Morning Call columnist Bill White today questioned the NASD School Board regarding its January 8th Executive Session during which one member stated he believed they were in violation of the PA Sunshine Law by discussing the proposed pool (read the column here).
In his column White notes that he contacted several school officials involved in the situation and "discovered something strange. I kept hearing new, different accounts of what happened behind closed doors that night."
He also spoke with Maher and noted, "he laughed at the idea that he was confused because he came in at the middle — and it had nothing to do with litigation (this was the reason given to allow the conversation to take place in executive session)."
White closes the column summing up his take by saying, "Very mysterious. I'll tell you all about it next time."
Thanks to Bill White for giving this issue a regional voice. I for one will be very interested to read what more he has learned.
Here is the background:
The incident was first reported here in the post using the meeting notes supplied by Brad Moulton. You can read that post here. The brief exchange between Maher and Keller was noted at the very end of the report as it occurred during the second public comment period. There was no mention of the issue in the article by the MC on the meeting the next morning.
In advance of creating a specific post on this issue, I sent an email to each of the seven Board members for whom Board President Don Keller spoke for at the meeting. I received one bounced email (Audenried) and two responses (Callie and McDonald). I also received further clarification from Maher explaining why he made the comment. You can read that post here.
Following the post that included these comments, I received an email from Superintendent Vic Lesky supporting the position that the Sunshine Law was not violated. I included his email in full in a new post. You can read the NASD response here.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Friday, January 19, 2007
Turf Issue in Easton Worth Watching
Since the turf issue has been raised in Nazareth, it may be well worth our and our Boards' time to pay attention to the discussion at Easton.
There was an article today in the Express-Times (read it here) about the struggle the Easton Board is having in regard to turf and there concerns are probably very similar to those voiced by some individuals on posts on this site.
There are clearly pros and cons and it appears there is not clear cut definitive answer (as there often is not).
There was an article today in the Express-Times (read it here) about the struggle the Easton Board is having in regard to turf and there concerns are probably very similar to those voiced by some individuals on posts on this site.
There are clearly pros and cons and it appears there is not clear cut definitive answer (as there often is not).
Building Utilization Meeting
Thanks to Scott Hartner for sending his notes from the Building Utilization Meeting held on Thursday, January 18.
The Express-Times' JD Malone also reported on this (read the article here) and included enrollment figures (available here). The enrollment figures are often included at the end of each board packet as well.
The simple problem is that LNES is overcapacity and the problem is expected to double next year (from 70 over to 140 over).
From Scott's notes:
In attendance were all 3 elementary Principals, Dr. Lesky, Chris Audenried, Kenneth Butz, Thomas Maher and Linda McDonald (each of these from the Board). About 20 or so parents also attended. Very civil and informative....and productive.
They want to move kids from LNES to Shafer. The 3 areas targeted are Stockertown, Tatamy and Upper Nazareth West of the Borough and North of 248.
They will ask for volunteers from all 3 areas. (An informal poll was sent to students from Stockertown and Tatamy - 32 of 50 respondents said they'd move schools - 60%)
The students in question number 235. This is current K-4 + expected entering K's.
(As a point of interest - the functional capacities of each school will drop in a few years because they are expecting full day Kindergarten)
Grandfathering was considered - If you have a kid in LNES, you don't have to move them. If you have a 1st grader in LNES and a kid entering K in the fall, they would both be in LNES in the fall and could bot finish out thourgh LNES. If you have a kid in 5th grade at LNES and one starting in the fall, the new kid would go to Shafer.
The area north of 191 and east of the borough is a fall back plan if Shafer gets overcrowded. This area would then go to Bushkill probably under the same grandfathering rules. (185 kids affected in that area now).
There will be exceptions (house moves within the district etc.).
Dr. Lesky expects the majority of the help will come from new students to the district and less of an extent from the voluntary moves. Also, he said that he expects the modulars to stay next year at LNES. Hopefully after that, the burden will lessen.
One item not included in either Scott's notes or Malone's column is the anticipated cost increase of busing students from the same area to two different schools. If 140 students were moved it would probably require 3 buses based on full capacity of 72 and knowing most are probably closer to mid 50s. And by bringing this up I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, only that it is a part of the information needed especially in light of the current budget situation.
Thanks again to Scott for forwarding his notes and to everyone who attended this meeting.
The Express-Times' JD Malone also reported on this (read the article here) and included enrollment figures (available here). The enrollment figures are often included at the end of each board packet as well.
