transparency Archives - Pattye Benson

transparency

TESD Board Meeting on Monday, June 14: Will This Mark the 17th Straight Year for a Tax Increase? Non-Agenda Item: Critical Race Theory Has Parents Looking for Answers

June 12, 2021

On Monday, June 14, 7:30 PM at Conestoga High School, the TE School Board will hold its first in-person regular board meeting in over a year. (Click here for the agenda). The lengthy agenda (400+ pages!) for the meeting includes the discussion and adoption of the 2021-22 final budget and virtual programming. Will the school board break the cycle of annual tax increases?

Regarding virtual programming, the school board will discuss and vote on the District’s recommendation as follows:

1. To decline K-8 virtual pilot for 2021-22 (based on insufficient enrollment commitment) and consider possibility of offering in future year and

2. To pilot on Personal Finance Course at CHS in a combination virtual format for the 2021-22 school year.

For many TESD residents, the focus on Monday will be on the school board and the vote on the 2021-22 final budget. Included in the agenda information are three budget options – 0% tax increase, 2.5% tax increase and 2.7% tax increase. Given the school board discussion at the last finance committee meeting, the fact that a zero percent tax increase is included as a budget option is remarkable. All school board members attended the finance meeting and as far as I could tell there was only one school board member (out of nine) advocating for 0% tax increase – and that was Rev. Scott Dorsey.

For months, some on the school board would have us believe that a zero-tax increase was an actual possibility, but is it really? At one of the finance or budget workshop meetings at least one school board director suggested that a zero percent tax increase was disingenuous. (I took the remark to mean there would be a tax increase included for the 2021-22 budget). And at several meetings, another school board member repeatedly suggested that Harrisburg didn’t think that we (the TE taxpayers) were taxed enough, although there was no evidence presented to back up the remark.

For those that have only recently moved to the TE School District, you may think that a 2.5 or 2.7 percent tax increase is no big deal; particularly if your move here is based on a perceived quality of the education. On the surface, I would probably agree but the problem is that a tax increase is an annual event in T/E. If the approval of the final 2021-22 budget includes any tax increase – it will mark the 17^th straight year of tax increases.

But it’s more than an annual tax increase that is troubling — questions continue to swirl regarding fictitious budgeting (underestimating revenues and overestimating expenses). Although residents regularly comment and ask specific questions regarding the District finances, there is little response from the school board. Clearly the answer should not be to simply follow the business manager, wherever he leads!

Critical Race Theory … Is the District teaching?

In addition to the scheduled agenda items, it is anticipated that parents will have questions for the board and administration regarding “critical race theory” (or CRT). There is confusion (or at least I should say that I am confused) about whether the school district is teaching critical race theory in the classrooms.

Critical race theory isn’t a simple – or single – idea. So … does the District teach CRT? There are those parents who claim that TESD teaches CRT and that it should continue. Conversely there are parents who do not support CRT in the classroom (and say that it is taught). And then there are those (including at least one school board member) who says that the District does not teach CRT. This should not be so difficult — does TE School District teach critical race theory?

The District has a contract with Pacific Educational Group (PEG), national consulting firm which provides racial equity training. Does this group provide CRT curriculum information/suggestions to the District?

I don’t have the answers, but parents should have no confusion on whether CRT is taught in TESD. According to District Policy 6132, “Parents have the right to inspect any instructional material in the child’s curriculum …” and “Parents have the right to inspect any instructional material in the child’s curriculum.” If followed, the policy takes away the confusion and parents can easily know what their children are taught. So other than the question about whether the District teaches CRT, is Policy 6132 followed?

This week, three Change.org petitions related to critical race theory and the TE School District began to circulate around the community. The below links include the originator or group name, petition title and current number of signatures. To understand the position of those behind the individual petitions, click on the links. Review the petitions and read the comments.

Start Date: June 7, 2021
Originator: Concerned Parents
Title: Families Stop Critical Race Theory in the Tredyffrin Easttown School District
Current Number of Signatures: 493
https://www.change.org/p/families-stop-critical-race-theory-in-the-tredyffrin-easttown-school-district

Start Date: June 9, 2021
Originator: TESD Resident Anita Friday
Title: Support Critical Race Theory in the Tredyffrin Easttown School District
Current Number of Signatures: 123
https://www.change.org/p/change-org-support-critical-race-theory-in-the-tredyffrin-easttown-school-district

Start Date: June 10, 2091
Originator: United TE Parents & Community
Title: Uniting Tredyffrin-Easttown for Accuracy, Equity, & Respect
Current Number of Signatures: 264
https://www.change.org/p/the-entire-tredyffrin-easttown-community-uniting-tredyffrin-easttown-for-accuracy-equity-respect

Bottom line, whether it is the budget, yearly tax increases or critical race theory, the school board meeting on Monday, June 14 (7:30 PM, Conestoga High School) is important … please make the effort to attend.

Our collective voices need to matter more!

TESD to Provide School Reopening Plan on Friday, July 24 – All Public Comment Due by Monday, July 27, 7 PM

July 20, 2020

48 Comments

Below is the letter regarding school reopening procedure from Superintendent Richard Gusick which was posted on the TESD website today. Although we expected the District to post its reopening plan this week – it turns out that the public will only have a few days to review and comment on the proposed plan. According to the letter, the District since has been “working non-stop in preparation for the new school year” since June.

