Politics
 

School sports-Carlynton-Francesmary

From Fix PA

Contents

[edit] Links and Sources

  • A proposal that is more open, inclusive and fair to the taxpayers, parents and children of the district.

[edit] Comments to the Carlynton School Board April 17, 2008

Delivered to the school board at public comment on April 17, 2008
By Francesmary Modugno


I wish to thank the district directors for allowing me the opportunity to speak to you tonight.


I am here to raise my substantial concerns about revisions to policy 707 and the unintended consequences that these changes may have. I wish to ask the directors to consider delaying a vote on the policy changes until the directors have given the citizens of our district the opportunity to carefully read the policies, to consider the implications of these policies on the different organizations that use our facilities and to understand what the impact of these changes will be for the children in our district. I further ask that the directors consider soliciting from these organizations feedback on these proposals so that we can ensure that whatever policies are put into place will meet the needs of our children. I mean no disrespect to any director, but my concern is that the diversity of organizations that use these facilities makes it unreasonable to expect that those outside the organizations can have a true perspective on the implications of policy decisions. From swimming to football to soccer to the Girl and Boy Scouts, our community groups are so diverse. We need to ensure that we do not move so swiftly as to have our decisions have unintended and potentially detrimental consequences to our children. By delaying a decision and soliciting feedback from those who will be directly affected by these policy changes, you can ensure that the policies will have been developed collaboratively and not in a vacuum, thereby enabling the district directors to make informed decisions for the citizens of our community.


With respect to the 7 current proposals, I have many, many concerns. As written they have consequences that will surely lead to the closing of some of our clubs. For example, Options 5-7 imply that during any event the organization will need to pay $100 per participant not from the district. This means for example that under options 5 and 7 our swim club would pay anywhere from $5,000-$20,000 for a swim meet, even if all our swim club members were Carlynton District Residents. I do not believe in my heart that the writer of these policies intended that, but that is what it states. Options 3 and 4 are internally inconsistent. 3a states that groups with less than 100% district resident members do not pay anything for the facility use (see the definition of Individual/Group). 3b states that those with less than 90% district membership will pay to use the facility, while 3c states that only those with <75% membership will pay a fee. These are all contradictory and I don’t think this is what the writer intended. I believe the writer intended a sliding scale whereby the more out of district members you have, the greater the fee you pay. But that is not what the policy says. Option 2 states that groups with 100% participation will not pay a fee. What does “100% participation mean”? Can a group of 100% non Carlynton residents who allows every member to participate in their activity use our facilities for free? Which groups don’t allow 100% of their members to participate in the club? Why would anyone want to be a member of such a club? Again, I’m certain this is not what you meant, but that is how it reads. If you meant 100% district membership, then how does option 5 differ from option 2?


Also, each of these policies has fees for facility usage. How were these fees derived and how well do they reflect actual costs? As an example, Dr. Panza reports that it costs the district $6000 to run the pool each year. Yet almost every one of these policies has fees that will far exceed that amount of income to the district in a short period of time.


For example, our swim club has 75% district membership. Under policy 3 you would charge our club $500 a week to practice in the pool. In less than 3 months we will have paid 100% of the district costs for operating the pool. Over the course of our season, we will have paid more than twice what the district incurs to run the pool. Is that what you meant to do, make money off of clubs and in essence levy an underhanded tax on district residents?


I hope my examples have helped you understand why I urge the directors to postpone any vote so that you can allow the public to carefully review these proposals and provide you with feedback to make the best decision possible.


Let me be so bold as to suggest another possible approach to the facilities usage policy. As a taxpayer, my monies go to support the maintenance and welfare of the facilities. When I participate in an organization that uses the facilities, I do not expect to pay for the facilities – I’ve done that already when I paid my taxes. However, those out of district residents who participate in an organization have not contributed a dime to the maintenance of our facilities. I think that’s where the injustice is. A more equitable facility usage policy would not levy a fee on a club, but instead would levy the fee on the outside the district individuals who are using the facilities while participating in a club.


Those monies would go directly to the district to maintain the facilities. In essence, the district would be taxing out of district participants only – not re-taxing district residents. Isn’t that more fair to everyone?


Finally, whatever policy the directors choose, please understand that as a small school district with, according to public data, a large population of school children from very low income families, in certain circumstances, we can gain by allowing non-district residents to participate in our programs. That is, we can enhance the educational experiences of our children. Policies that are written to ensure almost no out of district participants in organization without an unreasonable financial burden to the organization will likely have the unintended effect of raising costs for in district residents. This would unintentionally exclude from participating in activities children who come from limited income homes. In our district that amounts to over 40% of our children. How sad that our policies will in essence mean that children who are already at a disadvantage in life will face even more disadvantages because they couldn’t participate in activities that may enhance their education and their chances to win college scholarships. How sad that we, perhaps unknowingly, chose to create policies that cut short the opportunities of almost half our children to seek a better life, thereby putting their dreams out of reach.


Again, I urge the directors to postpone any vote tonight, to open the floor at a future meeting to discussions from citizens and organizations about these policies, so that we can all work together to achieve the ONE goal we all agree on – creating the best possible environment for the children of the Carlynton School District.


I thank you for your time.


[edit] Comments to the Carlynton School Board May 1, 2008

Delivered to the school board at public comment on May 1, 2008
From Francesmary Modugno


Thank you once again for allowing me the opportunity to speak tonight. Two weeks ago, I appeared here to ask the directors to postpone a vote on revisions to Policy 707 because the various potential revisions posed substantial concern. In particular, all of them had unintended consequences that would surely lead to the dissolution of several youth organizations in our community. I asked the directors to give the citizens of our community the opportunity to provide you with feedback as to different ways that the policy could be revised that would meet the goals of the school board with respect to facility access while at the same time enabling organizations to continue to provide their services to the children of our community. In this way, the policy would be developed collaboratively between the school board, as the representative body of the citizens of the Carlynton School District, and the various groups that provide educational, cultural, recreational and civic enrichment for our citizens. In fact, such a process is mandated by the Carlynton School District Local Board Procedures.


