I received the following letter this morning and was given permission to post it, but without attribution. It's a rather detailed letter and what I was able to check out does come back as accurate, so let's take a look and see what you think.
The actual motion that they read last night when voting on the defeasement of the bond stated that they have a professional estimate and a clear understanding of what needs to be done with the facilities and that they are therefore making an informed decision in how much money they are defeasing. The law won't allow them to defease blindly (which is what they are doing). This language was actually in their motion. Voting yes was, in my opinion, fraudulent. This has not been done, and the administrators are even saying so (see yesterday's paper).
Paragraph 3 of their motion tonight read:
“the school district has received realistic cost estimates from qualified engineers, architects or other persons qualified by experience as to the amounts necessary to satisfy the costs to be incurred with respect to the revised capital project, the total estimated cost of which is in excess of the amount of the remaining proceeds of the bonds”
As anyone with a brain can see, they have not done this. There is not even a 'revised project' to speak of. They have no idea what they are doing. They are still 'exploring all options'. Without question, since they went ahead defeased the bonds last night we can proceed with the following:
I have a copy of the school code. Below is section 318. It applies if a board member refuses or neglects to perform any duty imposed upon it by the provisions of this act relating to school districts (the act being the PA School Code).
"Any 10 resident taxpayers in the district may present a petition in writing, verified by oath or affirmation of at least 3 such resident taxpayers, to the court of common pleas of the county in which such district, setting forth the facts of such refusal or neglect of duty on the part of such school directors.............(too much to type).......the court shall have the power to remove the board, or such of its number as in its opinion is proper, and appoint for the unexpired terms other qualified persons in their stead."
Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.
Their actions last night, in my opinion, constitute gross malfeasance of duty. We have documentation out the kazoo of the facility problems (I know of a previous Board member who has kept EVERYTHING documenting our facilities problems), with engineers and architects that would gladly testify to such in court. They have no idea how many schools they will have to maintain/renovate and they have a limited idea as to what one option may cost. They won't tell us what that option is, in fact, their president did this without Board approval, another action that can and should be challenged in court. Their administration has already told them they are being irresponsible. There is also something called gross malfeasance of duty for which a Board member can actually be sued personally as well, so if it costs the district money to borrow the additional money they will certainly be needed, it may only have to come from the people who voted yes last night, not the entire town.
There are many other Acts that Board members are required to comply with, such as 22 Pa Code (link is below), which indicates items such as :
(10) Professional educators shall exert reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions which interfere with learning or are harmful to the student’s health and safety.
More importantly, there are requirements in the school code for Boards to fully inform the public of their proposed facility plans before moving forward with any financial steps in regards to them. They absolutely have NOT done this. Some Board members don't even know what their 'tentative' plans are at this point, and the public has in no way had the oportunity to speak their opinions about it. This Board doesn't stand a chance in court, which is probably why the solicitor was sweating bullets and stammering for words in regards to their actions.
In regards Board members obligations to provide good facilities, please read the below school code information (I.e. they are bound to comply with this by law).
§7-701. Duty to provide; conditions.
The board of school directors of each district shall provide the necessary grounds and suitable school buildings to accommodate all the children between the ages of six and twenty-one years, in said district, who attend school. Such buildings shall be constructed, furnished, equipped, and maintained in a proper manner as herein provided. Suitable provisions shall be made for the heating (including the purchase of fuel), ventilating, adequate lighting, and sanitary conditions thereof, and for a safe supply of water, so that every pupil in any such building may have proper and healthful accommodations.
I can't find the complete school code on-line, but this site
http://members.aol.com/StatutesP5/24A.html
Has much of it if you wish to browse. I'm sure previous Board members may have copies available to those who wish to see it, also you can go to the school district and see it there as well.
Additionally, I would like to ask any parent who has a child in our district, whose child is harmed in any way as a result of our poor district facilities, or has contracted an illness that they believe is a result of our facilities to come forward. There is substantial documentation in regards to the poor conditions of our facilities (has anyone tried to breath in MR Reiter lately), that parents have many courses of action that they can take against this Board (both professionally as Board members and personally) who is blatantly ignoring the welfare of their children. Again, previous Board members have documentation to help any such parents with their various courses of action to protect their children.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I did not attend the meeting last night, but isn't this shady $2,500 walkthrough evaluation enough to make the wording of the motion valid? The fact that the walkthrough happened without board approval might be something to fight over, but they may have covered their respective behinds as far as the motion language goes. Not being at the meeting.... I might not be understanding this fully.
What does Tom Kelly say?
It's not enough because there is no board approved plan. Nobody even knows what the plan is, including the board. Will we farm out the kids and only be k-8? Will we remain k-12? Will we keep all 3 buildings? Until we have those answers there can be no plan. When there is a plan it must be board approved, and it must first have public comment.
I spent the last four years serving as the president of the board. In my opinion, what is happening, and how it is happening goes against everything I learned. My opinion is that if this was challenged in court Hellmann's house of cards would fall rather quickly. If left unchallenged, he will likely continue to do it.
I absolutely concur with Sandy. As an 8 year board member (6 as president) the actions of this board and especially its president are unconscionable.
The "walk-through" and plan only pertain to the High School systems. The bond, I believe, was to address all systems in all schools, which means they do NOT have "a clear understanding of what needs to be done with the facilities and that they are therefore making an informed decision", because only one facility is being considered.
The "watchdogs" of the Save The School group need to take action. These types of illegal activities would never have been overlooked by Steve Worob on Ed Nelson's watch, Paul Nestor's watch, my watch nor Sandy Gibson's watch. Worobs accusations, I believe, would have included the words "fraud", "theft" and "smoke and mirrors".
The DA, The Attorney General, the Auditor General, the Department of Education should already have been served with complaints from Morrisville citizens.
As Sandy said, this goes against everything I've learned for me also, and everything I stood for in Morrisville public education and for Morrisville.
Furthermore, the 'report' provided by these engineers specifically indicates that they didn't evaluate many, many factors that are critical components of any feasibility study. It is worthless and meaningless.
While it may be incomplete, it is important to note that just about everything they *did* look at was either called "nearing" or "at the end of useful life." Now that they have acknowledged this (at least for the H.S.) what are their legal obligations to carry through with correcting those issues?
Post a Comment