The reopening plan will be posted on the District website on Friday, July 24 and public comments are due by Monday, July 27, 7 PM. The school board will vote on the final plan at a special board meeting on Wednesday, July 29, 7:30 PM.

—————————————————————————

July 20, 2020

Dear T/E Families and Staff,

I wish you all good health and wellness. As the summer progresses, I would like to provide you with an update on our planning process for the 2020-2021 school year and to announce some important upcoming dates.

Planning for Reopening

Since June, TESD has been working non-stop in preparation for the new school year. We have been meeting with stakeholders, receiving input, monitoring guidance and developing different plans and scenarios. A sampling of the preparation work happening over the summer includes:

Distance Learning Survey Results were compiled and posted on the District website.
The District continues to review feedback received through the Distance Learning Inboxes (open through July 31) on a daily basis.
A TESD Pandemic Team was formed to develop a formal reopening plan.
Teacher representatives and District administrators collaborated to review ideas for reopening.
District administrators met with representatives from TESD parent groups to gather additional input on reopening.
Review of the health and safety recommendations with local health officials and our school nurse team has been ongoing.
The District continues to monitor state guidance and recommendations from a variety of health and research organizations.
District administrators met with teachers by level to discuss reopening, receive feedback and answer questions.

New Guidance from the State Impacts Schools

New and ever-changing health guidance has required TESD to continually pivot and adjust our plans for how to reopen our schools this fall. You may have heard that on July 15, Governor Wolf released new directions for schools to help further reduce the spread of COVID-19 in Pennsylvania. In addition, on July 16, the Pennsylvania Departments of Education and Health provided further clarification on these directions. This latest guidance includes limiting indoor gatherings to no more than 25 people and a recommendation for social distancing of six feet or more in schools. These changes prompted a complete review and reworking of the District draft plan.

Timeline for Reopening Plan Presentation and Approval

As mentioned previously, the draft reopening plan will be shared with the community this week. The plan will then be publicly presented to the School Board and voted on next week. Key dates include:

Friday, July 24 – Draft Reopening Plan to be posted on the District website on a new page dedicated to sharing emerging information about school reopening
Monday, July 27 – District Meeting to Present Reopening Plan and receive public comment at 7:00 PM
Wednesday, July 29 – Special School Board Meeting to take action on Reopening Plan at 7:30 PM

In accordance with state guidelines that limit indoor gatherings to 25 people, both upcoming meetings will be held virtually. Links to the live meetings will be available on the TESD website by 6:00 PM the day of the meeting. Directions on how to submit comments or to ask questions will be provided on Friday.

Elements of the Plan

Pennsylvania school districts are charged with developing a plan that describes how schools will operate under a red, yellow and green pandemic phase. Red phase plans operate under the assumption that school buildings are closed to students, and instruction is delivered virtually to all students. The virtual learning program will include increased live synchronous instruction at all levels. Yellow and green phase plans allow for a combination of in-person instruction and virtual learning. Because in-person instruction must follow the health and safety guidance, modifications to our typical program will be required. A 100% virtual learning model will be available as a choice for families in the yellow or green phases.

I trust that when we post our plan on Friday, some of your questions will be answered, but more will be generated. I would like nothing more than to open school safely on August 31 in the same manner as in previous school years, and I am saddened as an educator and as a parent that health directives will require major changes to what we normally do. Please know that we are doing our very best to maintain the safety of our school community and the integrity of T/E’s educational program delivered by T/E teachers and staff, either remotely or in person.

Sincerely,

Dr. Richard Gusick
Superintendent of Schools

T/E School Board Candidate Question #3: Utilizing Public Participation & Input

October 29, 2019

13 Comments

Here is the full list of candidates running for T/E School Board – See Question #3 and the candidate responses below (in alphabetical order by last name).

T/E School Board Region 1 Candidates
Roberta Hotinski (D) Incumbent, unopposed
Todd Kantorczyk (D) Incumbent, unopposed

T/E School Board Region 2 Candidates (2 seats available)
Doug Anestad (I)
Michele Burger (D) Incumbent
Stacy Stone (D)
Ed Sweeney (R) Incumbent

T/E School Board Region 3 Candidates
Mary Garrett Itin (D)* opposed by Nicholas Lee (R)
Incumbent Kate Murphy (R) opposed by Sue Tiede (D)

*Mary Garrett Iten was appointed to the T/E School Board in July 2019 (to fill the seat vacated by Heather Ward) to serve through the December 2, 2019 School Board Reorganization Meeting.

_________________________________________________

Question #3: The participation and input of the T/E School District community is important. If elected, how do you propose involving residents and utilizing their expertise (budget, finance, literacy, etc.) in the process

Doug Anestad Response:

I would like to ensure that the public has a much greater say in the running of the school district. I understand that the reason we have such a great school district is because of our parents and community.

I have frequently witnessed the school board backing the administration and, at least initially, ignoring feedback by the parents or the community. I have seen this pattern many times, such as with the fences around Valley Forge Middle School, concerns from parents over curriculum, and the $1.3 million accounting error.

If I am on the school board, I will take input from the parents and community very seriously. I have demonstrated this repeatedly by supporting parents and community members in trying to implement change. I support adding parents and community members to district committees in order to give the public a more direct voice in the running of the district.