Specifically, Board Policy 011 c.1 states that “… an effective School Board governs through policy by: seeking input from stakeholders.”


Under Section 10 of policy 004 governing the board’s code of ethics, when you took your oath of office, each of you promised that “it shall by my constant endeavor to welcome and encourage active cooperation by citizens, organizations, and media of communication in the district with respect to establishing policy”.


If you vote on the proposed revisions to 707 tonight, the same ones from two weeks ago that we all agreed had substantial problems or a new proposal not previously open to public comment, can you please tell me how have you lived your oath of office commitment?

I am asking you again tonight to postpone any vote on revisions to policy 707 until the organizations in this community have had ample time to meet with you and discuss their concerns over the current proposals and to make suggestions for alternative approaches to revising policy 707.


Two weeks ago I briefly proposed one such alternative. After receiving feedback from this board at that meeting, I spent a great deal of time investigating various factors in order to put together a proposal that will address the concerns raised by several directors on behalf of district residents,

  • that will be fair to the citizens of this district,
  • that will protect the substantial investment our citizens have made in developing the facilities of this district, and
  • that will be enable organizations to continue to provide enriching programs for our youth.


I would be honored to be given the opportunity to present that proposal to the board and the citizens of this district in whichever format would be acceptable, from presenting in a public forum, to meeting with individual citizens, organizations and directors – whatever it will take to open this process up to all parties with an interest in the matter so that we end up with a policy that is fair to everyone.


The process of drafting and adopting policy can not be done in a vacuum. Nor can it be done so swiftly that there is not adequate time to understand the implications and potential unintended negative consequences of the policy. Having served as a faculty member and academic administrator at three universities each with different goals and procedures where I sat on a variety of policy making committees, I have unfortunately repeatedly seen the negative consequences of well-intentioned policies that were not adequately fleshed out. On the other hand, I have seen how policies collaboratively developed in open processes over time leave all parties winners because their voices have been heard and their needs have been met. Yes, this latter approach takes more time and is more involved, but the positive outcomes are worth the effort.


If the board does move forward with voting on the policies tonight, I would like to know beforehand:

    • How were the different proposals devised?
    • What data were used to justify the fee structure and other figures in each proposal, including our current policy? and
    • How do these proposals support the educational, academic and athletic mission of our schools as mandated by section 4 of PA code 22?


Whether intended or not, all of the proposed revisions impose a heavy financial fee on organizations that admit non-district members to the point that it makes it financially unrealistic for groups to admit non-district members.


In essence, these policies suggest that the directors believe the interest of our citizens would best be served by excluding non-district members from their organizations.


What is the justification for this belief?


Let me point out that many youth organizations require a minimum number of members in order to be viable, and that we have a small school district with a large percentage of economically disadvantaged students.


Specifically, we are on the order of 50% smaller than our neighboring districts and 40% of our elementary students are from families receiving federal assistance – that’s 2-3 times the number found in any of our neighboring districts.


What do we gain by excluding others?


Why do we want to drive people away rather than establish our schools as the center for educational, recreational, cultural and civic activities in our community?


Finally and of note, all policies, including our current policy would allow a for-profit organization comprised of 100% district residents to use our facilities for personal financial gain at no charge, whereas they impose heavy fees on non-profit youth recreation groups simply because they allow non-district residents to join their organization.


Now do you think that’s fair?


Once again, I urge you to postpone any vote on policy 707 and to undertake an open process in drafting a revision as mandated by the policies governing this board. And I again offer my services and expertise to the board and citizens of this community to facilitate that process so that we achieve the goal we all agree on – creating the best possible environment for the children of the Carlynton School district.


Just tell me how I can best be of service to you. Thank you.


[edit] Proposed Alternative Open and Inclusive Policy

Residents already pay for the facilities through their school taxes, which are among the highest in Allegheny County. Charging groups a fee above cost to use facilities would be a form of additional taxation. Instead of excluding non-residents or charging a fee to groups that include non-residents, charge a facilities usage fee to non-residents, much the way many municipal swim pools do. Detailed copies this alternative proposal and procedures to implement it were provided to the district directors

Proposed alternative proposal highlights :


1. Resident groups with a majority of district residents use district facilities at cost;


2. Resident groups give priority in membership to residents; and


3. Non-resident participants pay a small facility usage fee. Sure, non-residents do not contribute to the tax base that supports the facilities. The sum of $60 per year, (pro-rated at $5 per month) represents 50% of the per capita cost of Carlynton facilities operation and management. This is more than fair compensation to the district because no group uses Carlynton’s facilities 50% of the time they are available.


In follow up meetings, the board heard more details about process:


1. Team are ensuring maximum participation of Carlynton youths in clubs using district properties;


2. Youth sports and other groups aim to create the best possible environments for members, thus insuring a fertile training ground for future Carlynton Jr/Sr high school athletes;


3. Teams aim for fairness in the relationship with tax payers. Non-residents charges are equivalent to what tax payers are paying to maintain facilities. The additional monies would offset the cost of running the facilities, thereby decreasing the facilities costs to all Carlynton residents; and


4. Carlynton parents benefit by avoiding additional “facilities tax” for after school programs.


In this way, Carlynton youths win, the taxpayers win and Carlynton maintains positive relationships with its neighbors.

[edit] Press Coverage

All press coverage on this topic if located under Carlynton Facilities - Press Coverage.

Retrieved from "http://fixpa.wikia.com/wiki/School_sports-Carlynton-Francesmary"