A long time ago, back in the 1960's and finally in 1967, the Courageous Elected Leaders of the Owen J. Roberts School Board had the Political Courage to Build a Pool at the new Middle School because they understood the Value of....
"One Child Learning to Swim"
The community of Northern Chester County today, is far different from that of 40 years ago, however, the current School Board does not seem to appreciate the value of the only Pool in Northern Chester County, that has not only taught children to swim, but also provided an opportunity for Seniors, Special Ed Kids, and Special Olympics a place to swim, as well as a PAC 10 Championship Swim Team. Does the Community of OJR realize that Patrick Shirk of OJR may be going to the Olympics in China?
The question for the community, and for the OJR SB to consider on Monday, March 17, 2008, is, is it OK,,,to let the Community and OJR Swim Program fade away for 2 years,,,or to learn from the example of the Upper Dublin School District, (where Property Values are going UP), and help OJR go from good to GREAT.
Also, how is it possible for a PAC 10 Championship Swim Team of 50 Swimmers to practice and swim in 3 lanes. Has anyone seen 50 swimmers swim in 3 lanes? Is it possible?
Please be sure to attend the OJR SB meeting on Monday, March 17th ( St Patricks Day), and see first hand, what vision the current OJR School Board has.
Best of ALL, unlike historically what has been done at OJR, there is now a group that has Pledged to raise all the money to pay for a Temporary Pool, etc. unlike the many other things the OJR SB has spent money on in the past.
What a wonderful opportunity for OJR to involve the community in the Public Aspect of Public Education. Just think about the Good Will that will take place, with the raising of funds, which will take OJR from good to GREAT!
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Does the OJR SB have the Political Courage of the SB of 1967 to do the Right Thing?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Posted on Tue, Mar 18, 2008 Zoom + | Zoom -
In Owen J. Roberts Township pokes hole in porta-pool project, but parents persist
By Laura Catalano, Special to The Mercury
SOUTH COVENTRY — Installing a temporary pool on an Owen J. Roberts High School parking lot could take anywhere from nine months to two years to complete, a South Coventry zoning officer informed the school board.
Such a lengthy planning process would essentially negate the purpose of the temporary pool, which would be needed for about 1½ years, beginning in September. The middle school pool is scheduled to close for renovations at the end of the school year and reopen again in January 2010.
Despite the timing issues, coaches and parents of swimmers pleaded with the board for more than an hour Monday to allow them to pursue the matter further with the township, and to begin seeking outside funding for the pool.
After lengthy discussion, the board voted 7-2 to allocate $2,500 for a civil engineer to be selected and retained by the pool committee. That money will cover initial fees for an engineer to work with the township to determine what actually needs to be done to install a pool.
Advertisement
Board members Keith Fulmer and Eric Scheib cast the dissenting votes.
If a covered, temporary pool is erected to serve the district for 1½ years, it would cost an estimated $179,000. The pool committee is seeking to raise $250,000 to cover those costs, stressing there would be no cost to taxpayers.
But Fulmer asked swim coach Mark Zeleznick, a proponent of the temporary pool, “If the board authorizes $10,000 (for engineering fees) and it can’t happen, will the pool committee reimburse this board?”
“Probably not,” Zeleznick responded.
Fulmer said he would not support any funding for the pool. “I don’t see it as fair to the taxpayers to burden them with something we can’t do,” Fulmer said.
South Coventry Township Zoning Officer Sandra Cantrell-Edwards, who attended the meeting, had drafted a letter to the school board dated March 17 listing issues of concern to township officials and engineers.
The letter stated that the pool would require a land development plan or amendment to an existing plan, because it represents a “change in use from a parking lot to a possible location for a portable pool and its accessory structures.”
The letter further maintained that all Americans with Disabilities Act requirements must be adhered to, requiring submission of plans to the state Department of Labor and Industry. And, since additional parking may be needed, zoning relief may be required, as well, the letters states.
Cantrell-Edwards concluded the letter by saying that “the use of this structure for the 2008-2009 school year may not be a possibility.”
At the meeting, she stated that land development planning alone, with no associated zoning issues, would take a minimum of nine months.