Michele Burger Response:

I have made it my top priority to gather community input PRIOR to making final decisions, meeting one-on-one with parents and taxpayers to listen to their concerns and ideas for improving the internal practices as well as the athletic and educational programs across the district. Currently the community is able to share their input and expertise by attending committee meetings, emailing individual Board members and/or the entire Board, and participating in focus groups and sub-committees. The Board approved the Administration’s request to begin a Strategic Planning process this year that will give all stakeholders an opportunity to offer their unique perspectives and expertise to guide the district. If re-elected, I will continue to listen to my constituents both publicly and privately, utilize resources provided by: educational leaders, Pennsylvania Department of Education, and the Pennsylvania School Board Association, as well as do my own “homework” prior to making final decisions

Roberta Hotinski Response:

I value the input of our community and believe the best way to capture it is generally through the public meetings of our committees, since everyone is invited to participate. Recent successes in this area include community involvement in reapportionment of our voting regions and parent advocacy for later start times and changes to the reading program that resulted in concrete changes in our educational program. We are also encouraging dialogue with parents through the district’s curriculum committee, which will provide a forum for education and discussion around literacy and other concerns.

Right now, the district is also undertaking a strategic planning effort that involves community members and parents in defining a vision and goals for the future. I would encourage anyone interested in contributing his or her expertise to involve themselves in discussions and to serve on action teams that will be taking place in the spring.

Mary Garrett Itin Response:

Much of my work has focused on including youth, family members, and professionals as equal partners. I have been a community organizer, children’s advocate, and facilitator. I have organized parents, community leaders, and youth to bring pressure for changes in education, budget priorities, and legislation. I am committed to revamping the Curriculum Council with meaningful, experienced parent involvement to meet current specific goals related to literacy and for other curriculum areas in the future. There are a number of ways we can increase community, family, and youth involvement including the way this is/has happened with the Strategic Plan, School Start Time Survey, and Elementary Redistricting Committee. I have begun looking into the research and practices of how school districts around the United States involve citizens in the budget process. I will make myself available to have further discussions on this topic.

Todd Kantorczyk Response:

The participation and input of the T/E community is always welcome, and our current Board decision-making process allows for public input at many levels. In addition to multiple public comment periods at monthly Board meetings, the Board allows for relatively unrestricted public comment during committee meetings. Also, members of the community are free to e-mail the entire Board at SchoolBoard@TESD.net, e-mail Board members individually, or contact us by some other means. At each of these opportunities, members of the community can offer insights based on their expertise. Outside the Board process, the District employs a committee structure that allows for public input on various aspects of District operations. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, over the next year, the District will develop a new strategic plan, and opportunities for public input in that process include forums, focus groups and action teams.

Nicholas Lee Response:

I believe T/E has the highest concentration of intellectual capital of any school district in the country. Our residents are pillars not just of the region’s but of the nation’s business, legal, and educational communities. We must be committed to partnering with our residents to provide the best educational results for our T/E families. If elected, I would re-initiate an initiative recently voted down by the School Board to form a Literacy Committee. As a high school teacher, I’ve seen a steady decline in reading and writing skills in our youth. If our national political scene or modern media is any indication, our country appears to be growing less literate and less thoughtful by the day. Our T/E School District community needs to get out in front of this decline and commit to providing the best educational opportunities in the field of Literacy for our students.

Kate Murphy Response:

The district would benefit from more input from the community — whether subject-matter experts or concerned parents and citizens. That’s why I have strongly advocated for a literacy committee. We have seen glimpses of how partnering with all stakeholder groups within our community can lead to good outcomes. A few examples are the District’s Ad Hoc Reapportionment Committee (to rebalance our voting regions) and the District’s Diversity Committee (to facilitate the understanding and promote tolerance of cultural and individual differences and to promote inclusive curriculum at all levels). I think this sort of approach would be beneficial in other areas as well, and we ought to be exploring the possibilities.

Stacy Stone Response:

Tredyffrin and Easttown townships are fortunate to have very well educated and engaged parents and community members with a wealth of skills and experience in many areas, including financial management, information technology, mental health services, and all curricular areas. I welcome these community members as partners in improving our District and pledge to bring together parents, teachers, students, administrators, board members, and other experts to ensure that our children have the instruction they deserve and require to become lifelong readers and learners. To that end, I believe all school administration committee meetings—not just school board and board committee meetings—should be open to the public, announced on the TESD website, and should include parents and community experts appointed by the board in addition to members appointed by the administration.

Ed Sweeney Response:

I have been a firm supporter of a Literacy Committee built on the model of the Diversity Committee. It would be a great forum to exchange ideas. A great District needs to be open to new ideas and must not be “top down.”

I would use our “Strategic Plan” process to wholly revamp the types of committees the Board has and who serve on them. I would recruit members for the committees that not only have expertise, but a diversity of views. We need a Finance Committee and an Accounting Committee. While I would greatly prefer the Board to revisit the issue of a Literacy Committee, I would push for Everyone Reads TE to have strong voices on the Curriculum Committee.

I have proposed on several occasions having an expert volunteer, an outside “voice,” to be appointed by the Board to sit with us in regular sessions and on subcommittees.