The simple problem is that LNES is overcapacity and the problem is expected to double next year (from 70 over to 140 over).
From Scott's notes:
In attendance were all 3 elementary Principals, Dr. Lesky, Chris Audenried, Kenneth Butz, Thomas Maher and Linda McDonald (each of these from the Board). About 20 or so parents also attended. Very civil and informative....and productive.
They want to move kids from LNES to Shafer. The 3 areas targeted are Stockertown, Tatamy and Upper Nazareth West of the Borough and North of 248.
They will ask for volunteers from all 3 areas. (An informal poll was sent to students from Stockertown and Tatamy - 32 of 50 respondents said they'd move schools - 60%)
The students in question number 235. This is current K-4 + expected entering K's.
(As a point of interest - the functional capacities of each school will drop in a few years because they are expecting full day Kindergarten)
Grandfathering was considered - If you have a kid in LNES, you don't have to move them. If you have a 1st grader in LNES and a kid entering K in the fall, they would both be in LNES in the fall and could bot finish out thourgh LNES. If you have a kid in 5th grade at LNES and one starting in the fall, the new kid would go to Shafer.
The area north of 191 and east of the borough is a fall back plan if Shafer gets overcrowded. This area would then go to Bushkill probably under the same grandfathering rules. (185 kids affected in that area now).
There will be exceptions (house moves within the district etc.).
Dr. Lesky expects the majority of the help will come from new students to the district and less of an extent from the voluntary moves. Also, he said that he expects the modulars to stay next year at LNES. Hopefully after that, the burden will lessen.
One item not included in either Scott's notes or Malone's column is the anticipated cost increase of busing students from the same area to two different schools. If 140 students were moved it would probably require 3 buses based on full capacity of 72 and knowing most are probably closer to mid 50s. And by bringing this up I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, only that it is a part of the information needed especially in light of the current budget situation.
Thanks again to Scott for forwarding his notes and to everyone who attended this meeting.
School Alert System
Wanted to note that this morning when I checked my email there was an alert from the NASD regarding the school delay.
This is a very simple and effective tool and is the first one I received - good job to the NASD for providing this service.
This is a very simple and effective tool and is the first one I received - good job to the NASD for providing this service.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
NASD Responds to Sunshine Law Post
On Wednesday, I received an email (copied in its entirety below) from NASD Superintendent Vic Lesky, Ed.D. While I had contacted the seven board members, I had not contacted the Superintendent or Solicitor prior to writing the previous post (read it here) on the potential Sunshine Law Violation raised by School Director Tom Maher.
While I did question what could have been discussed regarding the pool that was covered by the sunshine law, it was a board member who raised the question of violating it, not me.
Dr. Lesky's response is predicated on counsel's interpretation of the sunshine law. In fair disclosure, I've known and been friends with the solicitor and his family for as long as I can remember. Having said that, what we learned this summer with Borough Council is that the accuracy of the interpretation, in the end, can only be decided by a court. By this, I'm not saying that it is right or wrong (I'm not an attorney and don't plan on arguing any of them in court any time soon), only that it is right until proven (if that is the case) wrong in court.
Putting the solicitor's approval aside, I was also interested by the statement regarding 'contractual obligations' the Board would face 'concerning the construction of a pool as an alternate in the Middle School project'.
This says to me that we have contracts in place that would be affected by the construction of a pool of our own. Again, I'm no attorney, so maybe someone has another interpretation of this, that makes more sense, but the only thing I can imagine is Nazareth's contract for the swim team. If this would extend into the time when the new pool, if it were constructed, were opened, the NASD may be contractually bound to pay out the balance of the contract without ever using the alternate facility.
This amount would seem to be insignificant in the scope of the pool itself and it doesn't seem consistent with Mr. Maher's statement that, "alternatives for handling the pool decision were being proposed."
Having said that, here is the email I received:
Ross
Mr. Moritz was in attendance and approved the information I gave to the Board concerning the contractual obligations they would be facing concerning the construction of a pool as an alternate in the Middle School project. There was no questions asked, discussions held, or decisions made concerning the pool. The Board listened to community input during the Act 34 hearing and any discussion regarding the pool will take place at the regularly scheduled public board meetings. This Board has been very diligent in its observing sunshine regulations. For the public to have an impression that this Board diregards the sunshiine laws would definitely be unfair to them as individuals or as a Board.
Thanks for your concern
Vic Lesky
Victor D. Lesky, Ed.D.
Superintendent of Schools
Nazareth Area School District
While I did question what could have been discussed regarding the pool that was covered by the sunshine law, it was a board member who raised the question of violating it, not me.