School board solicitor Frank Bartle said the issues listed by South Coventry could take much longer to work out.
“It would be difficult to imagine that we would have an approved land development plan and then building plans approved in time for the upcoming school year,” Bartle said.
But Zeleznick, backed by a contingent of vocal parents, argued passionately for board approval to seek outside funding for the project. He stressed that the township “didn’t see an actual application with plans on it. If we could give them an application, we could really determine how much time it would take.”
He also believed that South Coventry officials would dismiss many planning requirements once they have an actual plan.
“There’s really not a lot of planning to it,” Zeleznick said, and compared it to erecting a large wedding tent.
After the meeting, Cantrell-Edwards said the pool could not be considered a temporary structure, like a wedding tent. Statewide building codes define temporary as less than 180 days, she said.
Bartle drafted the motion to fund a civil engineer to evaluate the project.
“Until we get an expert involved, we’re essentially just sharing ignorance,” he said.
Some the board members who voted in favor of the $2,500 allocation said they believe the temporary pool was not feasible.
Board President John Dutton said at the beginning of the meeting, “I can’t go along with the temporary pool.” Board member Jack Kane agreed.
Board member Debbie Bissland pointed out that the middle school athletic fields will be unusable so that many athletes, not only swimmers, will be inconvenienced.
“It’s not just this (pool) group that’s going to sacrifice,” Bissland said.
However, the board was apparently swayed by parents who spoke emphatically about the high school swim team’s commitment to excellence and the need for a safe swimming environment.
The high school team could swim at the Pottstown YMCA next year, but would only be guaranteed three lanes.
“You cannot have 50 swimmers practicing on three lanes. It’s a safety issue,” said parent Dee Bennett.
Board Member Barbara McMeekin believed the pool committee should be given the opportunity to seek outside funding for the temporary pool.
“To cut them off and not even allow it and not see if they can raise the funds, we’ll never know if it can be done,” she said.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Posted on Mon, Mar 24, 2008
OJR dropped by law firm
By Laura Catalano, Special to The Mercury
SOUTH COVENTRY — A law firm hired in January by a fiercely divided Owen J. Roberts School Board has already quit representing the district.
The board acknowledged the receipt March 17 of a request by White and Williams LLP to withdraw its legal representation of the district effective March 7. No comment about the withdrawal was made at the board meeting, but the board met in executive session afterward to discuss appointing a replacement.
That replacement has not yet been named.
The firm had been appointed in January to serve the district in three capacities: as special education legal counsel, labor relations and employment practices attorney, and chief negotiator. Those appointments were made despite strong opposition from Superintendent Myra Forrest and four board members.
Board President John Dutton said after Monday’s meeting that the firm had resigned because “the district was a hostile environment.”
White and Williams LLP attorney John K. Baker sent administrators an e-mail earlier this month saying only, “Our firm withdrew its representation of the school district as to all matters as of March 7.” He did not elaborate.
On Thursday, Baker responded to questions with an e-mail stating, “We are not in a position to provide further comment at this time. To the extent that you seek information on this matter, we request that you contact the board president.”
Dutton implied that White and Williams may have had a problem working with Director of Pupil Services David Hemberger.
Hemberger said the administration had not been hostile. “We were always respectful to these people and never expressed hostility. We just expressed the truth and that is that they were not qualified,” Hemberger said.
The firm’s inexperience with special education law was a strong concern of Forrest’s when the board appointed them.
Board member Barbara McMeekin had worried that the firm had only one special education attorney who, she said, could not answer some basic questions about special education law during an initial interview.
Forrest now says the law firm’s lack of special education expertise was a costly problem for the district since it meant more time was spent in preparation. The firm had handled “two very minor situations in the course of one month. In one month’s time, the cost was over $7,000,” she said.
That amount exceeded what the district had spent on special education legal fees from July 1 through Jan. 31 — about $5,000, according to Forrest.
Hemberger concurred that the firm was costing too much. For one thing, he noted, their hourly fee was higher at $225 as compared to the former firm’s $175.
“A bill earlier this year was well beyond what we would have expected,” he said.
He added that White and Williams was not covered by AIG, the district’s insurance company.
