Pattye Benson

Community Matters

Tredyffrin Township

T/E Teacher’s Salary Freeze Offer . . . Headlines on the Debate Continue in Main Line Suburban newspaper

May 4, 2011
10 Comments

This week’s edition of the Main Line Suburban, www.mainlinemedianews.com features the following news story by Alan Thomas. Thomas attended the T/E Finance Committee meeting on Monday night and weighs in on the confusion surrounding the teachers offer of a ‘salary freeze’ for next year versus the school boards requested ‘pay increase waiver’.

If you take the time to read the many comments posted on Community Matters over the last few days, it is apparent that confusion remains over what the teachers union is offering to the school district in savings next year as compared to what the school board thinks that the teachers are offering. I am hopeful that there will be further clarification in the next day or so on the offer. Right now, I feel that we are comparing ‘apples to oranges’ when we look at the teacher offer and without some clarification, I don’t see how we get on the same page.

T/E budget workshop discusses teachers’ pay-freeze offer, board’s rejection and sports/activity fees
By Alan Thomas
Main Line Media News
Wednesday, May 4, 2011

The Tredyffrin/Easttown School Board’s finance committee held Budget Workshop II Monday night to discuss sports and activities fees. The committee put more time and effort, it seemed, into explaining how a pay waiver is different from a pay freeze, perhaps in light of the disclosure that the Tredyffrin/Easttown Education Association had communicated an offer to accept a one-year pay freeze in a letter dated April 15. It was an offer that the board later rejected but apparently had not disclosed to the public in a timely fashion.

The committee’s if not the board’s explanation of the letter may have come as the result of an April 29 Community Matters blog entry titled “T/E Teachers Union Offers Salary Freeze … TESD Rejects Offer, Wants Pay-Increase Waiver” in which blogger Pattye Benson told her readers that “there was an ‘offer’ from the teachers’ union and a ‘rejection’ from the school district … there is confusion between a salary ‘freeze’ and a salary ‘waiver’ … [and] the school board intends to clarify those distinctions.”

Community Matters is part of Main Line Media News’ Community Media Lab at www.mainlinemedianews.com .

The apparent lack of transparency was explained by board member Deborah Bookstaber as a matter in which “the board didn’t mention the letter [previously] because there was no time to discuss it.” Her explanation answered TEEA president Peter DiPiano, who had addressed the committee to ask for a clarification about when an executive session, during which time the letter might have been discussed, had been held.

Committee chair Kevin Mahoney later explained the difference between the two pay-related terms: with a pay waiver in place, there would be “no increase [in salary] next year, no extension for either [TEEA or TENIG] of the contracts, [and that the TEEA freeze offer was a] pay freeze” with raises deferred while step progression for the union members would continue to the time when the postponed raises would be resumed. The pay waiver being proposed by the board would effectively end the teachers’ contract and erase the final year’s raises and teachers’ vertical movement on the district salary scale.

District business manager Art McDonnell used several graphics to show that, over five years, the waiver plan would save the district a lot more money, around $15 million by 2015-16, assuming that salaries remained flat until then.

All non-union district employees are not getting raises. Only TEEA and TENIG, the non-instructional employees union whose contract runs a year beyond the teachers’, would be affected by either a pay waiver or a freeze.

Board president Karen Cruickshank also explained to the audience that “Mr. DiPiano has been in conversation with us. We will talk with the union and find something that works.”

And board member Richard Brake further clarified the point, addressing McDonnell, that “no advancement on the salary scale is the majority of the difference [between the waiver and the freeze].”

A community member, stressing state legislators’ part in the present overall school-budget crisis, wanted to remind people that Chester County’s Home and School Associations are sponsoring a legislator discussion and question-and-answer session concerning the current critical issues involving public education Thursday, May 5, 7-9 p.m. at West Chester East High School, 450 Ellis Lane, West Chester.

During other related discussion about the agenda, the earned income tax appeared briefly again, with the board loosely agreeing to make it a part of budget discussions for 2011-12. Any EIT must be approved by a ballot referendum.

Other community members’ comments ranged from a plea for “no more cuts or changes [in educational programs]” to an observation that “there is no way to remedy the pension situation.”

In the end the committee agreed to plug a middle-of-the-road sports and/or activity fee “place-holder” worth $70,000 into the budget process in order to pass the committee-approved budget to the next regular board meeting May 9 with the general fund designated as the solution to closing the more than $3-million gap. That and more can still change of course as the budget continues on its way to final approval June 28.