Dr. Lesky's response is predicated on counsel's interpretation of the sunshine law. In fair disclosure, I've known and been friends with the solicitor and his family for as long as I can remember. Having said that, what we learned this summer with Borough Council is that the accuracy of the interpretation, in the end, can only be decided by a court. By this, I'm not saying that it is right or wrong (I'm not an attorney and don't plan on arguing any of them in court any time soon), only that it is right until proven (if that is the case) wrong in court.
Putting the solicitor's approval aside, I was also interested by the statement regarding 'contractual obligations' the Board would face 'concerning the construction of a pool as an alternate in the Middle School project'.
This says to me that we have contracts in place that would be affected by the construction of a pool of our own. Again, I'm no attorney, so maybe someone has another interpretation of this, that makes more sense, but the only thing I can imagine is Nazareth's contract for the swim team. If this would extend into the time when the new pool, if it were constructed, were opened, the NASD may be contractually bound to pay out the balance of the contract without ever using the alternate facility.
This amount would seem to be insignificant in the scope of the pool itself and it doesn't seem consistent with Mr. Maher's statement that, "alternatives for handling the pool decision were being proposed."
Having said that, here is the email I received:
Ross
Mr. Moritz was in attendance and approved the information I gave to the Board concerning the contractual obligations they would be facing concerning the construction of a pool as an alternate in the Middle School project. There was no questions asked, discussions held, or decisions made concerning the pool. The Board listened to community input during the Act 34 hearing and any discussion regarding the pool will take place at the regularly scheduled public board meetings. This Board has been very diligent in its observing sunshine regulations. For the public to have an impression that this Board diregards the sunshiine laws would definitely be unfair to them as individuals or as a Board.
Thanks for your concern
Vic Lesky
Victor D. Lesky, Ed.D.
Superintendent of Schools
Nazareth Area School District
Back to Basics
I want to begin by thanking everyone who has read, posted, and told their friends about NewsOverCoffee.
In December over 5,500 unique visits were made and during that month over half the people returned to the site more than seven times.
In January, especially following Bill White's nice column and comments, I noticed the daily readership increased from about 150 that was averaged in December to about 200. Now this week the numbers keep climbing with over 300 visiting yesterday.
There has also been a lot of conversation this week by way of posted comments. The post on the Calandras Land as of this morning had 68 comments. In the first four months of the site there were a total of 57 and not once previously can I recall more than 30 for a single post even with the potential teachers strike and the proposed building at Hall Park.
Clearly the audience has grown. I also believe that the nature of the site has made individuals more comfortable in posting and clearly the topic noted above hit a nerve with many people.
For those who have not been visiting the site regularly or who have visited for the first time recently, I want to take a moment to reiterate why this site is here.
The concept is to connect community residents to share information with one another to encourage an even better community.
The internet is a great tool that can connect us with individuals around the world, but for people in most communities you can't find out what happened at the most local meetings. The very ones that most impact your life.
The information is out there. It simply isn't shared efficiently. NewsOverCoffee is here to help people share that information with one another.
To that end, I want people to feel comfortable visiting and making comments. They won't feel comfortable if they see people making personal attacks on individuals because of their opinion. They also won't want to read if the posts are filled with condescending remarks and broad generalizations about the ignorance of the readers.
None of this is wanted, nor is it of any value.
I also want to point out that the very reason I started the site was because I knew very few people attend regular Council or Board meetings and even fewer the committee meetings of these bodies. No one person can be everywhere and keep in touch with every government body, meeting, group, and association. Sharing that information is the key.
We each make personal decisions in regard to what we do with our "free" time. This doesn't mean we don't care about the meetings we don't go to, it only means we've had to make a choice.
Having this site as a way to tell one another about the meetings, events, and activities informs other members of the community. It may make people aware of things they wouldn't have known and it may connect people with the right skills or background with the group that needs their help in solving a problem or meeting a need.
There is no reason to be critical of people for not attending meetings on a regular basis. What we need is to have enough people attend each meeting and share what they learn so that we will all be aware of what is happening and won't find out after the fact.
Anyone who has read my posts like this one over the past nine months knows this is nothing new. Forums that do nothing but stereotype, generalize, and flame simply don't work. I don't want this site to go in that direction and I don't believe most people would either.
There are a lot of good people in this community, whose opinions you may agree or disagree with and whom you may personally like or dislike. Argue their opinions with facts or supporting information and leave your dislike out of the comments. Of course you are always welcome to pat someone on the back and commend them for their efforts.