Sue Tiede Response:

I believe that parent and community involvement is one of the greatest strengths of the T/E School District. As a district employee for 14 years, I was always grateful to the hundreds of community members who committed their time, talent and energy to support our students at every level and in many ways. For example, the District is currently developing a new Strategic Plan. Input from a diverse group of stakeholders is vital to creating a plan that will ensure the District can meet the needs of students in the future. Throughout my career I have welcomed involvement from parents, teachers and the community as we identified what was best for our students. As a member of the Board, I would look forward to continuing this dialog through public meetings and other avenues.

Tredyffrin Special Election Supervisor candidates – Where do they stand on the digital billboard, historic preservation ordinance and transparency? Know before you vote!

October 21, 2018

31 Comments

How many of you know that there is a special election on November 6 to fill an at-large seat on Tredyffrin’s Board of Supervisors? And that for the first time in township history, both candidates running to fill the vacancy are former supervisors!

The last time that there was a special election on the ballot in Tredyffrin Township was in May 2011; a highly contested race between Mike Heaberg (R) and Molly Duffy (D) to fill an interim supervisor seat, as a result of Warren Kampf’s election as PA State Representative. If you recall, the special election results were so close that the winner’s name changed when malfunctioning voting machines required ballot hand counting. Ultimately, Heaberg was declared the victor and in the general election match-up race the same year, he won a regular 4-year term.

Now seven and a half years later, township residents will be choosing a supervisor in the special election on Nov. 6. In the sea of political campaign lawn signs are a couple of locally familiar names – Republican Judy DiFilippo and Democrat Mark Freed are the special election candidates running to fill the vacated at-large seat on Tredyffrin’s Board of Supervisors.

Republican Sean Moir, a second term supervisor abruptly resigned last month, having moved from the township and therefore no longer eligible to serve. The term for the vacated seat runs through 2019. The good news for residents is that both DiFilippo and Freed are seasoned township supervisors – Judy served for twenty years, six as its chair and Mark completed one four year term (2014-17).

Whoever wins the upcoming election will determine the party majority on the Board of Supervisors. With the departure of Moir (R), there are three Republicans (Heather Greenberg, Paul Olson and Trip Lukens (and three Democrats (Murph Wysocki, Matt Holt and Kevin O’Nell) currently serving. Because so often local township votes come down on party lines, the impact of who fills the seventh seat could be significant and if Freed wins, it will mark the first time in township history for a Democrat-majority board of supervisors.

The township and its residents is embroiled in a serious issue that would forever change the landscape and village feel of Paoli – the proposed digital billboard at the intersection of Rt. 252 and Lancaster Ave. I remain troubled that as a community we were kept in the dark for 18-24 months while township supervisors discussed the proposed digital billboard. The public only learned at the 11^th hour with the township solicitor Vince Donohue using words like “negotiations” and “settlement agreement” in advance of the Catalyst presentation. I, like many others took that to mean that the digital billboard was a fait accompli.

With nearly 2,500 signatures showing support for the Change.org petition to “BAN the Digital Billboard in Paoli”) and a GoFundMe exceeding its goal, the community is fully engaged. The laws signs are scheduled for delivery this week!

It is critical that voters know where special election supervisor candidates DiFilippo and Freed stand on important township issues – the proposed digital billboard, historic preservation ordinance and transparency in local government. The candidates received 3 questions from me and were asked to respond in 100 words or less to each question. The following are the questions and the candidate responses, in the order received.

Question #1: As you are aware, the Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors is entertaining a proposal to construct a digital billboard at the intersection of Rt. 252 and Lancaster Ave. in Paoli. The community has been told by the township solicitor that Catalyst Outdoor Advertising will initiate legal proceedings if the digital billboard is not approved. If you are elected before the vote occurs, how will vote and why.

Candidate Judy DiFilippo (R) response: I do not support the proposal by Catalyst Outdoor Advertising to construct digital billboards at the Route 252/Lancaster Avenue intersection. In addition to the concern for safety of the traveling public, in my opinion, the mass of the signs proposed is not appropriate on that site. They do not reflect the overall aesthetic desired in Tredyffrin and do not respect the existing structure and its significance. If there is a deficiency in the Township’s sign ordinance relating to digital signs, a moratorium should be considered on any future applications for digital billboard signs until the ordinance is corrected.

Candidate Mark Freed (D) response: I oppose the Catalyst digital billboard proposal. This billboard is wrong for Tredyffrin Township and would result in the destruction of a valued historic resource. I have opposed the billboard since the concept was first floated by Catalyst when I was on the Board of Supervisors. I advised both my fellow Board members and Catalyst of my grave concerns. I have not seen anything in the recent presentations to change my opinion and remain opposed to Catalyst’s proposal.

Question #2: Unlike most Main Line townships, Tredyffrin does not currently have a historic preservation ordinance. Please comment as to whether or not you would support such a township ordinance and why.

Candidate Judy DiFilippo (R) response: The Township has an award-winning 2003 Historic Resource Survey that lists hundreds of historic buildings and it explains the historic and/or architectural significance for each. Valley Forge National Historical Park lies within Tredyffrin. We have a significant link to the founding of our country. We should be proud to share that history. I support the creation of an ordinance that appreciates and protects our most significant historic resources. Pennsylvania’s Municipalities Planning Code and Chester County’s Planning Commission have tooIs available to help us do that, including adaptive reuse. We can protect historic resources and still respect an individual’s property rights.