Countdown to Primary Election May 17 – T/E School Board Candidates Resumes

May 2, 2011
1 Comment

The Pennsylvania Primary Election is 3 weeks from tomorrow — Tuesday, May 17, 2011. As I previously announced on April 11, I will provide all the candidates resumes on Community Matters. I hope that by providing in-depth information on local candidates will encourage increased voter turnout for the Pennsylvania Primary Election. Historically, voter turnout in Tredyffrin Township has been low for the Primary Election, (particularly in a non-presidential year) — here’s hoping that trend will change on May 17.

Currently serving School Board members Karen Cruickshank, Jim Bruce and Pete Motel are seeking re-election. Two of the current school board members, Debbie Bookstaber and Kevin Mahoney have decided not to see re-election.

The School Board candidates for the Primary Election are listed below. (Click on candidates names to read their resumes). It is my understanding that all school board candidates have cross-filed as both Republican and Democratic candidates. Easttown candidate Craig Lewis was contacted and invited to supply his resume but he failed to respond. If Mr. Lewis would like to have his resume included with the other candidate resumes, I would be happy to add it.

Tredyffrin-Easttown School Board Candidates:

  • Easttown, Region 3: Peter Motel (R) **
  • Easttown, Region 3: Craig Lewis (D) No Response from Candidate

** Incumbent

Proposed School Voucher Bill (SB 1) Unstalled and Inching Forward

April 28, 2011
1 Comment

Thank you to Larry Feinberg, keystonestateeducationcoalition.org for the following update on the proposed school voucher legislation. Sounds like SB 1 is ‘unstalled’ and is moving forward again.

HI Pattye –

Here’s the latest update on the voucher bill SB1:

Allentown Morning Call Capitol Ideas Blog
John Micek, April 27, 5:49 p.m.

Senate Repubs, Corbett Reach Agreement On Voucher Bill

Senate Republicans And Gov. Tom Corbett have apparently resolved their differences over a stalled school vouchers bill, Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, R-Delaware, said this afternoon. Because we have friends in all the wrong places, here’s the amendatory language that’s under consideration (this part is strictly for the Trainspotters amongst you):

· Effective date of Implementation of Opportunity Scholarships and EITC increase/changes delayed until July 1, 2012.
· New timeline as a result:
· 2012-2013 – Year One – Low-income children in failing schools eligible for Opportunity
· Scholarships;
· 2013-2014 – Year Two – Low-income children in attendance boundaries of failing schools;
· 2014-2015 – Year Three – All low-income children statewide.
· As a result, there will be no significant budgetary costs in the upcoming fiscal year.
· Year Three Opportunity Scholarship recipients will be capped at 3% of the previous year’s Basic Education Funding (BEF) appropriation – projected at approximately $163 million in 2014-2015.
· PDE will administer the program.
· The Education Opportunity Board will remain in place in an advisory capacity and to approve the guidelines issued by PDE.
· The Governor will appoint the initial three members of the Education Opportunity Board with successor appointments confirmed by the Senate (modeled after the Philadelphia School Reform Commission).
· PDE’s definition of “LOW-ACHIEVING SCHOOLS” will be utilized with a separate ranking of elementary and secondary schools focusing on the bottom 5% of combined math and reading scores on most recent PSSA.
· In Year Four (2015-2016):
· Entire amount in the Excess Fund will start funding the Public School Choice Demonstration Grants for school districts to establish their own tuition grant programs (Public to Public) and for funding the Middle-Income Scholarship Program;
· Middle-Income Scholarship Program eligibility will increase to 350% of Federal Poverty ($78,225 for a family of four).

Read more: http://blogs.mcall.com/capitol_ideas/2011/04/senate-repubs-corbett-reach-agreement-on-voucher-bill.html#comments

A Sign of the Times . . . Corbett’s De-Funding Public Education Plays Out in Teacher Contracts, School Vouchers, Education Rallies . . . What is the Future of Public Education in Pennsylvania?

April 27, 2011
5 Comments

Gov. Corbett’s plan to de-fund public education in Pennsylvania in his proposed $1.2 billion funding cuts is becoming the backdrop for school district budget discussion statewide. Corbett’s education-funding proposal has left many communities wondering how they are going to make up their budget deficits and are looking to the teachers and non-instructional workers for help.