“This was a problem for us. We have relied upon insurers in the past to save us thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees,” said Hemberger. “The board consciously made this decision (to hire White and Williams) knowing this.”
Despite administrators’ initial concerns about White and Williams, the board voted 5-4 in January to appoint them, failing to renew contracts with three other law firms. Those law firms were Levin Legal Group, Fox Rothschild LLP, and Sweet, Stephens, Katz and Williams LLP.
Last month, two of those firms, Fox Rothschild and Sweet, Stephens, were mentioned in an auditor’s report for their role in approving a controversial termination agreement with former Business Administrator Denny Bolton. According to the report, the district violated Pennsylvania school code in granting Bolton a leave of absence when it was known he would not be returning to his position. That legal error cost taxpayers $159,000 — a sum the report recommends should be sought from Bolton.
Dutton said the decision not to reappoint the two law firms was made after the board learned of those errors.
Dutton had voted in January to hire White and Williams, along with board members Rosemary Bilinski, Debbie Bissland, Keith Fulmer and Edward Kerner. They also said they believed the firm would save the district money.
Hemberger acknowledged that White and Williams “are actually good attorneys, but with special education you really need to have knowledge of that particular area of law to be effective.”
Now, he hopes the board acts quickly to replace the solicitors.
“It’s a very frustrating situation for the district,” he said. “We’re not feeling too comfortable without our attorneys.”
Board erupts in debate over naming of school
By Will Hobson
For The Inquirer
Flaring tempers and shouting matches have become routine for the Owen J. Roberts school board this year, and its January and February meetings stretched well into the night.
> But surely the tenor and length of the March meeting, held on St. Patrick's Day, would be different.
> Well, not so much.
> Monday's eventful meeting had negative effects on more than just the sleeping habits of those in attendance.
> A seemingly benevolent decision by the board to let students pick the name of the district's new school erupted into a contentious debate, upstaging a girl who thought she had won a contest, and two parents who had come to see their late son's memory honored.
> In February, the board had agreed to name the new elementary school through a districtwide contest. Board member Debbie Bissland proposed the plan.
> The new school, in West Vincent Township, is scheduled to open for the 2008-09 school year.
> But board members Bill LaCoff, Barbara McMeekin and John Kane thought there would be board input into the contest. So when Bissland went off the meeting agenda and announced the winner on Monday night, the surprised board members cried foul.
> Bissland announced that Katie Dempsey, a fifth grader at East Coventry Elementary School, had won with her entry of Nathan Mowrer Elementary. Nathan attended East Coventry with Katie when they were first graders, but he died in the summer of 2004 of a rare brain disease. The school has a playground named after Nathan.
> Katie walked up the center aisle and received a certificate and a handshake from a smiling John Dutton, board president, and a hug from Bissland as the audience applauded. The girl barely had time to get back to her seat before McMeekin and LaCoff questioned the secrecy of the contest.
> "The board as a whole was just given this information this minute, now, with everybody else," said McMeekin. "I think once again this is an item that should have been shared with the board prior to this evening."
> "Not only it should have been shared, but was promised to be shared," said LaCoff. "I'm sure you're very pleased with this outcome, because you cut the rest of us out," LaCoff said, pointing at Bissland, before concluding: "This was a farce."
> Bissland had invited Katie and her parents to the meeting, as well as Nathan Mowrer's parents, Jim and Patricia, unbeknownst to the rest of the board. Both the Dempseys and the Mowrers left shortly after the argument started. When Bissland realized this, she ran out of the boardroom, trying to find them.
> "This thing is such a whole mess, and was done so inappropriately. It was a horrible situation," Superintendent Myra Forrest said on Wednesday.
> "If the board as a whole would have been informed of the names from the beginning, the board would have been able to discuss it, and this whole situation would have never taken place," said Forrest. "It should have been an agenda item, and it was not."
> In separate phone interviews later in the week, Dutton and Bissland said they thought the entire board was aware of the contest. After trimming out the more outlandish names from the 1,942 submissions, Bissland says she did a random drawing and picked Katie's entry.
