From the Wilkes-Barre Times-Leader.
Pa. pension funds tell lawmakers of major losses
By MARK SCOLFORO
Pennsylvania's two major public-sector pension plans on Tuesday gave state lawmakers the bracing news that together their investments lost more than $28 billion in value last year.
Officials who oversee the separate funds for state workers and public school employees also warned that a sharp increase in taxpayer subsidies looms because stock market losses will make a long-anticipated 2012 rate spike much steeper than recently projected.
The two funds' percentage losses on investments were similar. The value of State Employees' Retirement System investments dropped 28.6 percent in 2008, while Public School Employees' Retirement System investments fell 29.7 percent.
State Employees' Retirement System chairman Nicholas J. Maiale said such increases would represent a severe budgetary challenge for the state.
The State Employees' Retirement System, which benefits mostly state workers, valued its investments at $24 billion as of Dec. 31, a drop of $11.5 billion for the year. Maiale said investments did better than the overall market in January but still lost about 3 percent.
The school retirement system, which benefits teachers and other school employees, reported a six-month loss in value of $17.3 billion to $45.4 billion from the beginning of the state's fiscal year on July 1 to Dec. 31. A dollar total for the year was not immediately available.
The state employees' pension fund said the losses mean employer contributions could approach 29 percent of payroll by 2012, far higher than had been expected after its investments had generated impressive returns in recent years. For most people enrolled in the State Employees' Retirement System, the government is their employer. The system's current employer contribution rate is 4 percent of payroll.
The teachers' pension fund said it projects its spike could exceed 28 percent for the 2012-13 year. If that occurs, the pain will be felt acutely by people who pay property taxes to fund school districts. The current rate is 4.76 percent.
"Ultimately we've got to hope that the market does grow" in the coming years, said Appropriations Chairman Dwight Evans, D-Philadelphia.
No additional pension payments that might serve to reduce the spike are included in the 2009-10 state budget outlined by Gov. Ed Rendell two weeks ago.
Although they are often referred to as spikes, the higher rates in 2012 will more closely resemble the start of a higher plateau. They are expected to usher in a lengthy period of much higher payments by taxpayers.
The spike has its origins in a 2001 law that increased pension benefits for most legislators by 50 percent, with 25 percent increases given to state workers and school employees.
Retirees, who did not benefit from that change, then clamored for a cost-of-living increase, which the Legislature passed the next year. In 2003, with a big increase in mandatory pension payments about to hit, the Legislature and Rendell struck a deal to delay most of the pain for a decade.
The day of reckoning is now only a few years away.
The pension fund executives were among the experts appearing at an all-day meeting of the House Appropriations Committee as it began consideration of Rendell's proposed budget.
Ron Snell with the National Conference of State Legislatures told the committee that states do not typically rebound immediately after an economic tide turns.
"Even if the economy hits bottom toward the end of this year, we would expect state fiscal recovery to lag that," Snell said.
Another witness, Acting Revenue Secretary Stephen Stetler, said Rendell's proposed natural-gas extraction tax is projected to bring in $632 million a year by 2013-14. Another new tax the governor wants, on video poker, would eventually produce $550 million annually, he said.
State Treasurer Rob McCord, who was sworn in last month, said his department has "chronic, hazardous and time-sensitive" shortcomings in its technology systems. He said the department's aging mainframe computer broke down over Thanksgiving and required a $10,000-a-day patch through a Houston company.
Showing posts with label PA State law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PA State law. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Sunday, August 24, 2008
New Pennsylvania Chapter 14 special education regulations
This link leads eventually to a law firm, so the usual caveats apply and this link is provided for information only. Take a look at the disclaimer on the SNAG page and assume that I am invoking the same limitations here.
No matter what the caveats, the new provisions they list did go into effect.
The new Pennsylvania Chapter 14 special education regulations became effective July 1, 2008, and we have summarized for parents the most relevant changes affecting children with disabilities.
No matter what the caveats, the new provisions they list did go into effect.
The new Pennsylvania Chapter 14 special education regulations became effective July 1, 2008, and we have summarized for parents the most relevant changes affecting children with disabilities.
Monday, July 28, 2008
PA State Code: Handicapped Students
Thanks to the emailer who sent in this link to Pennsylvania State Code Chapter 15: Protected Handicapped Students
Parents:
If you have requested the district review or modify your child's existing IEP, or consider evaluation of your child for special needs, you might be interested in the following information (pasted directly from Pennsylvania School Code):
§ 15.6. Parent initiated evaluation and provision of services.
