The Oley Concerned Citizens New Blog

Your new blog is now on-line.

Currently, it has the capability to offer pictures, audio, video, and links of importance to the Oley Valley Taxpayers.

There are other features that will be available in the future.

Click the link to the new blog location:

Oley Concerned Citizens

Don't forget to bookmark the new address:

http://oleyconcernedcitizens.blogspot.com/

The Middle School Lawsuit

According to a steel contractor, the Oley School District owes them $1,437,309, interest, penalties, attorney’s fees, and costs associated under Pennsylvania Public Prompt Pay Act.
Amthor Steel entered into a contract on May 25, 2001 with the district to provide structural steel for the new Middle School. The amount of the contract was $1,850,200.
The contractor completed work prior to November 29, 2002. The district received and used the product in the Middle School, but refused to pay the remainder of the contract sighting delay costs and violation of the Pennsylvania Steel Purchasing Act.
Official communications about the dispute between the parties began in July 2002.
Amthor Steel filed for arbitration as prescribed by the contract terms on September 20, 2004. Initially, the district participated in arbitration, but then filed a motion in the Court of Common Pleas for a Declaratory Judgment on March 18, 2005.
The Oley Valley School District is requesting the court to have the dispute litigated rather than continuing with arbitration.
The details of this case are available at the County Courthouse.
Since the beginning of this year, the board told the community these records were not public information, yet the court papers were a Public Record on March 18, 2005.
According to comments at a public meeting, the school board appointed a Building Committee to oversee the Middle School construction.
The Committee consisted of three board members, and a person from the community.
However, the school board would direct any final actions.
The financial impact of this battle with the contractor is considerable. Besides the $1,437,309 and associated claim costs, is the reimbursement from the state. The district cannot request reimbursement from the state on school construction costs, which in this situation, may be worth over $1,000,000 until the litigation concludes.
The same dilemma exists with the $1,200,000 in the Capital Projects Fund. The board cannot access this fund until the dispute ends.
The court will decide on the law, but there are administrative questions that need resolution.

1.Why did the district continue to accept and install product from the contractor when they felt it did not meet contract specifications?
2.How did the district get a Certificate of Occupancy if the steel did not meet contract specification?
3.How can the district ask for state reimbursement for the construction if the steel is not meeting contract specification?
4.How much has the district spent so far on legal bills for this litigation?
5.The Capital Projects Fund has $1,200,000 for the dispute, yet the suit is for $$1,437,309, who will pay the difference if the board pays the claim?

At the October 11, 2006 Combined Meeting the board refused to answer these questions.

The Middle School construction process and subsequent contract negotiations deteriorated.
There was poor job oversight by the Building Committee and the Board. If they paid closer attention to the initial steel shipments, the community would probably not be facing a substantial lawsuit.
The decision to leave arbitration in favor of litigation could be an expensive mistake.
Unlike arbitration, we face the possibility of endless and expensive appeals in a courtroom. We are in a legal quagmire.
This board needs to roll up its sleeves and get involved rather than worrying about micro managing.

Oley Valley School Board Winks at Right to Know Law

The Oley Valley School District is continuing its plan to prevent the public from participating in the educational process.
Despite the Reading Eagle editorials and the taxpayers carrying signs packing board meetings supporting Free Speech, the school board recently approved a policy to restrict public comment at the regular board meetings.
Speakers are now limited to three minutes, topics to thirty minutes, and statements can be cut off for any reason by the presiding officer.
The anti-public strategy of the school board continues because the Policy Committee, headed by Robert Cappa plans to make access to Public Records prohibitive.
The current fee schedule for copies of Public Records is ten cents per copy. The district wants to charge twenty five cents a copy and an hourly retrieval rate.
A Public Record is already on file with the district in a format of their convenience.

The Pennsylvania Right to Know Law says;

Amending the act of June 21, 1957 (P.L. 390, No. 212), entitled An act requiring certain records of the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions and of certain authorities and other agencies performing essential governmental functions, to be open for examination and inspection by citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; authorizing such citizens under certain conditions to make extracts, copies, photographs or photostats of such records; and providing for appeals to the courts of common pleas, further providing for definitions, for examination and inspection and for extracts, copies or photostats; providing for denial of access to public records, for redaction, for response to requests for access and for final agency determinations; further providing for appeal from denial of right; and providing for court costs and attorney fees, for penalty and for immunity.