This week in Unionville-Chadds Ford School District, the teacher contracts appear to have stalled with both sides remaining at odds. If you recall, the teachers have been working under the conditions of the old contract, which expired last summer. Unionville-Chadds Ford School District is struggling with their budget and how to handle the $1.1 million reduction in state spending contained in Corbett’s proposed budget. The non-instructional district support staff agreed to a salary freeze but at this time, the teachers have not.

In Tredyffrin-Easttown School District, the school board sent letters to Tredyffrin Easttown Education Association (TEEA) and Tredyffrin Easttown Non Instructional Group (TENIG) unions asking the members to consider a salary freeze for next year. Although I do not believe there has been an official response from either union, it is my understanding that TENIG will meet tomorrow (Thursday) for discussion and a vote on a salary freeze. TEEA members will hold further discussions next week but I do not know if salary freeze is part of the discussion.

In recent days, there have been many rallies around the state in support of public education. “Cut Corbett Not Schools” signs are seen all over Harrisburg – demanding that the legislature restore the $1.1 billion in education funding. There is a continued push by many to create a state-funded school voucher program (SB 1). Currently the proposed voucher legislation is stalled in the Senate; I think primarily due to the perceived cost of implementation. The heated discussion of a state-mandated school voucher program continues to widen the divide between the teacher unions and the school choice advocates, who believe that vouchers are the answer to failing public schools.

The bitter debate raging in the state over Corbett’s proposed public education budget cuts has taken a toll on his approval ratings. Less than four months in the governor’s mansion and today the Quinnipiac University polling is showing a big jump in disapproval for Corbett. The polling indicated that 52% of Pennsylvania voters disapprove of the way Corbett is handling the state budget and 64% oppose his budget cutting of state and state-related universities. (To read the April 27 Quinnipiac University poll, click here).

Aside from public approval ratings, what will Corbett’s proposed budget cuts mean for the future of public education? What lies ahead for school districts and our children across Pennsylvania . . . the elimination of art and music, language classes, increase in class sizes, scaling back full-time kindergarten to half-day, cuts to athletic programs? These are budget cuts that will require many school districts to impose higher property taxes, lay-off staff or impose pay-for-play requirements. Pennsylvania has become a battleground for public education funding . . . what does this say for the future of our children’s education?

————————————————————————————-

A reminder that tonight at 7 PM, State Senator Andy Dinniman will hold an education rally on the steps of the Chester County Courthouse (corner of High and Market Streets) in West Chester.

There’s Money in Naming Rights for School District Athletic Fields, Concession Stands, Auditoriums, etc. – T/E Explores the Possibilities

April 26, 2011
6 Comments

I attended last night’s School Board meeting, primarily for the presentation from Market Street Sports Group, a marketing advertising company from Lancaster County specializing in event sponsorships and ‘naming rights’ opportunities. Two Market Street representatives, Frank Hoke and Tracey Brubaker, explained that they have worked with various school districts using Hempfield School District in Lancaster County as an example and one of their clients. Through corporate sponsorships and naming rights on fields, concession stands, etc. the company raises additional funds for their clients.

The Market Street presentation answered some of the advertising and marketing questions. The school board would retain final approval on all corporate partners, proposals and contracts. Certain types of advertising is prohibited including advertising of lotteries, promotion of the sale or use of alcohol or tobacco products plus any service, product or point of view that is not acceptable to the school board. The Market Street Sports Group process includes creating an inventory of available resources for naming rights. Signage strategically placed in certain approved areas of schools, athletic fields, gyms, concession stands, auditoriums, or cafeterias are some possible naming locations.

Naming rights and signage can be lucrative to school districts – representatives cited that Hempfield School District earns $100-130K per year with various naming opportunities. A specific example was a banner over the concession stand on one of the school fields earns $30K for a 3-year contract, $10K per year. The cost of doing business with Market Street Sports Group does come with a price – a commission rate of 30%. As explained, the first 10% goes to the sales rep at Market Street (for selling the sponsorships), the next 10% to the local TESD representative and the final 10% to overhead costs (billing sponsors on monthly basis, credit card fees, etc.) The process involves more than just hanging a banner on a field – the sponsors require value for their marketing dollars as well as the school districts gaining additional funding. Through ‘active engagement’, the sponsors reach customers in a specific demographic area through public address announcements, website advertising, promotions and giveaways at sporting events, etc.