(a) Parents shall request in writing that their child be evaluated and provided services if they believe their child meets one or more of the following conditions:
(1) Should be identified as a protected handicapped student.
(2) Should no longer be identified as a protected handicapped student.
(3) Requires a change in or modification of the child’s current service agreement.
(b) The parents should include available relevant medical records along with their written request for the provision of services.
(c) Whenever possible the parents’ request for the provision of services shall state the following:
(1) The specific reasons the parents believe the student is or is no longer a protected handicapped student.
(2) The specific related aids, services or accommodations the parents believe the student needs.
(3) The specific modifications the parents would like the school district to make in the student’s current service agreement, if the parents are requesting modification of the student’s current service agreement.
(d) Within 25 school days of receipt of the parents’ written request for the provision of services the school district shall evaluate the information submitted by the parents and send a written response to the parents’ request.
(e) The school district’s response to the parents shall be in the parents’ native language or mode of communication and shall state the following:
(1) Whether the parents’ request or a portion of the parents’ request is being granted or denied.
(2) The parents’ right to meet with the appropriate school officials to discuss the issues associated with accommodating the student.
(3) The procedural safeguards available to students and their parents under § 15.8 (relating to procedural safeguards).
(4) Parents using the procedural safeguards in this chapter may also file suit in Federal court under Section 504.
(f) If upon evaluation of the information submitted by the parents, the school district determines that it needs additional information before it can make a specific recommendation concerning the parents’ request, the district shall ask the parents to provide additional medical records and grant the district permission to evaluate the student.
(g) The school district initiated request to evaluate a student under subsection (f) shall be in writing and specifically identify the procedures and types of tests which it proposes to use to evaluate the student and inform the parents that they have the right to give or withhold their written consent to these evaluations.
§ 15.7. Service agreement.
(a) If the parents and the school district agree as to what related aids, services or accommodations should or should no longer be provided to the protected handicapped student, the district and parents shall enter into or modify a service agreement. The service agreement shall be written and executed by a representative of the school district and one or both parents. Oral agreements may not be relied upon. The agreement shall set forth the specific related aids, services or accommodations the student shall receive, or if an agreement is being modified, the modified services the student shall receive. The agreement shall also specify the date the services shall begin, the date the services shall be discontinued, and, when appropriate, the procedures to be followed in the event of a medical emergency.
(b) If the parents and the school district cannot agree as to the related aids, services and accommodations that should or should no longer be provided to the protected handicapped student, either party may use the procedural safeguard system under § 15.8 (relating to procedural safeguards) to resolve the dispute, and the school district shall notify parents in writing of their rights in this regard.
(c) In implementing the service agreement, school entities shall address relevant factors, such as educational resources, physical plant and personnel capabilities.
Cross References
This section cited in 55 Pa. Code § 3270.4 (relating to definitions); 55 Pa. Code § 3280.4 (relating to definitions); and 55 Pa. Code § 3290.4 (relating to definitions).
§ 15.8. Procedural safeguards.
(a) Parental request for assistance. Parents may file a written request for assistance with the Department if one or both of the following apply:
(1) The school district is not providing the related aids, services and accommodations specified in the student’s service agreement.
(2) The school district has failed to comply with the procedures in this chapter.
(b) Request resolution. The Department will investigate and respond to requests for assistance and, unless exceptional circumstances exist, will, within 60 calendar days of receipt of the request, send to the parents and school district a written response to the request. The response to the parents’ request shall be in the parents’ native language or mode of communication.
(c) Informal conference. At any time parents may file a written request with the school district for an informal conference with respect to the identification or evaluation of a student, or the student’s need for related aid, service or accommodation. Within 10 school days of receipt of the request, the school district shall convene an informal conference. At the conference, every effort shall be made to reach an amicable agreement.
(d) Formal due process hearing. If the matters raised by the school district or parents are not resolved at the informal conference, the district or parents may submit a request for a hearing. The hearing shall be held before an impartial hearing officer and shall be governed by § 14.64(a)—(l), (n) and (o) (relating to impartial due process hearings) if no issues under Chapter 14 (relating to special education services and programs) are raised for decision in the hearing by the parents, school district or hearing officer. If issues under Chapter 14 are raised for decision in the hearing by the parents, school district or hearing officer, an appeal from the hearing officer’s decision shall be governed also by § 14.64(m).
(e) Stay pending judicial appeals. If, within 60 calendar days of the completion of the administrative due process proceedings under this chapter, an appeal or original jurisdiction action is filed in State or Federal Court, the administrative order shall be stayed pending the completion of the judicial proceedings, unless the parents and school district agree otherwise.