The political subdivision, in this case the school district may charge “reasonable” copying fees. It can also charge for requests of information put in a format that is different from district in-file records.
But charging an hourly rate for information that should be in the district possession and taxes have already been incurred to create and store that paperwork, appears to be an attempt by the board to skirt the Right to Know Law of Pennsylvania.
At the September 13, 2006 combined board meeting, the citizens discovered the plot to charge exorbitant fees for Public Records.
Dr. Zackon was asked if they planned to charge an hourly rate, he said “No”. But at the September 20, 2006 meeting, he recants by saying “..He does not know” if they plan to charge for labor.
Over $6,000,000 in off-budget funds while the board raises taxes, the school budget, the monthly Treasurer Report depicting activities in these off-budget funds, the teachers’ contract, the Superintendent’s contract, the little known Medical Pool Fund, are just a few the topics the board does not like to discuss with the taxpayers.
These and other areas of interest will not be available because the board plans to make them too expensive for review.
The community has every right to see their Public Records and not to be gouged in the process.
The next Policy Meeting is Monday, October 9, 2006, at 7:00PM in the Administration Building Boardroom.

PSSA Test Scores Fumble the Ball

The school district sent a letter home to the parents claiming "Good News" for PSSA test results.
This proclamation needs a close look.
The PSSA tests students in Math and Reading proficiency. The grade classifications are Advanced, Proficient, Basic, and Below Basic. The scores are expressed as a percentage of students taking the test.
For example, if there are 100 students taking the test, 25 graded Advanced, 25 graded Proficient, 25 graded Basic, and 25 graded Below Basic, then each represents a percentage of students tested. Therefore, 25% were Advanced, 25% were Proficient, 25% Basic, and 25% Below Basic.
Each year the district must improve the test results in the Adequate Yearly Progress report. If the district fails to meet AYP standards, parents have the right to remove their child from the school and the district faces oversight from the state.
By 2014 all students must reach Proficiency.

Year 2002
5th Grade: Below Proficient
Math: 42.1 %
Reading: 26.2%
8th Grade: Below Proficient
Math: 33.2 %
Reading: 29.2%
11th Grade: Below Proficient
Math: 44%
Reading: 33.2%
Year 2006
5th Grade: Below Proficient
Math: 32.3% Below Proficient
Reading: 33.6% Below Proficient
8th Grade: Below Proficient
Math: 36.2%
Reading: 18.3%
11th Grade: Below Proficient
Math: 51.3%
Reading: 26.9%
Source: Pennsylvania Department of Education

Comparing the years 2002 to 2006, either the Math or the Reading scores are scoring lower in 2006 than they were in 2002.
The 2002 and 2006 11th grade results are very troubling. The district is sending students into the world unprepared to compete for jobs and a higher education.
As this rate, the district needs to make drastic changes to meet the state educational compliance by 2014.
In the same years, the taxpayers spent a total $81,291,356.80 for Oley Valley School District education.

Total Expenditures:
2002 - $17,516,145,96
2003 - $19,821,377.44
2004 - $20,893,683.20
2005- $23,066,150.00
Source: Pennsylvania Department of Education

Millions have been spent on improving education, yet independant test scores are not
reflecting the investment.
This performance is not "Good News". The school board and the superintendent are responsible for these poor results.
In the private sector, they would be replaced.