It is fundamentally harder to build something up than it is to tear it down. If you are going to post comments, please keep these thoughts in mind. You don't have to lay off issues or be afraid to disagree, just do it the right way - constructively.
Thanks. Have a great rest of the week and a wonderful New Year!
In December over 5,500 unique visits were made and during that month over half the people returned to the site more than seven times.
In January, especially following Bill White's nice column and comments, I noticed the daily readership increased from about 150 that was averaged in December to about 200. Now this week the numbers keep climbing with over 300 visiting yesterday.
There has also been a lot of conversation this week by way of posted comments. The post on the Calandras Land as of this morning had 68 comments. In the first four months of the site there were a total of 57 and not once previously can I recall more than 30 for a single post even with the potential teachers strike and the proposed building at Hall Park.
Clearly the audience has grown. I also believe that the nature of the site has made individuals more comfortable in posting and clearly the topic noted above hit a nerve with many people.
For those who have not been visiting the site regularly or who have visited for the first time recently, I want to take a moment to reiterate why this site is here.
The concept is to connect community residents to share information with one another to encourage an even better community.
The internet is a great tool that can connect us with individuals around the world, but for people in most communities you can't find out what happened at the most local meetings. The very ones that most impact your life.
The information is out there. It simply isn't shared efficiently. NewsOverCoffee is here to help people share that information with one another.
To that end, I want people to feel comfortable visiting and making comments. They won't feel comfortable if they see people making personal attacks on individuals because of their opinion. They also won't want to read if the posts are filled with condescending remarks and broad generalizations about the ignorance of the readers.
None of this is wanted, nor is it of any value.
I also want to point out that the very reason I started the site was because I knew very few people attend regular Council or Board meetings and even fewer the committee meetings of these bodies. No one person can be everywhere and keep in touch with every government body, meeting, group, and association. Sharing that information is the key.
We each make personal decisions in regard to what we do with our "free" time. This doesn't mean we don't care about the meetings we don't go to, it only means we've had to make a choice.
Having this site as a way to tell one another about the meetings, events, and activities informs other members of the community. It may make people aware of things they wouldn't have known and it may connect people with the right skills or background with the group that needs their help in solving a problem or meeting a need.
There is no reason to be critical of people for not attending meetings on a regular basis. What we need is to have enough people attend each meeting and share what they learn so that we will all be aware of what is happening and won't find out after the fact.
Anyone who has read my posts like this one over the past nine months knows this is nothing new. Forums that do nothing but stereotype, generalize, and flame simply don't work. I don't want this site to go in that direction and I don't believe most people would either.
There are a lot of good people in this community, whose opinions you may agree or disagree with and whom you may personally like or dislike. Argue their opinions with facts or supporting information and leave your dislike out of the comments. Of course you are always welcome to pat someone on the back and commend them for their efforts.
It is fundamentally harder to build something up than it is to tear it down. If you are going to post comments, please keep these thoughts in mind. You don't have to lay off issues or be afraid to disagree, just do it the right way - constructively.
Thanks. Have a great rest of the week and a wonderful New Year!
Burglary Update
The Tuesday Morning Call again referenced the string of burglaries in Nazareth/Upper Nazareth (read it here) another good sign that better communication is taking place in this area.
In the article it is noted that in each instance "cash was removed from the purses, which were then left either outside the house or in a neighbor's yard."
It also states that "police are investigating the following break-ins: two in the 200 block of Forest Drive, one on Heckmen Street, one in the 200 block of Lincoln Avenue and two on Springbrook Terrace." And that "There also was an attempted burglary in the first block of Ziegler Avenue."
In the article it is noted that in each instance "cash was removed from the purses, which were then left either outside the house or in a neighbor's yard."
It also states that "police are investigating the following break-ins: two in the 200 block of Forest Drive, one on Heckmen Street, one in the 200 block of Lincoln Avenue and two on Springbrook Terrace." And that "There also was an attempted burglary in the first block of Ziegler Avenue."
Time Out for Mom
JD Malone had a nice article in the Express-Times (read it here) about Time Out for Mom, a group of woman who meet at Holy Family's Wortmann Center for coffee and conversation.
The mothers meet on Wednesdays and child care is available for younger non-school aged children.
Throughout the year the group not only has informal discussions, but also topical speakers and they've done a good amount of volunteer work and fundraising for non-profit causes.
All in all not a bad way to spend a Wednesday morning.
The mothers meet on Wednesdays and child care is available for younger non-school aged children.