Candidate Mark Freed (D) response: I support a historic preservation ordinance that protects our Township’s valued historic resources. We must recognize Tredyffrin’s rich historic heritage. We must also be mindful of the rights of the owners of historic resources. I understand that the Historical Commission has proposed an ordinance amendment that would prohibit the demolition of designated historic resources unless reviewed by the Historical Commission and approved by the Board of Supervisors at a public hearing. This amendment would prevent the issuance of over-the-counter demolition permits that have resulted in almost immediate demolition of our historic resources. It would be a significant step forward.

Question #3: The support for openness and transparency in local government often appears on candidate campaign literature. What does it mean to you for local government to be open and transparent? Please be specific.

Candidate Judy DiFilippo (R) response: Transparency means you abide by the Sunshine Law. Certain matters dealing with Township personnel or pending litigation can be discussed in Executive Session by the Board and the Solicitor. When Executive Session meetings are held, it is announced during the Public Meeting. All Township Commissions, Advisory Councils, and Boards must abide by the Sunshine Law as well because their decisions and recommendations also impact the Township. Open discussion by the Board and with the public is the only place for decision-making. The public should be able to rely upon that and upon the trust given to the individuals they elect.

Candidate Mark Freed (D) response: To me, openness and transparency mean providing the public with information in a timely manner, giving the public the opportunity to express their views at public meetings and elsewhere, listening respectfully, responding forthrightly, and letting the public know that their voices have been heard and respected. They mean being clear and direct with the public about the Board’s decision-making process. They mean remembering that Board members serve the public.

TE School District Taxpayers in the Dark

September 24, 2017

29 Comments

I received the following press release Sunday morning from a Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA) representative.

Tredyffrin/Easttown Education Association (TEEA) to Hold Informational Picket before September 25th School Board Meeting

What: Teachers and educators of the Tredyffrin/Easttown Education Association (TEEA) are holding an Informational Picket before the next School Board meeting to protest their lack of a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The CBA expired, June 30, 2017 and both parties met one time over the entire summer. The membership is frustrated by the lack of progress in one of Pennsylvania’s premier school districts. Conestoga High Schools was recently ranked the best high school in all of Pennsylvania.

Who: Hundreds of Teachers, Parents and Educational staff of TESD School District.
Visual Highlights: Teachers will assemble prior to the School Board meeting, holding signs and marching and chanting for a new contract. Community members and families are invited.

When: Monday, September 25, 6:30 p.m. (Assemble) | 7:30 p.m. (meeting)

Where: Conestoga High School (200 Irish Rd, Berwyn, PA 19312)

Statement by TEEA President, Dr. Bob DeSipio:
“Our contract expired on July 1, 2017. Despite multiple offerings to meet with the School Board this summer to continue the negotiations process, we did not meet until the end of August. We want the School Board to know that it is not just the five or six of us on the bargaining team that are upset with the slow pace of these negotiations, but a membership of more than 400 highly educated and highly dedicated educators. We hope tonight’s Board meeting is a demonstration to the District that TEEA is resolute in our dedication to achieve a new agreement and want to reach a fair and competitive settlement as quickly as possible.”

Dr. DeSipio’s statement is confusing and unsettling – although the teachers’ contract expired June 30, 2017, the District held no negotiating meetings during the summer! No contract negotiation meetings between the District and the teachers union “until the end of August”! This makes no sense.

It is impossible for the community “to take a side” in the contract negotiation battle between the school district and the teachers union. Why? Because the taxpayers have received no information from either side about the offers/demands.

The teachers are asking for a “fair and competitive settlement” … wish I knew the offer on the table. The public cannot possibly know what is “fair” without knowing the contents of the offer.

The secret negotiations between the District and the teachers union once again underscore the need for transparency.

Getting the state union officials from PSEA involved, the T/E teachers will show solidarity with signs, marching and chanting on Monday night before the school board meeting. Working without a settled contract is difficult but isn’t this “informational picket” apt to make the contract negotiation situation more contentious?

Looking for public updates from the TE School Board on District lawsuits, teacher contracts … but none given!

June 13, 2017

86 Comments

Communication + Transparency = Trust

I attended the final TESD school board meeting of the 2016-17 school year on Monday night for several reasons.

First, I wanted to hear the District’s statement about the two important lawsuits filed in the last couple of weeks.

On May 17, Thomas Batgos, an assistant Conestoga High School football coach fired by the T/E School District in the aftermath of the alleged hazing and sexual assault filed a lawsuit against District administrators – Superintendent Dr. Richard Gusick and Conestoga High School Principal Dr. Amy Meisinger. The lawsuit cited defamation of character, misrepresentation, fraud, improper termination, etc. and seeks damages of at least $50,000 in compensation plus punitive damages.
On May 8, a Federal lawsuit was filed against T/E School District and Conestoga High School Principal Dr. Amy Meisinger. The lawsuit alleges that District administrators and teachers at Conestoga HS tolerated a culture whereby Arthur Phillips, a 67-year-old instructional aide could repeatedly sexually abuse a 15-year old female student. The lawsuit filed by the parents of the student, seek damages of at least $75,000 in damages and calls for the resignation of Dr. Meisinger.

There was no statement from the school board on these lawsuits. Nothing, nada, zippo … I get that this a legal matter but what about an acknowledgement from the school board that the lawsuits exist? What about a reassurance that all policies/procedures related to suspected sexual abuse will be reviewed and updated as needed? The TE School District is more than school rankings and the number of college acceptances — it is the safety of our children!

