FC Administration on the Road Again . . . and again . . . and again . . .

This is interesting.

An article appeared in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review regarding travel allowances in the West Jefferson Hills school district.  The article is posted below; but before you read it, let’s compare West Jefferson Hills to Fort Cherry:

West Jefferson Hills:

·        3000 students

·        $37 million budget

·        3 elementary schools, 1 middle school, 1 high school

·        5 building principals, 1 associate principal, 2 vice-principals

·        Triple A in athletics

Fort Cherry

·        1100 students

·        $16 million budget

·        1 elementary school, 1 high school

·        2 building principals, 1 assistant principal

·        Single A in athletics

Travel for West Jefferson Hills teachers suspended

The West Jefferson Hills School District wants teachers and administrators to get better at their jobs. The district just wants them to do it closer to home.

The nine-member board voted unanimously this week to suspend most travel outside Allegheny County for employees and school board members to undergo training.

"These economic times we are living through will not be going away soon," said Shauna D'Alessandro, board president. "We believe in professional development, but we also believe there are more efficient and effective ways to do it."

This year, the district devoted just $6,000 of its $37 million budget for staff development travel, said Business Manager Joseph Zupan. Last year, the district spent $9,500.

"We approve, every month, some sort of professional development," D'Alessandro said. "Some are as close as the Allegheny Intermediate Unit (in Homestead)."

The district will still send people approved by the board to the Pennsylvania Association of School Administrators/Pennsylvania School Boards Association conference Oct. 18-21 in Hershey.

Any other exceptions must go through an extra layer of approval: the district's Education/Technology Committee. The panel will review documentation of costs and the possible benefits to the district. Any approved exception will go to the school board for approval.

Timothy McNamee, West Jefferson Hills' acting superintendent, said he hopes the restriction is limited to one year.

"There are annual programs that are important. Sometimes they are the best place to get information and network," he said.

Linda Hippert, executive director of the Allegheny Intermediate Unit, said she's not aware of other boards banning such travel, but Steve Robinson, spokesman for the School Boards Association, said West Jefferson Hills isn't alone.

"Many districts are cutting out professional development costs as a way to save money," he said, though the association does not track individual cases.

The state Department of Education is supportive of limiting travel "if a school district is looking to reduce expenses without impacting the academic achievement of students," said spokesman Tim Eller.

West Jefferson Hills' decision coincides with a statewide two-year moratorium on certain requirements mandating professional development credits for teachers and administrators.

Act 24, which took effect this summer, gives teachers two extra years to fulfill professional education requirements. The measure is meant to save money for districts that offer tuition reimbursement.

By Rachel Weaver
PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Saturday, August 27, 2011

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_753719.html

West Jefferson Hills devoted just $6,000 of its $37 million budget for staff  travel.

As posted on this blog on May 9, 2011, Dinnen received $11,616.91 in travel reimbursements from July ‘08 to December ’09.   Craig received $9,396.86 from July ’08 to January ’10.

http://fortcherryinfo.blogspot.com/2011/05/50000-budgeted-for-travel-and.html

With the economic times being as they are, certainly Fort Cherry has scaled back on travel as West Jefferson Hills did . . .

Let’s take a look at FC's 2011 – 2012 budget numbers for conference/travel:

Craig:

Dinnen:

Sroka: 

Budgeted conf./travel for those three alone adds up to $17,750.

Now add in the rest:

Total budgeted for conf./travel adds up to  $37,635.


Let’s compare:

WJH -  Conf./Travel Budget   $ 6,000 

FC    -  Conf./Travel  Budget  $37,635 

WJH -  Total Budget $37 million 

FC    -  Total Budget $16 million

Despite cuts in state funding, Fort Cherry budgeted $37,635 for conf./travel under Dinnen and Sroka’s direction.

Due to cuts in state funding, dedicated teachers and vital programs were cut under Dinnen and Sroka’s direction.

Teachers and programs cut, yet $37,635 in conf./travel approved by board members Brant Miller, Ray Miller, Elmo Cecchetti, Bev Schwab, Larry Heinrendt, Mike Duran, Bruce Sharpnack, and Jamie White.

Only Chris Lauff voted “NO”.

During the budget hearings, Chris Lauff tried to reason with the board to significantly cut conferences and travel in order to spare cutting teachers and programs.

The conf./travel money remains in the budget – dedicated teachers and vital programs are gone.

Let’s take a look at one of those programs.

Drivers’ Ed, which affects the entire junior class, was cut.

When it was part of the FC curriculum, every student in the junior class participated in the classroom instruction.

Driving lessons in the Drivers’ Ed car was optional, and was offered to parents for a fee.  If a student opted for the 6 hours of driving instruction, Mr. Day was authorized to give the student the state drivers’ examination and issue a junior license (when the student met the state requirement of 50 total hours of driving experience).

All in all, well worth the money when you consider the safety of the students (and others on the road) and the discount offered to participants from the auto insurance companies.