The Medical Pool Fund

The Oley Valley School board recently approved one of the most expensive teacher contracts in Berks County. The package was so attractive that the Wilson School District teachers union used it as a model for their contract negotiations.
Besides the exorbitant pay and benefits given to the union is a below the radar, Medical Pool Fund.
This fund can be described as secretive because is not listed in the yearly budget presented to the public. It is not even shown on the Form 2028 sent to the state.
It can only be found by a through review of district contracts.
This fund is designed to ..reimburse the bargaining unit member for medical expenses for items such as (including but not limited to) prescriptions, eye care office visits, orthodontics, etc., not otherwise paid or reimbursed by insurance. The phase, including but not limited to could lend itself to non-medically related expenses.
In other words, the fund will pay for what the health insurance does not cover up to the yearly rate of reimbursement.
The teacher submits their expenses to the business manager and the money is then drawn from the Medical Pool Fund.
The yearly reimbursement amount per teacher schedule depicted in the agreement is the following:
2005-06: $300
2006-07: $350
2007-08: $400
2008-09: $450
2009-10: $500
If you multiply the number of full time teachers in the district times their rate of reimbursement, the potential expense is enormous.
The Medical Pool Fund is also available to the Superintendent. His yearly schedule is:
Years 1 and 2 of contract - $400
Years 3 and 4 of contract - $500
Years 5 of contract - $600.
The Administrative Positions also have a Medical Pool Fund. The Administrative positions are the High School, the Middle School, the Elementary School Principles, the High School Assistant Principle, the Director of Special Education, the Director of Business and Support Services, and the Elementary School Assistant Principle.
They are reimbursed at a rate of $150 per year and it is cumulative during the length of their contract.
The board indicated at the August 16,2006 that the Medical Pool Fund is available to most of the district personnel.
The district already provides generous wage and benefits.
The Medical Pool Fund is nothing more than gouging the community whose wages and benefits alone pales in comparison to the district's package.
Neither the state nor the federal government mandated this fund. The school board approved this windfall.

The Devil Is In The Details

The Oley Valley School Board has been trying to pass a policy, which prevents reasonable public participation at board meetings.
The board has not been getting good press or a favorable civic reaction to their plans to restrict free speech.
They are attempting to sell the idea that the new policy is harmless. This same school board tells the public that a $1,300,000, new synthetic, track will not affect taxes either.
A closer look at sections of the policy suggests it is anything but benign.
Section 7. Hearing of Citizens
The School Board shall establish guidelines to govern public participation in formal School Board meetings necessary to conduct its meeting and to maintain order.
In order to permit fair and orderly expression of public comment, the School Board shall provide reasonable opportunity at each open meeting of the School Board for residents and taxpayers to comment on matters of concern, official action or deliberation before the School Board prior to official action by the school Board.
"Reasonable" is the operative word. The board asserts that three minutes is enough time to talk about a 200 line item, $25,000,000 budget. It is not enough time and the taxpayers are owed the decency to express their opinions.
The board violated this section at the July 19,2006 meeting, when board President Robert Heckman made a motion to cancel the combined meeting in August. His motion should have been on the agenda for public comment, but it was not.
The board passed his motion and the community had no say in the matter.
The School Board shall require that all public comments added to agenda items be made at the beginning of each formal meeting.
If the board does not put an item on the agenda, then votes on it anyway, how can the public comment?
If the School Board determines there is not sufficient time at a meeting for public comments, the comment period may be deferred to the next regular meeting or to a special meeting occurring before the next regular meeting.
The board should make time at the current meeting to address the public's concerns. Deferring to the future is nothing more than a stalling tactic.
The presiding officer at each public School Board meeting shall follow the School Board Policy for the conduct of public meeting. Where his/her ruling is disputed, it may be overruled by a majority of those School Board members present and voting.
The chance that a board would be so outraged by a presiding officer's decision, that they would overrule his actions is slim to none.
Whenever issues identified by the participant are subject to remediation under policies and procedures of the School Board. They shall be dealt with in accordance with those policies and procedures.
This section is nothing more than a repeat of the new policy content so it is repetitive and verbose.
The School Board requires that public participants be residents or taxpayers of this district or:
1. Anyone representing a group in the community or school district;
2. Any district employee;
3. Any district student.
The board may have a problem with this rule. Any school which accepts federal funds, must be open to the public regardless if they are from the district or not.
A member of the public present at a meeting of the School Board may address the School Board in accordance with the School Board's rules.
Citizens who want to address the School Board must complete a blue card prior to the meeting for an opportunity to speak. The card must state name, address, and topic to be address to the School Board. Those failing to complete a blue card must seek permission from the presiding officer prior to speaking.
This obstacle can be easily abused. It is a process for screening speakers and topics. The First Amendment says nothing about screening public comment.
The public comment/period shall be for up to thirty (30)minutes,
including response from the School Board, as scheduled on the agenda at the beginning of the meeting.
The Reading Eagle editorial cited a case in Lackawana county where the judge properly ruled that time limitations are against the law.
Presentation of items of interest or concern by an individual citizen or by a group spokesperson(s) shall be limited to three minutes.
This is applicable to a casual comment or one question to the board. It certainly is not enough time to discuss a school budget or the board's effort to shut down public input.
If there is remaining time within the allocated thirty minutes additional speakers shall be recognized.
If the board does not want to hear what you had to say in three minutes, why would they extend the time?
Minutes may not be donated to other speakers.
This rule contradicts the US Congress's policy during their sessions. If the sharing of time is good enough for the Congress, why is it not good enough for the Oley Valley School Board?
If interest and conditions warrant, the presiding officer may extend the time period allocated for each topic.
If you do not bore the board, they will let you proceed. On the other hand, if you are considered a "diatribe" or "Fidel Castro", you shall be seated or removed.
If a participant reads a prepared statement in order to facilitate discussion a copy of the prepared statement may be presented to each School Board member, Superintendent, Solicitor, and Board Secretary prior to the individual reading the prepared statement. If copies are not available, district personnel will make copies prior to allowing the individual to speak.
This is another petty attempt to place an obstacle in front of citizens trying to address the board.
After a participant orally presents his or her statements or questions,
the presiding: officer reserves the right to do the following:
· Place the matter in its proper place on the agenda
. Request that the participant raise the issue before a committee of the school board or an ad hoc committee of the school board to raise the question administratively.
· Request that the administrative staff study the same and then issue a report at a future meeting:.
· Direct the matter be placed on the agenda of some future meeting:.
· Table the concern indefinitely, if decided it does not require immediate consideration.
· Deny the request.
· Direct that a member of the Administrative Team or another appropriate individual respond to the request at the meeting or at some future meeting.
· Take other action the presiding: officer feels necessary.
Translated...it is the circular can the board intends to use for public comment.
All statements. inquires or comments shall be directed to the presiding
officer; no participant may address or question Board members individually, administrative team members individually, school employees,
or members of the public individually.
Of course, if a school board member decides, for example, to verbally attack or intimidate a speaker, there is no protection for that citizen.
The Presiding: Officer may:
. Interrupt or terminate a participant's statement when the statement is too lengthy. personally directed, abusive, obscene, defamatory, or irrelevant.
This is very subjective and subject to exploitation by a partisan presiding officer.
We have witnessed the lack of objectivity and caring by Mr. Cappa.
. Request any individual to leave the meeting when that person does not observe reasonable decorum.
· Request the assistance of law enforcement officers in the removal of a disorderly person when the person's conduct interferes with the orderly process of the meeting
.Call for a recess or an adjustment to another time when the lack of public decorum so interferes with the orderly conduct of the meeting.
A potpourri of choices the board can use to keep you silent instead of answering questions.
This maze of new regulations is not designed to make you feel welcomed at the school board meetings.
This policy was meant to have a first reading on July 19,2006. There was no reading because there was no discussion on this matter by the board.
The next policy meeting is Thursday, August 3,2006 at 7:00 PM at the Administration Building boardroom.