Cross References
This section cited in 22 Pa. Code § 15.5 (relating to school district initiated evaluation and provision of services); 22 Pa. Code § 15.6 (relating to parent initiated evaluation and provision of services); 22 Pa. Code § 15.7 (relating to service agreement); and 22 Pa. Code § 15.10 (relating to discrimination claims).
§ 15.9. Confidentiality.
A school district shall do the following:
(1) Protect the confidentiality of personally identifiable information regarding a protected handicapped student.
(2) Require parental consent before releasing personally identifiable information to unauthorized persons.
(3) Provide access to educational records of the student to the parents or a representative of the parents.
(4) Comply with section 513(a) of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (20 U.S.C.A. § 1232g) and 34 CFR Part 99 (relating to family education rights and privacy).
§ 15.10. Discrimination claims.
Notwithstanding other provisions of this chapter, an eligible or noneligible student under Chapter 14 (relating to special education services and programs) may use the procedures for requesting assistance under § 15.8(a) (relating to procedural safeguards) to raise claims regarding denial of access, equal treatment or discrimination based on handicap. A student filing a claim of discrimination need not exhaust the procedures in this chapter prior to initiating a court action under Section 504.
Cross References
This section cited in 22 Pa. Code § 15.2 (relating to definitions); and 22 Pa. Code § 15.11 (relating to rules of construction).
§ 15.11. Rules of construction.
(a) The full description of substantive responsibilities of school entities is set forth in Section 504 and the Section 504 regulations at 34 CFR Part 104 (relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of handicap in programs and activities receiving or benefitting from federal financial assistance) and not in this chapter.
(b) Eligible and thought to be eligible students continue to be governed by Chapter 14 (relating to special education services and programs), except for the provisions of § 15.10 (relating to discrimination claims).
(c) It is not the purpose of this chapter to preempt, create, supplant, expand or restrict the rights or liabilities of protected handicapped students or school entities beyond what is contemplated by Section 504, the Section 504 regulations at 34 CFR Part 104 or another law. This chapter does not restrict or limit a parent, protected handicapped student, school entity or the Commonwealth from pursuing claims or defenses available, whether constitutional, statutory, regulatory or common law. This chapter does not restrict or limit a protected handicapped student or school entity from filing a cognizable action, appellate or original in nature, to resolve a dispute under Section 504 or the Federal Section 504 regulations. This chapter does not increase or diminish the jurisdiction of any court.
(d) It is not the intent of the Board that this chapter be interpreted as influencing, in either the plaintiff’s or defendant’s favor, the disposition of a particular civil action. However, this chapter is intended to have the force of law and to be so interpreted by the courts.
Parents:
If you have requested the district review or modify your child's existing IEP, or consider evaluation of your child for special needs, you might be interested in the following information (pasted directly from Pennsylvania School Code):
§ 15.6. Parent initiated evaluation and provision of services.
(a) Parents shall request in writing that their child be evaluated and provided services if they believe their child meets one or more of the following conditions:
(1) Should be identified as a protected handicapped student.
(2) Should no longer be identified as a protected handicapped student.
(3) Requires a change in or modification of the child’s current service agreement.
(b) The parents should include available relevant medical records along with their written request for the provision of services.
(c) Whenever possible the parents’ request for the provision of services shall state the following:
(1) The specific reasons the parents believe the student is or is no longer a protected handicapped student.
(2) The specific related aids, services or accommodations the parents believe the student needs.
(3) The specific modifications the parents would like the school district to make in the student’s current service agreement, if the parents are requesting modification of the student’s current service agreement.
(d) Within 25 school days of receipt of the parents’ written request for the provision of services the school district shall evaluate the information submitted by the parents and send a written response to the parents’ request.
(e) The school district’s response to the parents shall be in the parents’ native language or mode of communication and shall state the following:
(1) Whether the parents’ request or a portion of the parents’ request is being granted or denied.
(2) The parents’ right to meet with the appropriate school officials to discuss the issues associated with accommodating the student.
(3) The procedural safeguards available to students and their parents under § 15.8 (relating to procedural safeguards).
(4) Parents using the procedural safeguards in this chapter may also file suit in Federal court under Section 504.
(f) If upon evaluation of the information submitted by the parents, the school district determines that it needs additional information before it can make a specific recommendation concerning the parents’ request, the district shall ask the parents to provide additional medical records and grant the district permission to evaluate the student.
(g) The school district initiated request to evaluate a student under subsection (f) shall be in writing and specifically identify the procedures and types of tests which it proposes to use to evaluate the student and inform the parents that they have the right to give or withhold their written consent to these evaluations.