Hoke, who serves as chief financial officer of Market Street, was asked if the 30% commission rate was negotiable and his response was vague and not positive. An audience member who quickly Googled the Hempfield School District (which was used as an example by Market Street) suggested that the average income level in Hempfield was probably half of the average income level in T/E. She suggested that the T/E community had the capacity for making more money for Market Street (with no greater effort) so perhaps that should be considered when looking at the commission rate. Although the representatives were polite, I am not certain that the 30% would be negotiable.

School directors questioned how Market Street would find (and hire) a local representative in the TESD. Working with the school district and administration, the company would look for a community person interested in part-time work and extra money – possibly a TESD teacher. It was important the person be a local hire, someone who understood the area as Market Street Sports Group is from Lancaster County.

School board member Anne Crowley questioned the company representatives on how they handle competing local companies that might want to participate in naming opportunities, such as three dry cleaners. Market Street sales rep Tracey Brubaker offered that this competing situation had never occurred and if it did would be solved ‘creatively’. Brubaker’s response was not satisfactory; her suggestion that this situation had never occurred seemed unlikely. Well, I think I understand why – after a bit of research, I determined that Brubaker only joined Market Street Sports Group last month. In her 5 weeks with the company, my guess is that the situation of competing advertisers has not occurred but I believe does require further consideration.

The presentation from Market Street Sports Group was interesting. However, I think it was obvious to the school board and members of the audience that this topic will require further study and discussion.

Countdown to Primary Day, May 17 . . . Presenting Tredyffrin Supervisor Candidate Resumes

April 25, 2011
26 Comments

The Pennsylvania Primary Election is 30 days from tomorrow — Tuesday, May 17, 2011. As was previously announced on April 11, I will provide all the candidates resumes on Community Matters using the following schedule. I hope that by providing in-depth information on local candidates will encourage increased voter turnout for the Pennsylvania Primary Election. Historically, voter turnout in Tredyffrin Township has been low for the Primary Election, (particularly in a non-presidential year) — here’s hoping that trend changes next month.

In Pennsylvania, only registered Republican and Democratic voters are permitted to vote in the Primary Election. As a reminder, this year in addition to the Primary Election, there is a Special Election in Tredyffrin Township — Independents, as well as Republican and Democrats can vote in the Special Election race.

The Special Election will fill the vacancy in the office of the Board of Supervisors caused by the resignation of Warren Kampf. The vacancy was temporarily filled by the interim supervisor appointment of Mike Heaberg. As required by the Township’s Home Rule Charter and the Pennsylvania Election Code, a Special Election will be held and voters will choose between incumbent Mike Heaberg (R) and Molly Duff (D). The individual elected will fill the remainder of the supervisor term, ending on December 31, 2011.

  • Monday, April 25: Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisor Candidates
  • Monday, May 2: Tredyffrin-Easttown School Board Candidates
  • Monday, May 9: Chester County Magisterial District Judge, District Court 15-4-01 Candidates
  • Wednesday, May 11: Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors Special Election Candidates
  • Tuesday, May 17: Pennsylvania 2011 Primary

According to the schedule above, today is for the Board of Supervisor candidates. I have received resumes or bios on each of the candidates listed — click on the candidate’s name and the link will take you directly to the individual candidates information.

I encourage you to review the information that the candidates have provided and welcome your thoughtful comments.

Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisor Candidates:

** Incumbent

Anniversary of Gulf of Mexico BP Spill Marked by another Fuel Spill . . . Marcellus Shale Environmental Disaster

April 21, 2011
1 Comment

On the anniversary of the blowout of BP’s deepwater oil well in the Gulf of Mexico, there is another fuel spill – this time much closer to home. Near Canton, PA thousands of gallons of chemical laced water has spilled due to a blowout at a natural gas well. Workers from Chesapeake Energy Corp. lost control of a Marcellus Shale well on Tuesday and the extent of the spillage remains unknown at this time.

Chesapeake Energy Corp. is the country’s second largest producer of natural gas. The company particularly focuses on developing unconventional sources of onshore oil and gas. As of December 31, 2010, Chesapeake held 13.3 million net acres of land across the United States, on which the company has identified 38,000 drilling opportunities.