Throughout the year the group not only has informal discussions, but also topical speakers and they've done a good amount of volunteer work and fundraising for non-profit causes.
All in all not a bad way to spend a Wednesday morning.
Bushkill Appoints Mandes to Municipal Authority
For the first time Bushkill Township will be represented on the Nazareth Borough Municipal Authority according to an article in the Morning Call (read it here).
The township appointed former authority manager Pat Mandes to represent the interests of those Bushkill residents serviced by the authority. The authority primarily services Nazareth Borough and Upper Nazareth Township with some small areas of Lower Nazareth and Bushkill.
Also in the report from the Township meeting, five part time police officers are being sought.
The township appointed former authority manager Pat Mandes to represent the interests of those Bushkill residents serviced by the authority. The authority primarily services Nazareth Borough and Upper Nazareth Township with some small areas of Lower Nazareth and Bushkill.
Also in the report from the Township meeting, five part time police officers are being sought.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Election Information
There are many more well-versed on this subject than I am, but there have been a few requests for information regarding this year's local elections.
Northampton County Voter Registration office (610-559-3055) can answer most if not all of your questions. Unfortunately, the web site is not up to date on 2007 election dates and filing deadlines. It can help you determine where you vote and in which district/ward you live.
I've contacted the office via email to request 2007 information and will post here as soon as I have it available. I've also requested the schedule including filing deadlines and election dates as well as a list of offices up for election in NASD and each township and borough in the district.
Three cheers for the League of Women Voters who do have the schedule available (read it here in PDF format).
The critical primary dates are as follows:
There is also a comprehensive list of all municipal officials for Northampton County (available here) and a list of all School Districts (available here). There are four school directors and six Nazareth Borough Council members up for election this year.
According to the League of Women Voters:
NAZARETH AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT
(Boroughs of Nazareth, Stockertown, Tatamy; Townships of Bushkill, Upper Nazareth, Lower Nazareth)
Administration Building, 1 Education Plaza, Nazareth, PA 18064
Phone: 610-759-1170; Fax: 610-759-9637; Web: www.nazarethasd.org
School Board (4-year term):
Meetings: 3rd and 4th Monday, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, North Campus, Senior High School.*
BOROUGH OF NAZARETH
Borough Hall, 30 Belvidere St., Nazareth, PA 18064
Phone: 610-759-0202; Fax: 610-759-9622; e-mail: nazboro@rcn.com
Mayor: ($5,000) Earl Keller (D) 2009
Borough Council(4-year term) (President receives $3,000 all others $2,500):
(Sorry this list did not provide which ward each represented).
Northampton County Voter Registration office (610-559-3055) can answer most if not all of your questions. Unfortunately, the web site is not up to date on 2007 election dates and filing deadlines. It can help you determine where you vote and in which district/ward you live.
I've contacted the office via email to request 2007 information and will post here as soon as I have it available. I've also requested the schedule including filing deadlines and election dates as well as a list of offices up for election in NASD and each township and borough in the district.
Three cheers for the League of Women Voters who do have the schedule available (read it here in PDF format).
The critical primary dates are as follows:
- First day to circulate and file nominations petitions................................. February 13
- Last day to circulate and file nomination petitions ………………………......March 6
- First day to circulate and file nomination papers ………………………….... March 7
- Day for casting lots for positions of candidates on the primary ballot....March 14
- Last day for withdrawal by candidates who filed nomination petitions March 21
- Last day to REGISTER before the primary ………………………………..... April 16
- MUNICIPAL PRIMARY ………………………………………………................. May 15
There is also a comprehensive list of all municipal officials for Northampton County (available here) and a list of all School Districts (available here). There are four school directors and six Nazareth Borough Council members up for election this year.