§ 15.7. Service agreement.
(a) If the parents and the school district agree as to what related aids, services or accommodations should or should no longer be provided to the protected handicapped student, the district and parents shall enter into or modify a service agreement. The service agreement shall be written and executed by a representative of the school district and one or both parents. Oral agreements may not be relied upon. The agreement shall set forth the specific related aids, services or accommodations the student shall receive, or if an agreement is being modified, the modified services the student shall receive. The agreement shall also specify the date the services shall begin, the date the services shall be discontinued, and, when appropriate, the procedures to be followed in the event of a medical emergency.
(b) If the parents and the school district cannot agree as to the related aids, services and accommodations that should or should no longer be provided to the protected handicapped student, either party may use the procedural safeguard system under § 15.8 (relating to procedural safeguards) to resolve the dispute, and the school district shall notify parents in writing of their rights in this regard.
(c) In implementing the service agreement, school entities shall address relevant factors, such as educational resources, physical plant and personnel capabilities.
Cross References
This section cited in 55 Pa. Code § 3270.4 (relating to definitions); 55 Pa. Code § 3280.4 (relating to definitions); and 55 Pa. Code § 3290.4 (relating to definitions).
§ 15.8. Procedural safeguards.
(a) Parental request for assistance. Parents may file a written request for assistance with the Department if one or both of the following apply:
(1) The school district is not providing the related aids, services and accommodations specified in the student’s service agreement.
(2) The school district has failed to comply with the procedures in this chapter.
(b) Request resolution. The Department will investigate and respond to requests for assistance and, unless exceptional circumstances exist, will, within 60 calendar days of receipt of the request, send to the parents and school district a written response to the request. The response to the parents’ request shall be in the parents’ native language or mode of communication.
(c) Informal conference. At any time parents may file a written request with the school district for an informal conference with respect to the identification or evaluation of a student, or the student’s need for related aid, service or accommodation. Within 10 school days of receipt of the request, the school district shall convene an informal conference. At the conference, every effort shall be made to reach an amicable agreement.
(d) Formal due process hearing. If the matters raised by the school district or parents are not resolved at the informal conference, the district or parents may submit a request for a hearing. The hearing shall be held before an impartial hearing officer and shall be governed by § 14.64(a)—(l), (n) and (o) (relating to impartial due process hearings) if no issues under Chapter 14 (relating to special education services and programs) are raised for decision in the hearing by the parents, school district or hearing officer. If issues under Chapter 14 are raised for decision in the hearing by the parents, school district or hearing officer, an appeal from the hearing officer’s decision shall be governed also by § 14.64(m).
(e) Stay pending judicial appeals. If, within 60 calendar days of the completion of the administrative due process proceedings under this chapter, an appeal or original jurisdiction action is filed in State or Federal Court, the administrative order shall be stayed pending the completion of the judicial proceedings, unless the parents and school district agree otherwise.
Cross References
This section cited in 22 Pa. Code § 15.5 (relating to school district initiated evaluation and provision of services); 22 Pa. Code § 15.6 (relating to parent initiated evaluation and provision of services); 22 Pa. Code § 15.7 (relating to service agreement); and 22 Pa. Code § 15.10 (relating to discrimination claims).
§ 15.9. Confidentiality.
A school district shall do the following:
(1) Protect the confidentiality of personally identifiable information regarding a protected handicapped student.
(2) Require parental consent before releasing personally identifiable information to unauthorized persons.
(3) Provide access to educational records of the student to the parents or a representative of the parents.
(4) Comply with section 513(a) of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (20 U.S.C.A. § 1232g) and 34 CFR Part 99 (relating to family education rights and privacy).
§ 15.10. Discrimination claims.
Notwithstanding other provisions of this chapter, an eligible or noneligible student under Chapter 14 (relating to special education services and programs) may use the procedures for requesting assistance under § 15.8(a) (relating to procedural safeguards) to raise claims regarding denial of access, equal treatment or discrimination based on handicap. A student filing a claim of discrimination need not exhaust the procedures in this chapter prior to initiating a court action under Section 504.
Cross References
This section cited in 22 Pa. Code § 15.2 (relating to definitions); and 22 Pa. Code § 15.11 (relating to rules of construction).
§ 15.11. Rules of construction.
(a) The full description of substantive responsibilities of school entities is set forth in Section 504 and the Section 504 regulations at 34 CFR Part 104 (relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of handicap in programs and activities receiving or benefitting from federal financial assistance) and not in this chapter.