The law firm in the federal lawsuit, Ross Feller Casey, has won record-setting awards for its clients, including victims of predatory sexual abuse like seven men who were victimized by Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky. This lawsuit has the potential to bankrupt the District financially and yet the board makes no public statement.

Secondly, I attended the school board meeting to receive an update on the District teachers’ contract, the non-instructional employees (TENIG) contract and the Act 93 (administrators) agreement – all three of these contracts are due to expire in two weeks, on June 30, 2017.

There was no statement from the school board on the status of the TEEA or TENIG contracts.

The school board did however approve a raise of 1.7% plus a 1% bonus for District administrators to extend the Administrator Compensation Plan (Act 93 Agreement) through June 30, 2018.

And finally, I attended the school board meeting to see how the school board was going to handle the passing of the final budget for 2017-18 given that the TEEA and TENIG contracts and the Act 93 Agreement account for 70% of the budget and these items were labeled ‘TBD’ (to be decided) in the budget. During the budget discussion prior to the vote, there was no discussion about needing any contingencies for these (soon to expire) contracts in the budget.

Although the preliminary budget had contained a 3.435% tax increase, the board agreed to lower the tax increase before approving the final budget. The school board passed the budget 9-0 with a 3.2% tax increase for 2017-18. The newly passed budget assumes no increases for teachers and non-instructional employees. By my calculations, this budget for 2017-18 marks 13 consecutive years of tax increases. You would have to go all the way back to the 2004-05 to find a ‘no tax increase’ year.

I attended the school board meeting expecting to hear updates about specific important issues facing the school district. Instead I left the meeting feel very disheartened about the lack of information. The school board has a responsibility to involve the community and to communicate clear information to the public. The importance of transparency and providing public information to the community cannot be understated.

Will Lower Merion School District’s handling of teacher’s contract play out similarly in TE School District — Some school board candidates weigh in

November 2, 2015

9 Comments

Last week a tentative agreement was reached between Lower Merion School District and their teachers. The deal between LM and the union was made in secret, with a process devoid of transparency. The proposed teacher’s contract and its terms were not published for public review.

There are rumors that the TE School District is currently in ‘Early Bird’ contract negotiations with the teacher’s union. Because of the existing situation in Lower Merion, rumors of early bird talks and five seats on the TE School Board up for grabs on Election Day, there was discussion as to where our candidates stand on this issue. The following email was sent to the ten Tredyffrin and Easttown school board candidates on Saturday.

To All TE School Board Candidates:

I know that you are all very busy campaigning in advance of Election Day. Tredyffrin resident Ray Clarke added a comment on Community Matters regarding the teacher contract, negotiations and keeping the public informed. He has spoken with several of you regarding his concerns, particularly given what is currently going on in Lower Merion School District. As a result, I am asking you to read the following and provide a very brief (100 words or less) response to me by 9 PM, Sunday, Nov. 1. The question and all candidate responses received will appear on Community Matters on Monday, Nov. 2.

Negotiating union contracts (teachers and support staff) will be important tasks for the new Board. In Lower Merion School District, a secret deal is playing out between their school board and the teachers union. Much to the chagrin of Lower Merion taxpayers, the union members get to review the contract before signing but the public is left in the dark and provided no information.

During the last teachers’ contract negotiations, the TE School Board moved in the correct direction with periodic updates to the public. Assuming that there are no secret “Early Bird” deals already in discussion between the current Board and the union, [if elected] where do you stand on publishing any proposed contracts to the public at the same time as the unions send it to their members? In addition to publishing the terms of the contract to the public before signing, to also include the full annual cost of the contract for each year (including PSERS, salaries, benefits, etc.) with an explanation of how the Board will pay the costs.

Again, I understand that you are pressed for time and I thank you in advance. Your responses may help get additional voters to the polls on Tuesday.

Pattye Benson

Because I know how busy the candidates are in the last days leading up to the election, their responses were to be brief – 100 words or less. One hundred words is very short; the second paragraph in the statement above (from “During … costs.”) is 109 words.

During this campaign season, most every school board candidate has used themes of transparency, public engagement and responsiveness to citizens in their campaigning literature, meet and greets with voters and during the Chester County League of Women Voters candidate forum. It is for that reason, that a brief response would allow each candidate the opportunity to restate and to reconfirm their transparency commitment to the voters before Election Day tomorrow (November 3).

Of the ten school board candidates, responses to the question were received by Kate Murphy (R) and Fran Reardon (D), Easttown, Region 3 candidates; Neill Kling (R) and Neal Colligan (R) Tredyffrin East, Region 1 candidates and Ed Sweeney (R) Tredyffrin West, Region 2. The responses from these five candidates appear below.

The four Democratic school board candidates from Tredyffrin (Alan Yockey, Michele Burger, Roberta Hotinski and Todd Kantorczyk) each sent similar emails; all declining to respond, citing time constraints due to the campaign and/or previous personal commitments. There was no response from Kris Graham. If, as rumored (and I do say if) there are early bird negotiations already underway between the TE School District and TEEA, the District teacher’s union, it would not be possible for Ms. Graham to respond.

The TE School Board candidate responses are as follows:

Neill Kling, Tredyffrin East, Region 1 candidate:

A cloak and dagger approach serves neither party. The union must understand throughout that what their members receive can be no more than what our tax base will reasonably be able to bear. The current PESERS situation resulted from disregard of that sound principle. Thus, I believe that the taxpayers should view the contracts when they are sent to the teachers for approval. I am also in favor of providing a public estimate of how we propose to meet the contractual obligations. The District must conduct negotiations with this estimate uppermost in mind. Publishing it when they are completed is responsible stewardship.