Mr. Day retired from the district after the Drivers’ Ed program was cut.

At the September 26th meeting the board authorized the district to sell the Drivers’ Ed car (purchased by the district last August for $14,622) to Mr. Day.  Mr. Day is offering Drivers’ Ed to FC students through his business, Day’s Driving School, at a reduced rate.  (Thank you, Mr. Day!)

At the meeting, Dinnen stated that the rate will be around $85.

In truth, that was the rate Fort Cherry charged for 6 hours of driving instruction when Drivers’ Ed was part of the curriculum at FC.

Since Drivers’ Ed was cut from the curriculum, parents who want their children to benefit from driving instruction are required to seek private driving lessons.  If Day’s Driving School is chosen, the cost for parents is $375.

Quite a jump from $85.

Keep in mind that Media class, which benefits 7 students, was reinstated after being cut by official board resolution.  (The number of students in media class has dropped by one student since last mentioned on this blog.)

Drivers’ Ed class, which benefitted the entire junior class - approximately 100 students and their parents - was not reinstated.

If every junior at FC opts to participate in private driving lessons, such as Day’s Driving School, the total cost to parents will be approximately $37,500.

If FC administration makes use of all the money allotted in the budget for travel, the cost to taxpayers will be $37,635.

At FC, “Student Success is Our #1 Priority”? . . .

It doesn’t seem like it.

Welcome, Bob Rutledge

Fort Cherry School Board Meeting, September 26, 2011 . . .

For those of you who were unable to attend the Fort Cherry School Board meeting last night, Robert Rutledge was appointed to fill Mike Duran’s seat until the election in November.

As a former board member, Mr. Rutledge is well aware of the duties of the school board.

For the benefit of those who may be unaware, the school board has full power to carry out decisions for the district, which include:

·         recruits, hires and evaluates the superintendent

·         hires all staff, typically at the recommendation of the superintendent

·         approves building projects

·         approves textbooks

·         approves purchases

·         levies taxes and issues bonds

·         sets policy for the schools

·         enacts rules and regulations to implement policy

·         has the final decision on expulsion and suspension

·         fill vacancies on the board between elections

School directors serve without pay and must take an oath of office.

Board President Brant Miller administered the Oath of Office to Mr. Rutledge.

Oath of Office:

School Director Oath of Office
24 PS 3-321

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity.

Welcome, Mr. Rutledge.

In order to do what is right and just for the students, staff, and residents of FC, the remaining board members may want to examine their actions and be sure that they are true to the Oath of Office as well.

"Ranting" and "RAYving", Part 2 . . . The Video . . .

Fort Cherry School Board Meeting, September 19, 2011 . . .

Fort Cherry School Board President, Brant Miller, unleashed his anger at the school board meeting.

The Board failed to reprimand the Board Secretary/Business Manager, Paul Sroka, for a vulgar and very inappropriate description of the copier machine; especially vile, considering students were present at the meeting.

The vile comment occurs about 10 seconds into the video.

Note the reaction of fellow board members to Sroka’s comment.

Revisiting Brungo’s "Thorough" Investigation of Dinnen’s Letter of Eligibility and Superintendent Certification

First they ignore you.

Then they laugh at you.

Then they attack you.

Then you win.

. . . Mahatma Gandhi

In their billing to the Fort Cherry School District, Maeillo, Brungo and Maeillo (MBM) “investigated” the issuance of Dinnen’s LOE and Superintendent Certification.  The bills contained itemized charges for:

·        review of emails

·        telephone conferences

·        review of documents

·        research

By these steps, it was determined that the concerns brought to the Miller’s attention were unfounded.  (See 8/31/11 post, The Cost of the Loss of Truth, Honor, and Integrity. 

http://fortcherryinfo.blogspot.com/2011/08/cost-of-loss-of-truth-honor-and.html)

Had MBM truly researched the issuance of Dinnen’s documents, they would have verified the fraudulent way in which Dinnen obtained the documents, documents which were so vital to his career path.

The fraudulent way in which Dinnen obtained the documents was the concern that was brought to the Millers’ attention.

The only thing the solicitor did was corroborate that Dinnen had a LOE and a Superintendent Certification.

The issue that was brought to the Millers’ attention was the validity of Dinnen’s documents, the validity that was never proven, despite a letter from MBM.

Let’s review what was brought to the Millers’ attention:

·        Dinnen’s numerous misstatements of fact, even under oath,

·        Dinnen’s 1998 submission of his original application that was “doc”tored to make it appear like a new and different application than the 1996 submission,

·        Dinnen’s not updating his application as mandated by PDE regulations,

·        the McNamee letter, directed by Dinnen, without the 1998 SB’s knowledge or approval,

·        the “Satisfactory Job Performance “ evaluation referenced in the 1998 McNamee letter, an evaluation which never took place,

·        and finally, the Clarice Kendall letters – what about those?

