSS&s=article_search

Someone sent me this link. Everything You Need to Know About Public School Spending in Less Than 2 1/2 Minutes I hope our school board directors take the time to view the video. Here is a screen capture from the video. Consider it a preview of coming attractions.