Chesapeake extracts natural gas by an unconventional method using the controversial drilling technique hydraulic fracturing or fracking. Significant environmental concerns surround this fracturing process – primarily how to dispose of the toxic drilling water is injected to break up the rock formations and release the gas. Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale has become of the epicenter of the unconventional natural gas industry . . . and now marks the site of the latest fuel spill.

Fracking has long been a controversial issue, criticized by environmental groups for its potentially adverse effects on the environment. The chemicals used in fracking fluids have been a contentious subject, as many energy companies have long guarded them as a “trade secret”. Some opponents to fracking suggest that energy companies using this controversial fracking method have injected millions of gallons of potentially hazardous chemicals and known carcinogens, such as methanol, into wells across the country.

This latest chemical-laden fluid spill has contaminated Towanda Creek, a tributary of the Susquehanna River. A contaminated creek cannot be saved. Damage done. Reports are that the creek was stocked with trout on April 5th. The well blew out near the surface, causing fluid to run over containment walls, through fields, personal property, and farms “even where cattle continue to graze”. Local families have been forced to evacuate due the spill and do not know the future of their drinking water. Private drinking wells are being tested for contamination. Officials are warning farmers in the area that cattle should no longer drink from the stream.

This latest fuel spill has all the makings of an environmental disaster in northern Pennsylvania. How do you put a price tag on this kind of environmental damage? Is this the legacy of deregulation of natural gas? When asked to comment on the spill, one Harrisburg politician last night shrugged his shoulders and remarked, “no one was killed . . . mistakes happen”.

National Tea Party Review Magazine Hit the Newsstands in February – T/E School Board Member Dr. Richard Brake, a Featured Contributor

April 18, 2011
14 Comments

Whether you lean to the left, to the right, or somewhere in between, there are periodicals dedicated to your political point of view . . . The New Republic, Harper’s, New Yorker plus countless others.

However, did you know that there is a magazine dedicated to the Tea Party movement, the Tea Party Review? Billing itself as the “first national magazine for, by and about the Tea Party Movement”, the new magazine had its debut in February of this year.

According to their website, the Tea Party Review provides a place “for Tea Parties to come together, to trade ideas, to resolve disputes . . . a place to develop plans for taking our country back from the elitist, arrogant, obnoxious, corrupt members of the Washington establishment and their friends in Hollywood, the news media, faculty lounges, and on Wall Street.” Those are some strong words from the Tea Party Review!

Although this new periodical hit the newsstands in February, I only discovered it today. Beyond my initial surprise that there was a magazine dedicated to Tea Partiers, I was further surprised to find that one of our T/E school board members, Dr. Richard Brake, was a featured contributor in the magazine, recently writing Negative Learning – Why Obama Needs the Youth Vote. http://www.teapartyreview.com/negative-learning-why-obama-needs-youth-vote

Further online research indicated that Brake has written extensively on the tea party movement. Here is a sampling of Brake’s prolific writing:

Militant Libertarian contains an article, Elected Officials Flunk Constitution Test written by Brake. The Militant Libertarian website claims to contain articles and information on “fighting back against the New World Order, the Banksters, the Police State, the System, or whatever label you’d like to give the screw job that is happening to our liberties.”
http://militantlibertarian.org/2011/01/16/elected-officials-flunk-constitution-quiz/

Listed as a featured columnist for the conservative news magazine, Townhall Conservative, a recent edition contains Brake’s article, George Washington and the Need for Enlightened Citizenship.
http://townhall.com/columnists/drrichardbrake/2011/02/22/george_washington_and_the_need_for_enlightened_citizenship

On the Capital News website, there is a post by Brake, which contains ” . . . I think it’s a great thing that Tea Party members are making it a priority to educate themselves. You can’t read the Constitution with all its ‘Congress shall nots…’ without coming to the conclusion that the Constitution limits government.” http://capoliticalnews.com/blog_post/show/7913

I discovered Brake was featured on Liberty Line Radio, which is hosted by Andrew Langer, an experienced DC politico and Tea Party Activist. Brake’s radio podcast featured his recent survey from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI), his employer.
http://libertylineradio.blogspot.com/2011/03/liberty-line-32211-rich-brake.html