Neal Colligan, Tredyffrin East, Region 1 candidate:

Of course, the public should be informed as negotiations move forward….this is by far the largest municipal contract in our community. Start now by presenting the existing economics…total salary, benefits, pension contribution…show the history of these costs. This information, reviewed at an entity level, will not disclose any employees’ personal compensation package and will not violate the rules of new contract discussions. As the process advances, let the community know of the issues…I doubt the Union side would object. People here are pretty fair and can draw their own conclusions on what is just as negotiations move towards a new contract.

From Ed Sweeney, Tredyffrin West, Region 2 candidate:

I would strongly agree to the first proposal if it was consistent with current agreement between the School District and the Union and with the provisions of relevant labor law. As far as his other proposals, I need more information but I am a proponent of maximum disclosure at the appropriate time.

I agree with the principle of “MORE” . . . more transparency, more public disclosure, more committee meetings convenient to working parents, and more involvement of residents and stakeholders at an early stage of committee consideration of issues. In my view, more = better. More increases public confidence and protects the taxpayer.

From Kate Murphy, Easttown, Region 3 candidate:

In Pennsylvania, salaries and benefits make up the lion’s share of any school district’s budget, generally between 70% and 80%. Pension benefits (PSERS) are set legislatively by the General Assembly and the Governor, and are not negotiated by local school boards. All collective bargaining agreements must be available to the public for review and comment well in advance of the public vote to approve such agreements. Periodic updates during the negotiations can be a helpful tool to inform the public. District estimates of the full annual cost of the contract for each year should be available for timely public examination.

From Fran Reardon, Easttown, Region 3 candidate:

In negotiating contracts within the School District, we should maintain a high level of transparency for all parties involved. Periodic updates should be available to the taxpaying public and all other stakeholders. Current annual cost of contracts should clearly be given with the long term effects of PSERS obligations also laid out and presented to the TE community in a timely fashion before any vote by the school board.

As a member of the TE School Board, I will work with the full board to give the taxpayers value for their dollar and also maintain the excellence of our schools.

Improving Public Communication and Transparency, School Fencing, Real Estate Development, Tax Increases — All Important Issues to Tredyffrin Voters

October 26, 2015

15 Comments

Candidates for the TE School Board and the Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors participated in a ‘Meet the Candidate’ forum sponsored by Chester County League of Women Voters on Saturday. As an audience member, it was clear that as voters we are lucky as most of the candidates had done their homework. The candidates were prepared, understood the important issues and were able to present their views effectively. The township and the school district are fortunate to have qualified community members willing to take on the challenges of elected office.

Improving public communication and transparency, fencing at Valley Forge Middle School, yearly tax increase, real estate development and pension reform remain important issues with residents. The candidates addressed resident questions regarding these issues and others on Saturday.

If you were unable to attend the candidate forum, you can find a rebroadcast on the township website as follows.

Click here to view the Chester County League of Women Voters ‘Meet the TE School Board Candidates.

Click here to view the Chester County League of Women Voters ‘Meet the Tredyffrin Township Candidates’

Election Day is a week from tomorrow, Tuesday, November 3. Before casting your vote, know the candidates!

On Thursday, October 29 at the Tredyffrin Township building, the Chesterbrook Civic Association is sponsoring a ‘Meet the Candidates’ event. Open to the public, this will be a good opportunity to ask specific questions of the supervisor and school board candidates. Please plan to attend.

Meet the Candidates 2015
Township Building, 7:00 – 8:30pm
Thursday Oct. 29

Board of Supervisor candidates in attendance:
Democrats
Elva Bankins, Lou Horvath, and Yolanda VanderKrol
Republicans
Trip Lukens and Heather Greenberg

School Board candidates in attendance:
Republicans
Ed Sweeney and Kris Graham
Democrats
Michele Burger and Alan Yockey

Come and ask the tough questions about tax increases, development, student safety, fencing at VFMS, and funding for the fire and ambulance company. Be an informed voter: this election matters.

Sponsored by the Chesterbrook Civic Association

Like many community residents, Chesterbrook resident Doug Anestad has voiced concerns related to the fencing plans at Valley Forge Middle School. Doug sent the following email on October 10 to each TE School Board candidate. He received responses from all school board candidates except for two — Doug did not have a valid email address for Fran Reardon (D) and incumbent Kris Graham (R) elected not to respond.

Dear T/E School Board Candidate,

I would like to get your official position regarding some questions concerning the Valley Forge Middle School proposed fences. Your reply by end of the day Saturday, October 17 would be most appreciated. 1) Where do you stand on the Valley Forge Middle School fence issue?

2) Do you think it is a good use of taxpayer money to spend $15,500 to hire a safety consultant to review the VFMS site?

3) Would you support installing additional fencing at VFMS if the safety consultant recommends it? If you would support additional fencing, how would you reconcile this with the public’s right to use the walkways?

Thank you for your time in addressing these questions.

Regards,

Doug Anestad

If you want to know where the school board candidates stand on the fencing issue you can read their full responses to Doug’s questions — click here.

