Open Access Wi-Fi in Pittsburgh

The local Information Communications Technologies Working Group is studying the feasibility of the City's offering wireless broadband Internet access for the entire city, a prospect that, on the surface, sounds tempting: Put Pittsburgh on the map as a high-tech center with a hip and splashy open access rollout, and push broadband into under-served communities in the process. In other words: Let's get everyone into the knowledge economy. It's a no-lose proposition for bringing Pittsblog to the masses (just kidding here), except that the financing needed to put the plan in place, and the uncertainty of making any money in the process, means that it can't be high on the priority list. It's just too expensive right now.

Philly is a bit farther along with a similar idea, and as a result Verizon woke up recently and persuaded our friends in Harrisburg to add language to a bill (HB 30) that would, in effect, ban municipalities in Pennsylvania from offering high speed broadband access "for compensation" over the objection of local telephone companies. This is crazy stuff, even if it's equally crazy right now for Pittsburgh to get into the broadband business. If the Governor signs the bill, it's Verizon or nothing. Today was the last day for the Governor to act. It looks to me, right now, like he neither signed the bill nor vetoed it. We'll know tomorrow.

UPDATE (12/1/04): Bad news. The Governor signed the bill, even though he noted this deficiency. Wireless rollout in Philly is still going forward, because Verizon has agreed to waive its rights under the law. But this is still a corporate giveaway of the highest order, and there's no assurance that the company will be so forgiving in the future.

SableGate: The Coverup Continues

The Trib is reporting today that the state Department of Education has officially decided *not* to investigate SableGate. According to the DoE,

because the agency wasn't involved with Sable's hiring it will not be part of any separation or severance. "The only time we would get involved in something like this would be if it involved disciplinary action," [the spokesperson] said. [She] said that, according to the department's legal division, the only way residents can find out what led to the buyout is if the board members were to discuss it in a public session.

Sounds to me like someone at the Lebo School District talked to someone in Harrisburg. Is the Board cutting more deals to keep the public in the dark?

Back to "Normal"

Enough SableGate for a little while! I'm happy to pump up the rumor mill from time to time, if folks have info they'd like to share. Judging from what I heard over the Thanksgiving, though opinion is settling on (i) Margery Sable had the goods on one or more of the School Board; and/or (ii) the Board is just a bunch of rich folks who forget that they're playing with other people's money. Lest we forget, though -- the decision to pay off M. Sable wasn't unanimous. There were two dissenters. Kudos, to them.

In important news elsewhere in the region, Krispy Kreme doughnut makers are persecuting a local drive-in called Krispy Kream, which sells ice cream. The Pirates finally got rid of their overpriced catcher, Jason Kendall, doing what one friend of mine suggested the Mt. Lebanon School Board should have done with Marge Sable: The team traded one overpriced star for a couple of journeyman pitchers. Is Moneyball coming to Pittsburgh?

SableGate: A Step Forward

The first lawsuit is underway, a petition in Common Pleas Court to invalidate the confidentiality stipulation in Margery Sable's buyout contract, and to get copies of the underlying records. The Trib's coverage is here.

The residents/petitioners have a strong case, but they'll need to be prepared for a long process. Common Pleas Court may reject the petition, either because the buyout contract itself has already been released, or because Common Pleas Court will decide that it's not the right court to decide the matter. If the residents can maneuver the claim as far as they need to, and as far as it can go -- the PA Supreme Court -- my sense is that they should ultimately prevail. But that will take a fair amount of fortitude, and resources. Will the Board make the people they represent go that far?