School Board Puts Out The Unwelcome Mat

An empty school board room may be the future of Oley Valley School Board. Although not on the agenda for the public to comment at the July 19, 2006 meeting, the board voted for the second time this summer to cancel a combined meeting, this time for the August schedule.
They canceled the July session in June.
Combined meetings are held prior to the regular school board sessions. They give the public the best opportunity to view and discuss issues that will appear on the agenda prior to the regular meeting. At the regular meeting, the board then votes on those topics.
These cancellations come at a time when the district is changing the public participation policy. The policy committee has been under fire from the community and the press for trying to prevent the citizens from speaking at board meetings.
The committee claims that new speaker restrictions will only be for the regular meetings. However, if the board cancels other sessions, then the community will only have the limited chance to speak at all.
The alleged policy revisions appear about the same as the initial submission. The First Amendment takes a hit with screened topics and speakers, three minutes per speaker,
thirty minutes for public comment on all topics, elimination of sharing time among speakers, presiding officer can terminate public statements at will, and forced removal by law enforcement.
A myriad of regulations for us to follow, and now cancelled meetings, await the taxpayers.
Scarlette Z. Gotwals, one of the three policy committee members adamantly claims the community has more than ample time, place, and opportunity to address the board.
Her and the other board members actions speak louder than their words.