(b) Eligible and thought to be eligible students continue to be governed by Chapter 14 (relating to special education services and programs), except for the provisions of § 15.10 (relating to discrimination claims).
(c) It is not the purpose of this chapter to preempt, create, supplant, expand or restrict the rights or liabilities of protected handicapped students or school entities beyond what is contemplated by Section 504, the Section 504 regulations at 34 CFR Part 104 or another law. This chapter does not restrict or limit a parent, protected handicapped student, school entity or the Commonwealth from pursuing claims or defenses available, whether constitutional, statutory, regulatory or common law. This chapter does not restrict or limit a protected handicapped student or school entity from filing a cognizable action, appellate or original in nature, to resolve a dispute under Section 504 or the Federal Section 504 regulations. This chapter does not increase or diminish the jurisdiction of any court.
(d) It is not the intent of the Board that this chapter be interpreted as influencing, in either the plaintiff’s or defendant’s favor, the disposition of a particular civil action. However, this chapter is intended to have the force of law and to be so interpreted by the courts.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
From the mailbag
From the mailbag. It seems like some of the parents are getting ticked.
The recipient was 00statbd@psupen.psu.edu. Doesn't sound familiar? That's the Pennsylvania State Board of Education.
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
333 Market Street
Harrisburg, PA 17126-0333
Voice: 717-787-3787
E-Mail 00statbd@psupen.psu.edu
Anyone else want to email, write, or call? Drop me a line and I will print it here also. Here's a list of the state board's members and other contacts.
P.S. Thanks for the blog mention!
To Whom It May Concern:
I’m not sure who I need to address this too, so I decided that since your name was at the top of the email address list, I would start with you. I am a VERY concerned parent in the Morrisville Boro School District . I feel that my concerns and the concerns of other parents in this district are not being heard. I’m not even sure if the PDE is the place to start. I plan on writing to whoever will listen. Rumors travel fast in this town and at this point all we have is the rumors because some of the school board directors refuse to give us a plan for the future of our children’s education. The parents of Morrisville are extremely disappointed in the manner at which these individuals are behaving. Some have made remarks that they are only on the board to lower taxes. I think that a school board director should be there for the education of the children in the district. Some residents have been posting their concerns on a website, www.savethemorrisvilleschool.blogspot.com, this seems to be our only outlet. More and more residents are attending meetings, but I feel that the point is not getting thru to the school board. The latest thing that I read today was that they are going to run the school district in to the ground so that the State needs to take over.
The 2008-2009 budget was approved last week, the administration has said time and time again that with this new budget there will NOT be adequate money to educate the special education children. The charter and alternative schools amount will not be enough money to provide what is needed for the district.
If there is an individual that should get this email, I hope that you would forward it along to that person. If you are unable to forward it along, I would appreciate a name or department where I can voice my concerns.
The recipient was 00statbd@psupen.psu.edu. Doesn't sound familiar? That's the Pennsylvania State Board of Education.
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
333 Market Street
Harrisburg, PA 17126-0333
Voice: 717-787-3787
E-Mail 00statbd@psupen.psu.edu
Anyone else want to email, write, or call? Drop me a line and I will print it here also. Here's a list of the state board's members and other contacts.
P.S. Thanks for the blog mention!
To Whom It May Concern:
I’m not sure who I need to address this too, so I decided that since your name was at the top of the email address list, I would start with you. I am a VERY concerned parent in the Morrisville Boro School District . I feel that my concerns and the concerns of other parents in this district are not being heard. I’m not even sure if the PDE is the place to start. I plan on writing to whoever will listen. Rumors travel fast in this town and at this point all we have is the rumors because some of the school board directors refuse to give us a plan for the future of our children’s education. The parents of Morrisville are extremely disappointed in the manner at which these individuals are behaving. Some have made remarks that they are only on the board to lower taxes. I think that a school board director should be there for the education of the children in the district. Some residents have been posting their concerns on a website, www.savethemorrisvilleschool.blogspot.com, this seems to be our only outlet. More and more residents are attending meetings, but I feel that the point is not getting thru to the school board. The latest thing that I read today was that they are going to run the school district in to the ground so that the State needs to take over.
The 2008-2009 budget was approved last week, the administration has said time and time again that with this new budget there will NOT be adequate money to educate the special education children. The charter and alternative schools amount will not be enough money to provide what is needed for the district.
If there is an individual that should get this email, I hope that you would forward it along to that person. If you are unable to forward it along, I would appreciate a name or department where I can voice my concerns.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Guest Blogger
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)