SableGate: Another Nugget of Information

One puzzling feature of SableGate has been the local media's curious reluctance to investigate the story publicly. This is a real-life soap opera, a Knot's Landing of sorts (but, so far as I know, without the sex), with a wealthy community long scorned by its neighbors finally getting its comeuppance amid internal conniving. We're self-imploding out here, folks, and the Post-Gazette and the Tribune-Review are reporting on the smoke and flames but haven't asked who lit the match. I don't expect much from local TV (even though well more than a handful of the faces you see on the local news live out here); TV is usually pretty good at smoke and flames but is rarely interested in much more. A writer for the P-G has all but told me that she knows a lot more than the paper has printed, but she's afraid that the paper will be sued if it prints more. Some semi-regular readers of Pittsblog are or were local journalists; feel free to Comment on what's going on.

Meanwhile, the best info seems to be leaking slowly out of the mouths of residents. In a letter to the South Hills section of today's P-G, one complaining Mt. Lebonian points out that Margery Sable made a habit of going to PTA meetings at local schools and declaring that if the Board didn't like what she was doing, the Board members should "buy her out." I teach Contract law, among other things, and we in the business call that an "offer." (We in the business also call that a foolish, reckless offer.) Sounds like the Board accepted.

SableGate: Moon Takes a Page From Lebo

One of the shoes waiting to drop in the saga of the Mt. Lebanon School Board is the cost of renovations to the high school, which has yet to be disclosed to the residents. With the district already $5 million over a $40 million budget for renovating the elementary schools, there is surely a huge number waiting in the wings.

The Moon district has a similar problem, which it has apparently solved by playing hide and seek with a local watchdog group. Is the Mt. Lebanon School Board watching? Or did Moon steal one from the Lebo playbook?

SableGate: The Employment Law Perspective

I had lunch today with a friend who specializes in employment law. Thoughts from that meal:

First, the provision in the Margery Sable buy-out package that really rankles is the clause that allows her to keep all of the money paid by Mt. Lebanon *whether or not she finds another comparable job.* That's pretty unusual. Even if she weren't able to find another comparable job, so that the District would have to pay off the deal in full, separation agreements typically include this kind of basic protection for the employer.

Second, if conflict between the Superintendent and the School Board was so severe, why not try some intermediate measures? In management-speak, why not *manage* the problem (change the Superintendent's responsibilities but not her salary, for example, or change the reporting/authority structure to limit the scope of her discretion)? If managing proved unsatisfactory after some period of time, then termination might be appropriate, and the cost to the District might be much less. It's hard to imagine that the members of this School Board, experienced as they are, didn't think of this solution. But with the Sergeant Schultz "I know nothing" defense in place, we are free to assume that they didn't. Over in Montour, , the School Board seems to know a thing or two about setting up a Superintendent to be fired outright. Ironically, the acting Superintendent in Montour, Joe Findley, was all but fired not long ago from a position as principal of one of Mt. Lebanon's middle schools.

Third, this fiasco gives us a different perspective on the employment contract that Margery Sable was given when she was hired. The School District was so anxious that she might bolt if Board members were uncooperative that the contract provided that she would have to pay back part of her salary if she left early. Note to the solicitors for the Mt. Lebanon School District: If the District actually finds someone willing to take this job, find a way to write the contract so that we don't end up buying out someone else in 2 years.

The Decline and Fall of Lebo?

Jonathan Potts wonders (jokingly) if the juvenile conspirators recently apprehended at Mt. Lebanon High School were trying to raise money for the School District. I wonder if they weren't taking their cues (no accountability!) from the School Board. The Post-Gazette's report notes that confidentiality rules prohibit release of the students' names or their punishments.

SableGate: The P-G Reports

The Post-Gazette's report on last night's meeting in Mt. Lebanon is pretty colorless, but it hits the basic points. The Trib's report has more depth.

One thing that surprised me about the meeting, though perhaps it shouldn't have, was the extraordinary level of public support for the merits of Margery Sable's reformist agenda for the schools. There's no way to know for sure whether the opinions expressed in the meeting are representative of what's being said throughout the town as a whole, but I'll go out on a limb and say they are -- based on seeing both "Blue" and "Red" neighbors in attendance, as well as parents of high schoolers, parents of elementary school kids, and residents whose kids have long since moved on. The broad message here is that even out there in Pittsburgh's Pleasantville, the locals are fed up with the complacency of local politicians.