Grant County Tea Party in Indiana hosted a conference a couple of weeks ago, Whose Capitalism, Which Free Market? The conference description was billed to ” . . . include remedies to today’s crony capitalism by exploring the moral dimensions of a truly free and prosperous market order”. This Tea Party conference at Taylor University in Indiana featured Brake as the guest speaker. http://www.wewantamericaback.net/site/?p=1719

There were many more links for Brake but I suspended my research after I was directed to the Chester County Patriots Tea Party website. Listed as a member of this tea party organization, Brake also appears to host an online blog for the Tea Partiers. The mission statement for the Tea Party organization states, “Chester County Patriots is a grassroots organization that promotes a return to limited government, personal responsibility, and upholding the U.S. Constitution. Our goal is to educate and motivate the public to embrace these founding conservative principles in order to maximize prosperity and freedoms for future generations. The Chester County Patriots will also encourage and support individuals with conservative principles to become more involved in local and federal government.”

ISI and Tea Party Patriots
Posted by Richard Brake
View Richard Brake’s blog

I’d like to introduce your group to my organization: the Intercollegiate Studies Institute www.isi.org Our mission is to educate for liberty – by transmitting to the next generation of Americans the political, economic, and moral principles that founded and continue to sustain our constitutional republic.

Clearly, your mission and ISI’s mission overlap – so we are now reaching out to grass-roots organizations like you to offer a helping hand of partnership.

And, as a resident of Chester County and local school board member, I am deeply interested in the same issues that motivate you and your membership.

I look forward to meeting you at an upcoming meeting.

Sincerely,
Rich Brake, Ph.D.

Besides discovering that Dr. Richard Brake, a political scientist, is also a prolific writer, it is fascinating to learn of Brake’s Tea Party connections.

Tea Partiers claim that they are a community committed to standing together, shoulder to shoulder, to protect our country and the Constitution. Recently, the country witnessed the battleground in Wisconsin as thousands of Tea Party activists rallied together in support of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker against organized labor.

The TESD School Board will begin teacher contract negotiations next year. Based on other school district – teacher union contract negotiation experiences; I suspect the process in T/E will also prove challenging. Considering Dr. Brake’s tea party membership and claim of support to the local Chester County Patriot tea party organization, can we assume that as a School Board member, he will not be directly involved in the teacher contract negotiations? Or . . . maybe there is no conflict for this Tea Party member.

I will reach out to Dr. Brake and see if he would like to offer a comment for Community Matters.

School Voucher (Senate Bill 1) Vote on Bill Delayed . . . What Does this Mean?

April 16, 2011
6 Comments

The proposed legislation to create a school voucher program for Pennsylvania (Senate Bill 1) was approved by the Senate Appropriation Committee on Monday, April 11 with a vote of 15-11 but a scheduled Tuesday, April 12 vote on the bill was delayed until April 26 at the earliest . . . what does this mean for the future of SB 1? Sometimes, a delay can mean that a bill is in trouble, is that the case here?

According to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Gov. Corbett is not letting go of the proposed school voucher plan, or at least not easily. Apparently, in an unusual move (and rarely done by governors), Corbett appeared before the closed-door caucus of the Senate GOP to argue in favor of the school choice legislation. I guess it was thought that by bringing in the ‘big guns’ the bill could be pushed through the Senate but it appears that idea didn’t work as planned.

SB 1 would allow students (based on family income eligibility) to attend private or parochial schools of their choice with state-paid vouchers. The projected costs associated with the implementation of a school voucher program are estimated by Senate Republicans to be at least $328 million by 2013. However, there is pushback on that number by the Democrats, who estimate the annual costs are actually higher, their estimate is $385 million by 2013.

The stated reason for delaying the Senate vote to April 26 is that one of the co-sponsors of the bill, Sen. Anthony Williams (D-Philadelphia), is ill. However, that does not make sense because Williams could vote by proxy from his home. My guess is that even with Corbett’s encouragement (arm-twisting?) it was determined that there were not enough votes for the SB 1 to pass the Senate on April 12 and the administration is hoping the delay to April 26 will provide persuasion opportunities.

Guess we will have to wait until April 26 and see if there is a Senate vote on SB 1. If the 26th comes and goes, it would appear that the proposed school choice bill is dead in the water. On the other hand, is it possible that the school voucher bill could fail in the Senate and be reincarnated in the House?

The outcome of SB 1 could prove interesting for Corbett, since this is the first major legislation that he has pushed since taking office. Facing pressure in regards to his proposed funding cuts to public education, maybe the Governor will decide against further pushing of the school choice legislation.