According to Michael L. Brungo, the Fort Cherry School District solicitor,

“after a thorough review of the documents . . . submitted to the FCSD Board President (Brant Miller)  . . . the validity of Dr. Dinnen’s LOE or certification and his appointment as Superintendent to the FCSD are unfounded.  As such, the Board’s review of this matter is concluded.”

By

·        not contacting Mattoon,

·        not interviewing Dinnen,

·        not interviewing those who presented information to FCSB representatives,

·        not contacting Clarice Kendall, and

·        not informing the PDE of this collective information and/or matters,

MBM was not thorough.

It was a charade.

This “investigation” was not concluded to the end.

Items were omitted and not addressed and we, the taxpayers, footed the bill.

The law firm did not prove the validity of Dinnen’s LOE and Superintendent Certification, nor his credentials.  And, if this example from MBM is called thorough, then the residents of this school district have to ask . . .

Why keep such inept attorneys in employ?

Unless . . . while MBM was handed the documents and was told to “investigate”, the School Board was possibly shaking its head as in, “No, don’t.”

The Millers did not want to painstakingly look into this.  In fact, when this information was brought to the Millers’ attention, the Millers were told  that it would probably come down to picking the Fort Cherry School District or the man (Dinnen).

Obviously, the Millers chose the man.

While Ray Miller maintains Dinnen had the qualifications; in reality, and per PDE criteria, Dinnen did not meet the qualifications.

Dinnen still does not meet the qualifications – he still does not meet the criteria of experience in the basic (K-12) classroom.

The Millers, and in essence, the Fort Cherry School Board, merely wanted the PDE to say Dinnen had the necessary documents (LOE and Superintendent Certificate), and that’s what it appears Brungo was directed to do.

MBM verified with the PDE that he had those two documents . . . and so MBM was done with this distasteful task in front of them.

Let’s look at the Basic Education Circular (BEC) from the PDE’s website which explains the process for handling an invalid or lapsed professional certificate:

Lapsed Certificates

Section 24 P.S. 12-1201

This BEC explains the proper course of action when the public entity discovers that a professional employee may have an invalid certificate, . . .

. . . it is the employing public school entity's responsibility to employ or retain only those members of the professional staff who hold a valid certificate. The most frequent teacher certification audit irregularity is the failure of the professional employee to maintain a valid Pennsylvania certificate as required by law and/or regulation.

Course of action for a public school entity when it believes that a professional employee may have a lapsed certificate:

. . . the school entity must immediately inform the Bureau of Teacher Certification and Preparation (BTCP) in writing that the certificate of the professional employee may have lapsed, and request a determination of the certificate's status . . .

In addition, the public school entity shall notify the professional employee that this information is being forwarded to the Department for official review.

If the Bureau determines that the employee's certificate has lapsed, the school entity must immediately relieve that employee of any professional responsibilities or it will suffer a forfeiture penalty.

PA Department of Education

Certification

Codes and Regulations

Purdon’s Statutes

Lapsed Certificates

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/purdon's%20_statutes/7503/lapsed_certificates/507309

Just substitute questionable (fraudulent?) certification for lapsed/invalid.  Why ignore it?

Fraudulent is a great deal more serious than lapsed/invalid.

And, again, the Millers were made aware of this.

The Millers were also told of the financial penalties that could be imposed upon the district.

Once again, a request is placed before the Fort Cherry School Board to do the right thing and properly investigate this issue that is still facing them.

Well?  How about dealing with the ugly truth?

Someone on the board . . . please, make a motion for an independent and outside investigation . . .

. . . or is this board fearful of an outside investigation?

What could be more constructive than giving the students, the staff, and the taxpayers the truth?

There are no factual errors in this posting . . .  and there is still more to come!

"Ranting" and Raving!

Fort Cherry School Board President, Rant Miller, unleashed his anger at the last school board meeting.

In fact, he “called out” a resident who was in attendance, but not in the room at the time.

What is so disturbing in this display of pique is that it occurred during the agenda item titled “Board Reports”, but contained nothing pertaining to that part of the agenda.

What was the ploy in that? . . . .

. . . to bait someone into an argument and then call them out of order?

. . . to bully and intimidate them?

. . . to embarrass them in order to prevent the information presented in this blog from being revealed?

He even went on to criticize the way in which this post is written.  Perhaps the style and grammar could be improved . . .

. . . but guess what? . . .

It’s the information, the documented public information, that’s important.

Not the smoke and dust the Millers, the other board members, and the administrators are throwing up to keep the public in the dark.

The author of this blog hopes that taxpayers are not footing the bill for legal costs incurred by the district for a personal vendetta.

There is one other irresponsible act that occurred at the meeting to address.

The Board failed to reprimand the Board Secretary/Business Manager, Paul Sroka, for a vulgar and very inappropriate description of the copier machine; especially vile, considering students were present at the meeting.

Not a single board member “called out” Sroka for that!

Note:  To continue being a documented informational blog, an attempt will be made to obtain a copy of the taped September 19, 2011, Fort Cherry School Board meeting.  Stay tuned!