If that's true, then I suspect that these suburbanites are feeling a very small measure of the frustration that city residents have known for a long time. We'll see if they have any more success in getting what they want, and what the community needs.

SableGate: The Drums of War

More than 200 people showed up tonight at the Mt. Lebanon Recreation Center for a strategy/bitch session about SableGate. I had to leave before the anger got channeled into productivity, but we're almost three weeks into the game, and the anger is still at a fever pitch. Expect some legal moves shortly, with a smaller group using lawyers and crowbars with various courts and/or agencies to pry open the lid of secrecy.

More than one lawyer at the meeting pointed out that confidentiality clauses in settlement agreements between public agencies and their former employees can't be enforced in Pennsylvania. (The case is Tribune-Review Pub. Co. v. Westmoreland County Housing Authority, 833 A.2d 112 (Pa. 2003).) The School Board may still try to hide behind exceptions to public records laws, but there's nothing legally to prevent Margery Sable from explaining what happened. (Nothing but her career -- but in truth, at this point I can't imagine her being hired by another district *unless* she comes out swinging in self-defense.)

Several speakers urged caution, as in, we have to find out what happened before we throw the School Board out. One person noted that we should be careful about what we ask for -- we may find out things that we didn't want to know, and we may even find that the Board did the right thing. Does that person know something we all don't? I smell the smoke of a smoking gun! I'll have more on the meeting, I hope, tomorrow.

Meanwhile, a shout out to Benjamin at Democracy for Pittsburgh for taking note of SableGate, and to his commenter, Ed, who points out that if Senator Rick Santorum had never sold his house in Mt. Lebanon, our spendthrift School Board may have been willing to finance a cyber-education for his kids while the good Senator and the family lived in Virginia. It's too bad that his new town, Penn Hills, had to fight about all that money.

SableGate: We Are Not Alone

Jason Togyer at Tube City Online takes note today of SableGate and points out that this is hardly the first time that this sort of thing has happened. Jason also rightly notes the personal awkwardness associated with raising these issues in a town (like his, and like mine) where many of the participants and observers know one another well, and have known each other for years.

SableGate: No Smoking Gun Needed?

A correspondent chides me for describing speculations over reasons for Margery Sable's departure as "theories" when they should be described as "hypotheses." In science, theories are supported by bodies of evidence (gravity is a theory, evolution by natural selection is a theory); hypotheses are tentative explanations waiting to be tested.

That same correspondent takes issue with the need for a smoking gun; her hypothesis is that Margery Sable is an outspoken female agent of change who got slapped down by the male powers-that-be. She was hired to change things aggressively, went around changing things aggressively, then ran into the stone wall that is the teachers' union and the school board. During last summer's round of raises, she got zip. Squat. The message was clear. Instead of being hailed as an innovator and a leader, Margery Sable was accused of being abrasive and outspoken. Her resignation/retirement was inevitable. If this theory (excuse me: hypothesis) is correct -- then there's no smoking gun needed.

SableGate: Action Item

The Post-Gazette ran a front page feature this morning on SableGate, featuring little new information about her departure but an important notice about a meeting in Mt. Lebanon, tonight (that's Monday, 11/22) at 7:30 p.m., to discuss the residents' legal options. The meeting will be at the Mt. Lebanon Recreation Center (above the ice rink), which is located on Cedar Boulevard.