> The outcome of Monday night's meeting - which ended around 12:15 a.m. Tuesday - was that the new school would be named after Nathan. That was made moot later on Tuesday, though, as the Mowrers e-mailed the board members and the district, asking that the school not be named after their son.
> "He never went to school there, and the whole thing just didn't seem appropriate," said Jim Mowrer, adding, "It really had nothing to do with what happened at the meeting."
> In a phone interview Wednesday, Bissland was bewildered at the uproar that her unannounced selection had caused.
> "This was a wonderful thing for this school district. I don't really know why anybody would have a problem," she said, her voice cracking with emotion.
> "That's the sad, sad part," said Bissland. "We're the adults, they're the children, and we need to set an example for them."
Find this article at:
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/pa/chester/voices/20080323_Board_erupts_in_debate_over_naming_of_school.html?adString=inq.local/voices;!category=voices;&randomOrd=032608055421
Friday, March 28, 2008
Posted on Wed, Mar 19, 2008
OJR school name spurs spat
BOARD, PUBLIC FIND OUT WEST VINCENT ELEMENTARY WILL BE NAMED AFTER NATHAN MOWRER
By Laura Catalano, Special to The Phoenix
SOUTH COVENTRY — An emotionally-charged quarrel broke out among school board members over a contest to name the new elementary school in the Owen J. Roberts School District.
The new school, being constructed in West Vincent and set to open in September, has always been referred to as the West Vincent Elementary School. At a meeting in February, board member Debbie Bissland had recommended holding a contest to get students involved in choosing a different name.
The board approved that motion, but when Bissland suddenly announced the winning entry Monday night, some board members were astonished and angry.
The board as a whole had not been aware that a name had been chosen and were not given an opportunity to vote on the matter. Only two board members, Bissland and board President John Dutton, had participated in the selection process.
Advertisement
“I have a problem that the board as a whole was just given the information now, with everybody else,” said board member Barbara McMeekin, following the surprise announcement. “This is
an item that should have been shared with the rest of the board prior to this evening.”
Board member William LaCoff was also outraged. “We had no input, no comments to be made, no thought put into it by other board members,” he said.
To make matters worse, the entry chosen was a sensitive matter. The name, selected at random, was Nathan Mowrer Elementary School, submitted by an East Coventry Elementary School student. Mowrer was a student at that school when he died in 2004, and he was memorialized through a playground built in his name.
Jim and Trisha Mowrer have since requested that their son’s name not be used as the elementary school name, according to Superintendent Myra Forrest.
“They turned it down,” said Forrest. “They feel it is inappropriate.”
The Mowrers had been present at the meeting, and when the argument over the name broke out they left the room. Bissland followed after them to apologize, and later voiced her displeasure at the board.
“I think it’s absolutely embarrassing that you would put people in that situation,” she said.
In an e-mail sent to administrators, the Mowrers noted that, “Nathan is one of many children in our community that has gone too soon.”
They also encouraged the board to “recognize the need to discuss all decisions before announced in a public forum.”
But several board members noted that they had not been aware the Mowrers were in the room. Others said they were offended by the process by which the name had been chosen, not the name itself.
“I don’t have an objection to the name. I have an objection to not being included in the process a little bit,” said board member Jack Kane.
Later in the meeting, board member Edward Kerner made a motion to approve the name and the board voted 8-1 in favor, with LaCoff casting the negative vote.
Bissland said the name was chosen by the building and grounds committee, which consists of herself, Dutton, and Keith Fulmer. Fulmer was not present during the selection; however, he was made aware of it, Bissland said.
According to Bissland, 1,942 entries were submitted and all elementary schools participated. Boxes for submissions were placed in each school for one week and were then delivered to the administration building.
Bissland and Dutton met to review the entries. They removed any submissions that were inappropriate or unacceptable, and placed the remainder into a single box. One name was then drawn at random, she said.
The rest of the board was not given any information about the name until the board meeting, when Bissland made the announcement and presented winner Katie Dempsey with a certificate.
Bissland stressed that her only motivation was to involve the district’s children in the naming of the new school.