According to the League of Women Voters:
NAZARETH AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT
(Boroughs of Nazareth, Stockertown, Tatamy; Townships of Bushkill, Upper Nazareth, Lower Nazareth)
Administration Building, 1 Education Plaza, Nazareth, PA 18064
Phone: 610-759-1170; Fax: 610-759-9637; Web: www.nazarethasd.org
School Board (4-year term):
- President: Donald Keller (Region III) 2007
- Vice President: Kenneth Butz (Region I) 2007
- Treasurer: James S. Pennington (non-voting, appointed)
- Region I: Angela M. Callie, 2007
- Region I: Dr. John Marino, 2009
- Region II: David L. Hensley, 2009
- Region II: Thomas K. Maher, 2007
- Region II: Linda McDonald, 2009
- Region III: Chris Audenreid, 2009
- Region III: Maurice C. Heller, 2009
Meetings: 3rd and 4th Monday, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, North Campus, Senior High School.*
BOROUGH OF NAZARETH
Borough Hall, 30 Belvidere St., Nazareth, PA 18064
Phone: 610-759-0202; Fax: 610-759-9622; e-mail: nazboro@rcn.com
Mayor: ($5,000) Earl Keller (D) 2009
Borough Council(4-year term) (President receives $3,000 all others $2,500):
- President Daniel Chiavaroli (D) 2007
- Vice President: Larry Stout (R) 2007
- Conrad Bowers (D) 2007
- Michael Davis (vacated his seat, Fred Daugherty appt.) 2007
- Jack Herbst (D) 2009
- Michael Kopach (D) 2007
- William Matz (R) 2009
- John Samus (D) 2007
- Cynthia Werner (R) 2009
(Sorry this list did not provide which ward each represented).
Gifted Education Meeting
There will be a meeting for parents of students in the Gifted Education Program on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. in the NASD Board Room.
These meetings are the result of last year's Gifted Education Task Force that had recommended increased communication with parents regarding the program as well as resources for the students.
These meetings are the result of last year's Gifted Education Task Force that had recommended increased communication with parents regarding the program as well as resources for the students.
A Friendly Site Reminder
The post regarding the NASD's possible desire to use eminent domain to acquire 2/3 of the Calandra's property against their wishes upset quite a few people (myself included).
The post drew many comments (over 40 as of this morning) and many were not consistent with what is typically posted on this site. As a result this morning I made a comment on the post and am repeating it below.
This site has been a great resource because of the contributions of many people - please help me keep it that way by staying focused on facts, information, and supported opinion, not by name-calling and nit picking. Thanks! Ross
New day, big breathe, count to 10 (maybe 100), and could we all please stop nit-picking one another and name calling.
Let's put the focus back on the fact that the NASD itself claimed to have reviewed 50 properties with 20+ acres each and chose the one that would provide them with a campus where they could build a building that would house two grades.
The building would have a capacity of up to 1340 students for two grades, thereby allowing each grade to have up to 670 students at a time when the largest current class in the district is 429 (9th grade) followed by 414 (7th). Entire enrollment growth k-12 has been roughly 100 students per year or less than 8 per grade.
They have chosen to create an additional transition year, increase traffic in the Tatamy Rd, East Lawn, Friedenstahl area, and increase logistics problems for parents.
They have further chosen a building that requires redundant facilities and have opted to create new athletic fields surrounding the building. The building also has higher annual operating costs than an elementary building would.
Finally, in order to make this plan work they need to raise taxes, borrow $50 million that won't be paid off for 30 years and they will need to take 2/3 of a family's property against their will.
No name calling necessary - and I should point out there is more than one person responsible for all this. It is a collective body of the school board and administration.
I'd encourage everyone who disagrees with this plan to send email and attend the next School Board Meeting.
The post drew many comments (over 40 as of this morning) and many were not consistent with what is typically posted on this site. As a result this morning I made a comment on the post and am repeating it below.
This site has been a great resource because of the contributions of many people - please help me keep it that way by staying focused on facts, information, and supported opinion, not by name-calling and nit picking. Thanks! Ross
New day, big breathe, count to 10 (maybe 100), and could we all please stop nit-picking one another and name calling.
Let's put the focus back on the fact that the NASD itself claimed to have reviewed 50 properties with 20+ acres each and chose the one that would provide them with a campus where they could build a building that would house two grades.
The building would have a capacity of up to 1340 students for two grades, thereby allowing each grade to have up to 670 students at a time when the largest current class in the district is 429 (9th grade) followed by 414 (7th). Entire enrollment growth k-12 has been roughly 100 students per year or less than 8 per grade.
They have chosen to create an additional transition year, increase traffic in the Tatamy Rd, East Lawn, Friedenstahl area, and increase logistics problems for parents.
They have further chosen a building that requires redundant facilities and have opted to create new athletic fields surrounding the building. The building also has higher annual operating costs than an elementary building would.
Finally, in order to make this plan work they need to raise taxes, borrow $50 million that won't be paid off for 30 years and they will need to take 2/3 of a family's property against their will.
No name calling necessary - and I should point out there is more than one person responsible for all this. It is a collective body of the school board and administration.
I'd encourage everyone who disagrees with this plan to send email and attend the next School Board Meeting.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
NASD Sunshine Law Violation?