SableGate: Once More into the Breach

The theory that the Mt. Lebanon School Board in effect fired Margery Sable because she was pushing a meaningful system of performance reviews for teachers has some traction, at least if my weekend conversations with fellow Lebonians (Lebonians?) are useful guides. People (i.e., parents) around town with more day-to-day contact with the schools than I have agree that (i) it was well-known that M. Sable was hired with an explicit mandate to shake up a district that had grown complacent over flattening test scores; (ii) M. Sable brought a direct, even abrupt, personality to the district; and (iii) the teachers really, really didn't like her. Conflict over instituting performance reviews fits with what some perceive as a larger pattern of conflict with the existing administration. Example one: Faced with scores that suggest that the District was really failing its students in teaching them to write, M. Sable implemented a new writing curriculum right away -- rather than studying and waiting and gradually introducing new material. My daughter now writes in every single one of her courses, something that she and her classmates dislike, but something that I think is terrific. Example two: I'm told that students of kids with special needs have long faced terrible resistance from the District in receiving many kinds of instruction and resources that these parents think are appropriate and necessary. The District's view is that if the parents don't like the District's "no" decision, then the parents should sue the District. Some parents do sue; the District wins almost all of these cases. M. Sable was apparently supportive of a proposal to allow parents and the District to mediate these disputes, a solution that most lawyers would recognize as time and cost-effective -- and one that is explicitly aimed at preserving goodwill among parents, teachers, and administrators. But the District (who? I don't know) has apparently shot this down.

None of this is a defense of Margery Sable per se; as before, I'm speculating here. The value of test scores as educational benchmarks, peformance reviews for teachers, wholesale curricular changes, and services for special needs kids are complex issues that deserve thoughtful, complex analyses. And I have yet to hear anyone come to the defense of her personal style.

My fellow Lebonians also tend to agree, however, that these are essentially policy disputes, not "personnel" matters, and they are precisely the sort of thing that the public has every right to expect to be aired publicly and to be resolved by men and women whose sole interest should be the welfare of the citizens of the municipality and the kids in the schools. If these sorts of disputes really precipitated Margery Sable's departure, then that result is all the more shameful. It's certainly true that in many cases, an abrupt style is the only way to reform a moldly status quo. The School Board couldn't have been surprised by her approach.

Therefore, some speculate, there must have been something more. Something combustible. As one person suggested to me, maybe Margery Sable has compromising photos of someone. Or she learned the dark secrets of someone's past.

SableGate: A Break in the Case

A correspondent who wants to remain anonymous emailed me today with the following bit of insight. A friend of a friend of a source relates that SableGate is a follow-on to the School District's extension of the teachers' contract earlier this Fall. It appears that the Superintendent was not only executing her job, but she was actively pursuing the interests of students and parents. In connection with the contract extension, she insisted on performance reviews and individual evaluations for teachers, leading to retention and termination based on these evaluations. The Board fundamentally disagreed; having made labor peace, the last thing it wanted was to stir up trouble by raising the issue of finding out whether individual teachers are any good. If this is true, then it's certainly possible that the School District risked losing a claim brought by the teachers' union on the ground that performance evaluations breached the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, and it's certainly possible that the loss would have cost the District more than $500,000. If this is true, then purely on financial grounds, the Board's action makes sense. But from the standpoint of the best interests of the parents and students in the School District, the Board bought labor peace at the likely expense of educational quality. It's no surprise to hear that teachers' union chief Mark McCloskey was hardly sad to see Margery Sable leave town. The idea of accountability for classroom performance may have left town with her.

SableGate: Back to Basics

Maybe, just maybe, the good citizens of Mt. Lebanon are guilty of a host of mistaken assumptions. Let's take the case apart, like a good detective should, and see if the pieces fit differently.

First, there's the question of the amount of money Margery Sable was paid. It's almost precisely what she would have earned had she served out her contract, leading to the plausible inference that the cause of this unpleasantness is or was job performance. But maybe the link isn't really there; maybe the overlap of salary and recent payout is just a coincidence. So it might not be fair to assume that this mess was in any way initiated by how the former Superintendent did her job.

Second, there's the economic calculus that the Board and its solicitor must have pursued. No one pays out $500,000 without a lawsuit over their heads, unless they think that the lawsuit-yet-to-be-filed would actually cost *more* than $500,000. So, let's suspect that the School District was facing a potential suit from Margery Sable in which the total amount that she would recover, discounted by her probability of success, plus the attorneys' fees that the District would pay, would be at least $500,000.