TESD Facilities Committee Looking at Revenue Sources and Maintenance/Storage Issues

April 16, 2011
11 Comments
Yesterday there was a TESD Facilities Committee meeting which Ray Clarke attended and graciously supplied notes. I was particularly interested in the fee structure for use of school district facilities and here is related rental information:
  • Regulation 7040 – Details for the use of TESD facilities and description of the tiered levels of rental fees (Oct. 2010)
  • Fee Schedule for TESD facilities usage – Pages 10-15.
I found district fee schedule for school district facilities usage very difficult to figure out. I often have reason to look for various township locations for lectures for the Trust (Tredyffrin Historic Preservation Trust) so I looked at the fee schedule to check the rental fee for the high school auditorium. I think I figured out that as a nonprofit township organization, the fee would fall in the ‘C’ category of fees but beyond that I was lost — would I pay additional fee(s) for custodian and if so, was that charge for the entire event by the hour or was it for clean-up. Was the requirement for 1 person or multiple people? Would I pay additional for use of bathroom facilities for the length of the event?
It seems to me if the district is looking to increase rental usage of the facilities rental, perhaps the fee structure could be more ‘user-friendly’. I understand that the school district rentals may be different from other non-school district rentals but. . . how about a flat fee for ‘x’ hours of usage that would include custodian and bathroom facilities, rather than the renter struggling to do all the necessary ‘add-ons’. Example: Conestoga HS auditorium rental for up to 3 hours, Mon – Thurs could be listed as ‘x’ fee. The fee should be inclusive and include all required labor fees, use of bathrooms, etc. — streamline the pricing so it is obvious the total cost is obvious.
In my review of the current facilities fee structure, I would not be able to fill out the application form and know the total charge without speaking to someone at the school. At this point, I would not be able to determine if the rental fees are too ‘high’ or too ‘low’ as compared to other outside rental options; there are too many variables and possible add-ons to the base hourly rate. This comment is not intended as a criticism’ just a suggestion to perhaps review and simplify the fee schedule to make it more user-friendly and therefore, more like for people to rent the facilities.
——————————————————
Ray Clark’s Notes from 4/15 Facilities Committee Meeting:
The Facilities Committee held another 3 hour plus marathon on Friday. A couple of noteworthy items, the last two with implications for the operating and capital budgets.
  1. Kudos to Chuck Marshall and the Valley Creek Trustee Council for their work to protect the “Exceptional Value” Valley Creek and its tributaries like Crabby Creek. I came in on the end of a discussion about installing a vegetated swale and drainage system to control the run off from the CHS fields off Irish Road. The Council would fund the project as a gift to the School District. Importantly, there is also a commitment to maintain the system until the desired natural vegetation becomes established. With assurances about the impact to the district, the Committee recommended that the project be accepted.
  2. More to and fro about facility rental fees and priorities, but frustratingly nothing concrete emerging yet. There is a recognition that the end of the property bubble requires new revenue sources, and thus the need to revisit policies that subsidize groups like scouts and TEYSA, that charge others below market rates, that are set by the day not the hour, and that restrict the use of Teamer Field based on limitations of the old grass field. I think that Betsy Fadem has taken responsibility for coming up with draft revisions to policy and regulations that address these issues and ensure that neighbor concerns are incorporated. The plan is to have something fully in place for 2012, with changes to the Teamer Field use possibly sooner.
  3. Finally, the Committee has zeroed in on a plan to address the limited maintenance and storage space consequent on the demolition of the ESC. (Let’s not revisit that decision here now: water under the bridge!) Both people and inventory are dispersed all over the district: not the way we’d want to have our district supported, I think. Over many meetings, the Committee has pushed the administration and architect to come up with a cost conscious plan that fits into a long term vision for the district facilities. The recommendation is now a two phase project. First, add on to the current, but frail, maintenance building on Old Lancaster Road, then, second (as the adjacent property becomes available), expand the addition, convert the old building to parking and add a storage building. The capital commitment for Phase 1 would be $1.13 million. (Another $2 million would be required to complete the project, but would not be committed now). I was assured that the space requirements for all functions are fully supported by the cost and service benefits of having the functions in house. This will be discussed at the next School Board meeting on April 25th for those interested.
Community Matters © 2025 Frontier Theme