Last Monday during the closing public comments, NASD Board Director Tom Maher stated publicly that he believed the Board may have violated the Sunshine Law during executive session.
It was noted that the discussion involved the pool.
Board President Don Keller stated that 8 out of 9 didn't see it that way. The meeting ended shortly thereafter.
I got to wondering about what could be covered by the Sunshine Law related to the inclusion of the swimming pool at the MS during Executive Session prior to a Board Meeting and the day before the Act 34 hearing on the building and the pool's inclusion in the plans. Typically, a rule of thumb is that legal action and personnel are covered, all else should be discussed publicly.
Wanting to give each Board Member an opportunity to state if they in fact did side with Keller, I sent them each (not including Keller his position was clear) an email this week using each individual's address from the NASD web site (Director Audenreid's was returned as undeliverable) and asked that they reply by end of day Friday so I could write this post over the weekend.
I received two responses, from Angela Callie and Linda McDonald, out of the seven. I appreciate both of them responding and wonder why the others didn't, though I wasn't entirely surprised.
In short each said had Mr. Maher arrived on time he would have understood what was being discussed and why. Both were adamant that the Sunshine Law was not violated.
This brought me back to the situation with the Borough Council this summer. Until the issue was raised and discussed no one on Council even considered there was a violation because they trusted their legal counsel who said it was not a violation. Further review and consideration did not determine it was in fact a violation (the legal suit was dropped before a judge ruled), but Council took it upon themselves to change the way they did business to be more compliant instead of what one might call minimally compliant (though I'd still contend they violated the act).
If the Board members were told why what they were discussing was not a violation of the Sunshine Law as I am led to believe by the statement that Mr. Maher arrived late and did not understand the context of the discussion, I am led to believe that at the very least the Board was on the minimally compliant side of the equation.
Board member Callie noted, "The Sunshine Law permit us to consult with an attorney or other professional advisor's regarding information or strategies in connection with issues on identifiable complaints which could be expected to be filed."
This indicates that the NASD was expecting legal action in regard to the issue of the swimming pool or they were not being compliant.
I also contacted Director Maher, who raised the issue in the first place. Regardless of whether he is right or not, I do think it is admirable that he would broach the subject when in doubt, because the only accountability is based on the individuals in the room. If no one says anything, there can't be a violation. Even if he's wrong, it is good to know that the topic of the Sunshine Law and what it entails is being discussed and considered.
Here is what Mr. Maher had to say:
"The agenda distributed to board members for Executive Session has two sections. The first is titled "For Your Information" and the other "For Discussion". The For Discussion section of the January 8th executive session agenda had as item 1. Act 34 Pool Discussion.
When I interrupted this part of the executive session, alternatives for handling the pool decision were being proposed.
My position is this discusion was neither personnel nor legal related, the only two valid reasons for an executive session under the Sunshine Law. It should have been discussed in a public meeting."
Mr. Maher's position on this would seem rather hard to argue, yet eight of our nine elected officials support holding the conversation regarding this obviously heated topic behind closed doors and in apparent violation of the Sunshine Law.
It was noted that the discussion involved the pool.
Board President Don Keller stated that 8 out of 9 didn't see it that way. The meeting ended shortly thereafter.
I got to wondering about what could be covered by the Sunshine Law related to the inclusion of the swimming pool at the MS during Executive Session prior to a Board Meeting and the day before the Act 34 hearing on the building and the pool's inclusion in the plans. Typically, a rule of thumb is that legal action and personnel are covered, all else should be discussed publicly.
Wanting to give each Board Member an opportunity to state if they in fact did side with Keller, I sent them each (not including Keller his position was clear) an email this week using each individual's address from the NASD web site (Director Audenreid's was returned as undeliverable) and asked that they reply by end of day Friday so I could write this post over the weekend.
I received two responses, from Angela Callie and Linda McDonald, out of the seven. I appreciate both of them responding and wonder why the others didn't, though I wasn't entirely surprised.
In short each said had Mr. Maher arrived on time he would have understood what was being discussed and why. Both were adamant that the Sunshine Law was not violated.
This brought me back to the situation with the Borough Council this summer. Until the issue was raised and discussed no one on Council even considered there was a violation because they trusted their legal counsel who said it was not a violation. Further review and consideration did not determine it was in fact a violation (the legal suit was dropped before a judge ruled), but Council took it upon themselves to change the way they did business to be more compliant instead of what one might call minimally compliant (though I'd still contend they violated the act).