Third, there's the assumption that the School Board was reckless in paying out $500,000 for a situation that in the light of day should have cost nothing, or in any case much less than that. But maybe the Board was *saving* money for the taxpayers, paying $500,000 up front to avoid paying something much larger later on.

How do we put these hypothetical pieces together? Try this: What could Margery Sable have sued the School District for that would have yielded her more -- even a lot more -- than $500,000? One obvious answer is some form of employment discrimination or harassment, such as sexual harassment. Let's suppose that one or more School District employees was so hostile and intimidating that Margery Sable had a plausible case that she was entitled to tort damages against the District itself -- since, presumably, the District at least tolerated the behavior and therefore was legally responsible for it.

If that's true, then maybe the Board did the right thing in paying her off. But: the secrecy of the settlement remains intolerable, and what's worse, there's another shoe waiting to drop -- presumably the District now employs one or more people who should be held legally accountable for the harm caused to the District. Is that person prepared to reimburse us the $500,000 already spent?

SableGate: Wagging the Dog in Lebo?

Someone even more cynical than me theorizes that Margery Sable wanted the Mt. Lebanon School District to appeal the allegedly too-low real estate assessments of School Board members, and that she was paid $500,000 as hush money. The resulting brouhaha is just a big cover story -- part of the plan. Sounds pretty far-fetched to me, even Wag the Dog-ish. But who knows.

SableGate T-Shirts Available!

One of my neighbors in Mt. Lebanon has set up a CafePress t-shirt site to mark SableGate. You can buy shirts with either of two slogans:

Real estate taxes: 31.79 mills
School renovations: $5 million over budget
Superintendent buy-out: $490,000
Living in Mt. Lebanon: Priceless

-or-

I paid $490,000 for a superintendent but all I got was this lousy t-shirt!

Pick one up while they're hot!

SableGate: The Truth Will Out

If you've lost interest in dark dealings in Mt. Lebanon, then skip this post. But if sniffing further around the fraying edges of the Kingdom of Lebo is your cup of tea, then join me (and my merrily mis-matched metaphors).

When we last met: The recently-hired schools Superintendent, Margery Sable, had resigned from her position. Under a deal approved by the School Board, Mt. Lebanon buys out the rest of her long-term contract to the tune of roughly $500,000, plus some extraordinary benefits. Why did she resign? Was she really fired? Was she blackmailing members of the Board? Who knows. No one is talking. There's a confidentiality stipulation in the contract. The Board claims that "personnel matters" like this one are exempt from the rules of the state's Sunshine Act.

In today's episode: Information rushes in to fill a vacuum, and it may be false or it may be true. No sensible organization just sits there and lets the brand twist in the wind. (That's what corporate crisis managers say, anyway.) So here's what I know (which isn't much), and here's what I speculate. I'm delighted to be proved wrong, but to be proved wrong, others have to pick up the ball and run with it. (See how much fun this metaphors thing is?)

I don't know Margery Sable. Never met her. Shortly after she started, though, rumors started making the rounds: She gave pieces of cheese to teachers in the District (as in: Who Moved My Cheese?, the best-selling "management" toolkit). She wouldn't let teachers use the restroom when she was at the podium during meetings. She was going to change the District mascot from the Blue Devil to something less "offensive." Is any of this true? I have no idea. Does any of it really reflect on her competence as a manager? Hard to say. But these things were making the rounds of students and parents, long before the events of a week ago.

All of this leads to Rank Speculation #1: Something of this sort -- a trigger -- led the Board finally to conclude that it made a bonehead play in hiring her in the first place (remember, she had never been a schools Superintendent at any level). The Board not-so-quietly got rid of her to avoid ugly publicity about a bad hiring decision.