“The reason this was done was to give an opportunity for kids to get involved. I think it’s absolutely fantastic that 1,942 children entered. In my wildest dreams, I didn’t think anybody would speak out against a child,” she said. “It was done for the kids, by the kids, because that’s our focus.”
But Forrest called it “unconscionable” that parents and a child were invited to a meeting and a school name was chosen without the knowledge of administrators or the full board.
“We had no idea that school would be named after a child,” she said.
But she emphasized that “This is not about Nathan, this is about the way it was handled. It’s another improper action by the school board.”
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Posted on Sat, Mar 22, 2008
NAMIng new school upsets board
OWEN J. ROBERTS SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD MEMBER SCOLDED FOR SELECTING WINNER OF STUDENT CONTEST WITHOUT INFORMING COLLEAGUES
By LAURA CATALANO, Special to The Local News
SOUTH COVENTRY — An emotionally charged quarrel broke out among school board members over a contest to name the new elementary school in the Owen J. Roberts School District.
The new school, being constructed in West Vincent and set to open in September, has always been referred to as the West Vincent Elementary School. At a meeting in February, board member Debbie Bissland had recommended holding a contest to get students involved in choosing a different name.
The board approved that motion, but when Bissland suddenly announced the winning entry Monday night, some board members were astonished and angry.
The board as a whole had not been aware that a name had been chosen and were not given an opportunity to vote on the matter. Only two board members, Bissland and board
President John Dutton, had participated in the selection process.
“I have a problem that the board as a whole was just given the information now, with everybody else,” said board member Barbara McMeekin, following the surprise announcement. “This is an item that should have been shared with the rest of the board prior to this evening.”
Board member William LaCoff was also outraged. “We had no input, no comments to be made, no thought put into it by other board members,” he said.
To make matters worse, the entry chosen was a sensitive matter. The name, selected at random, was Nathan Mowrer Elementary School, submitted by an East Coventry Elementary School student. Mowrer was a student at that school when he died in 2004, and he was memorialized through a playground built in his name.
Jim and Trisha Mowrer have since requested that their son’s name not be used as the elementary school name, according to Superintendent Myra Forrest.
“They turned it down,” said Forrest. “They feel it is inappropriate.”
The Mowrers had been present at the meeting, and when the argument over the name broke out they left the room. Bissland followed after them to apologize, and later voiced her displeasure at the board.
“I think it’s absolutely embarrassing that you would put people in that situation,” she said.
In an e-mail sent to administrators, the Mowrers state, “Nathan is one of many children in our community that has gone too soon.”
They also encouraged the board to “recognize the need to discuss all decisions before announced in a public forum.”
But several board members said they had not been aware the Mowrers were in the room. Others said they were offended by the process by which the name had been chosen, not the name itself.
“I don’t have an objection to the name. I have an objection to not being included in the process a little bit,” said board member Jack Kane.
Later in the meeting, board member Edward Kerner made a motion to approve the name and the board voted 8-1 in favor, with LaCoff casting the negative vote.
Bissland said the name was chosen by the building and grounds committee, which consists of herself, Dutton, and Keith Fulmer. Fulmer was not present during the selection; however, he was made aware of it, Bissland said.
According to Bissland, 1,942 entries were submitted and all elementary schools participated. Boxes for submissions were placed in each school for one week and were then delivered to the administration building.
Bissland and Dutton met to review the entries. They removed any submissions that were inappropriate or unacceptable and placed the remainder into a single box. One name was then drawn at random, she said.
The rest of the board was not given any information about the name until the board meeting, when Bissland made the announcement and presented winner Katie Dempsey with a certificate.
Bissland said her only motivation was to involve the district’s children in the naming of the new school.
“The reason this was done was to give an opportunity for kids to get involved. I think it’s absolutely fantastic that 1,942 children entered. In my wildest dreams, I didn’t think anybody would speak out against a child,” she said. “It was done for the kids, by the kids, because that’s our focus.”
But Forrest called it “unconscionable” that parents and a child were invited to a meeting and a school name was chosen without the knowledge of administrators or the full board.
“We had no idea that school would be named after a child,” she said.
But she emphasized that “This is not about Nathan, this is about the way it was handled. It’s another improper action by the school board.”
Post a Comment