If the Board members were told why what they were discussing was not a violation of the Sunshine Law as I am led to believe by the statement that Mr. Maher arrived late and did not understand the context of the discussion, I am led to believe that at the very least the Board was on the minimally compliant side of the equation.
Board member Callie noted, "The Sunshine Law permit us to consult with an attorney or other professional advisor's regarding information or strategies in connection with issues on identifiable complaints which could be expected to be filed."
This indicates that the NASD was expecting legal action in regard to the issue of the swimming pool or they were not being compliant.
I also contacted Director Maher, who raised the issue in the first place. Regardless of whether he is right or not, I do think it is admirable that he would broach the subject when in doubt, because the only accountability is based on the individuals in the room. If no one says anything, there can't be a violation. Even if he's wrong, it is good to know that the topic of the Sunshine Law and what it entails is being discussed and considered.
Here is what Mr. Maher had to say:
"The agenda distributed to board members for Executive Session has two sections. The first is titled "For Your Information" and the other "For Discussion". The For Discussion section of the January 8th executive session agenda had as item 1. Act 34 Pool Discussion.
When I interrupted this part of the executive session, alternatives for handling the pool decision were being proposed.
My position is this discusion was neither personnel nor legal related, the only two valid reasons for an executive session under the Sunshine Law. It should have been discussed in a public meeting."
Mr. Maher's position on this would seem rather hard to argue, yet eight of our nine elected officials support holding the conversation regarding this obviously heated topic behind closed doors and in apparent violation of the Sunshine Law.
Calandras Don't Want To Sell Land to NASD
The Morning Call reports today (read the article here) that the Calandra family does not want to sell 5.9 of its 9 acres to the NASD to serve as athletic fields at the new MS campus.
In the article it is clear that the NASD will most likely be able to have its way in the courts.
The NASD has not yet, but can use eminent domain to take the land. It would be for athletic fields and as such it would be a public use and allowable by law.
Simply because it is allowable by law does not make it right.
The NASD states in its need for the project enrollment growth and that "The school (current MS) was specifically designed for a middle school concept instructional facility but has little flexibility to enhance a middle school strategy of team and thematic instruction."
This tells me while it is specific to MS level it wasn't designed correctly ten years ago.
Further the NASD considered four options:
Obviously option 4 was selected. The NASD reviewed 50 potential sites with 20+ acres available for purchase (I guess 'available for purchase' was loosely defined). The NASD went with the one option that provided land adjacent to the HS and where they could create a "campus".
These choices by NASD have provided us with:
If there were in fact 50 sites with 20+ acres available, let's look at some other sites and while we are at it let's go back and consider some less costly and more effective options. If done right, we could spend less than what is proposed and get much more.
It is up to the NASD Board of Directors to do what is right, not what they can get away with legally.
In the article it is clear that the NASD will most likely be able to have its way in the courts.
The NASD has not yet, but can use eminent domain to take the land. It would be for athletic fields and as such it would be a public use and allowable by law.
Simply because it is allowable by law does not make it right.
The NASD states in its need for the project enrollment growth and that "The school (current MS) was specifically designed for a middle school concept instructional facility but has little flexibility to enhance a middle school strategy of team and thematic instruction."
This tells me while it is specific to MS level it wasn't designed correctly ten years ago.
Further the NASD considered four options:
- New k-5 Elementary
- Expansion of LNES and Bushkill
- New Intermediate School (IS)
- New MS and conversion of MS to IS
Obviously option 4 was selected. The NASD reviewed 50 potential sites with 20+ acres available for purchase (I guess 'available for purchase' was loosely defined). The NASD went with the one option that provided land adjacent to the HS and where they could create a "campus".
These choices by NASD have provided us with:
- We get a "campus," but, having a campus does not enhance learning nor does it create any facility efficiencies because we are replicated existing facilities at the current MS.
- There is a significant price tag.
- There will be increased transportation costs.
- There will be increased operational costs.
- There will be a significant increase in traffic in this area as a result of parent pick-up and drop off.
- There will be an additional transition year for students who will be pulled out of elementary at 4th grade to go to a centralized school.
- Parents with multiple elementary aged students will most likely have children in different buildings creating logistical challenges as well as for lack of a better word, "comfort" issues (knowing your child's principal and staff at a building through many years of interaction instead of a few).
If there were in fact 50 sites with 20+ acres available, let's look at some other sites and while we are at it let's go back and consider some less costly and more effective options. If done right, we could spend less than what is proposed and get much more.
It is up to the NASD Board of Directors to do what is right, not what they can get away with legally.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)