TE School District Submits VFMS Fencing Permit Application … Tredyffrin Township Denies Request!

April 26, 2015

12 Comments

Valley Forge Middle School fencing was not on the Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors April 20^th meeting, but many Chesterbrook residents attended the meeting and spoke against the TE School Board’s project. The supervisors deferred all questions/comments to the township’s solicitor Vince Donohue for response who told audience members that the township would not get involved until the District made either a “permit request or there was a shovel in the ground”. Chesterbrook residents left the meeting hoping for a more proactive approach by township officials.

The ‘wait and see’ township attitude was quickly tested when the School District submitted a permit request for the Valley Forge Middle School fencing this past week. The township’s Planning and Zoning Director Matt Bauman denied the permit request on the spot and in a letter to the School District, stated

“Please be advised that the permit is hereby denied. The issuance of the permit would violate the terms of that certain Zoning Hearing Board Decision in Appeal Number 64-02 issued December 17, 2002.”

The School Board’s action attempted to violate the legal agreement between TESD and the Chesterbrook Civic Association. Without an amendment to the Special Exception granted by Tredyffrin Township’s Zoning Hearing Board in 2002, how does the School Board think that they can move forward with their planned fencing project at VFMS?

Unless something has changed in the last couple of days, there has been no movement on part of the School Board or the District to resolve the VFMS fencing situation directly with the Green Hills residents or with the Chesterbrook Civic Association. As David Miller, president of CCA told us at the supervisors meeting, there has been no return of phone calls or emails to either himself or to the Green Hills and CCA attorneys from the School Board or their attorney David Falcone of Saul Ewing. Yet the District went ahead and made a permit application for the fencing!

I encourage Chesterbrook residents and Valley Forge Road neighbors to bring their chain link fencing opposition message to the TE School Board meeting on Monday, April 27, 7:30 PM at Conestoga High School. At some point, the School Board has to listen to those that they were elected to serve.

Unionville-Chadds Ford School Board director resigns, claiming Board has transparency and communication issues

October 25, 2013

51 Comments

The Unionville-Chadds Ford School District in southern Chester County is a high-ranking school district and often enjoys the same elite national standing for student test scores, etc. as the T/E School District. As an example, high schools from both school districts received gold level standing in the 2013 US News & World Report with Conestoga ranked #5 and UCF ranked #10 in Pennsylvania high schools. Because of their similar academic achievement levels and their geographic proximity (both in Chester County) the two school districts are often compared on Community Matters. Additionally, readers of CM may be familiar with regular commenter Keith Knauss, a member of the U-CF School Board, who often offers his experience and personal insight in our school district related discussions.

This week saw a surprise resignation of U-CF school board director Holly Manzone. On the surface, Manzone’s decision is not significant for TESD residents, but in reading the resignation letter (that includes the reasons for her departure), her words contained an eerie familiarity. During the recent League of Women Voters debate, most of the T/E school board candidates used buzzwords like trust, transparency, and open communication and morale issues. All but one candidate supported the need to improve the communication relationship between the Board and the residents. TE School Board president Kevin Buraks, who is seeking re-election, disagreed with his fellow candidates and stated during the LWV debate that the Board already provides an open forum for the public and that there are no morale issues in the District.

In her resignation letter, Manzone acknowledges the excellent quality of the Unionville Chadds Ford School District but criticizes the U-CF School Board for what she says amounts to ‘rubber stamping’ decisions of the Administration. Claiming that the U-CF School Board is a model for ‘poor governance’, meetings ‘scripted’ and decisions ‘baked’, Manzone states that she can, “no longer continue to participate on the Board on this basis without violating my principles and disturbing my conscience. I cannot allow my continued presence on the Board to connote agreement with these practices.” Manzone listed the following six issues in her resignation from the U-CF school board:

“Open discussion is frowned upon and dissent is squelched at both the public and executive meetings.
Meetings, especially public meetings, are often orchestrated, with many “pre-meetings” and phone calls behind the scenes to prevent genuine public discussion of contentious issues and avoid any embarrassment to the administration or the Board, i.e., “no dirty laundry.”
Executive sessions are over-used. If there is a way to characterize a topic so that it can be discussed privately in executive session, it is. Engineering topics in this way may allow the district to comply with the letter of the Sunshine Law, but it surely violates its spirit.
Community members raising issues are often themselves considered the problem. Energy is expended complaining about these individuals rather than focusing on improvement.
Access to underlying data and original documents is withheld, even if it is not confidential. “Confidentiality” is used as an excuse to withhold access to broad categories of data, without foundation.
Information is shared unequally, with not all Board members receiving the same background for deliberations. Also, private “votes” are held without canvassing all members.”

Manzone is not seeking re-election; and decided that to take her issues with the UCFSD Board public in her resignation statement. I have read some of the comments to Manzone’s resignation letter — several Board members (including Keith Knauss) have come out strongly against Manzone’s allegations. Conversely, Manzone does have her supporters, particuarly members of the public who have attended school board meetings. (To read the comments in the Unionville Times, click here.)

Similar to the issues raised by Manzone, we have heard several T/E School Board candidates voice concerns and suggest the need to improve the communication, transparency and trust issues in the District. My takeway — whether it is UCFSD, T/E or any other school board — open dialogue between school boards and the residents they serve is essential to building mutual trust; citizen input should be respected and welcomed.

← Older Posts

Pattye Benson

Community Matters