Let's move on. Back in September, the School Board granted the teachers' union a 5-year contract extension, with what a lot of residents thought (and think) was an overly generous compensation structure. There was a lot of grumbling in town, as in, "Once again, the Board is giving away my tax money without asking me whether I think it's a good idea," but mostly, the issue blew over.

So, Rank Speculation #2: Margery Sable didn't like the deal. Rumor and innuendo had it that she and the teachers didn't get along. (Asked about Sable's departure, union chief Mark McCloskey noted that the teachers didn't have any "formal complaints" outstanding against her, a comment worthy of Henry Kissinger). My theory #2 is that she was ready to go public with her unhappiness over the contract extension. Don't forget that that Sable herself didn't participate in the generous round of raises announced last June for the District's top administrators, a tidbit that retrospectively takes on a new importance. (What did the Board know then that it didn't share?) Oops -- I almost forgot to mention the millions in cost overruns that the Board approved on the ongoing capital improvement project at District schools. I suspect that the Superintendent didn't forget it: all that money going out the door, for teachers and classrooms, and none of it going into her pocket. Maybe, too, she thought she saw some soft accounting at the Board level, or some fluff in the central District administration, just for good measure. Nothing illegal, but stuff that the taxpayers wouldn't be keen about. So Margery Sable was going to point out that the Board had its financial priorities way out of whack (or, it had wacky financial priorities). In either case, the Board didn't want to look spineless to its constituents, so instead of owning up to giving away the store to the teachers, it gave away the store again, to Margery Sable. And it goes back to business as usual.

Even Mt. Lebanon, wealthy community that it is, doesn't have that many stores to give away. The one and only one true law of economics is: There's no such thing as a free lunch. Someone has to pay for all of this. We pay financially (that would be the taxpayers of the municipality, who've been told to "trust us" by the Board). We pay (or should pay) in accountability (that should be the Board). But no one can know who should pay, and how much, and for what, unless and until the truth comes out. We're waiting.

The Tribune - Review Talks to Lebo Super

Today's Tribune-Review includes a long piece on the Mt. Lebanon School Board situation that includes an interview with the now-departed superintendent. The Trib's coverage of last night's School Board meeting appears here.

The Villagers Storm the Castle

The School Board in Mt. Lebanon had a public meeting last night, and its members got an earful from more than 400 angry residents.

One person who attended what she called the "smackdown" wrote me privately to pass on this view: The School Board is coasting on the District's reputation, taking advantage of the community's historic pride in the quality of its schools and not doing enough to respond to what people (students, parents, and other taxpayers) today really want and need -- or can afford.

Sorry as this episode is, it doesn't present quite the same problem as the incompetence, arrogance, and corruption that we have seen for years in the City's School Board. Arrogance, for sure; incompetence and corruption? Who knows.

What the case illustrates, and the City's School Board problems doesn't, is how the merits of the debate (it should be clear that we still don't have the merits of the actual case against the Superintendent) track the broader outlines of Pittsburgh's history. A small group of establishment insiders are entrusted with stewardship of an extraordinary economy -- in this case, the schools of Mt. Lebanon; historically, Pittsburgh as a whole. Decisions are made and implemented regarding the future of that economy, on behalf of the citizens and in what they are told is their best interest -- but without their real participation. (The decisionmakers, of course, are the School Board of Mt. Lebanon and, for Pittsburgh, the Allegheny Conference. Decisions rest on the assumption that all is well, the economy will continue to prosper, the population can afford its cost, and the citizens shouldn't complain -- because, after all, this is a special place. We have had more than our share of Pittsburgh exceptionalism; it may be exceeded by Mt. Lebanon exceptionalism.

Yet the economy changes, and the population changes too, and eventually the citizens wake up to find that their "stewards" have been asleep at the switch, spending money they didn't have and refusing to respond to perfectly legitimate demands for reform. Pittsburgh is in the functional equivalent of bankrutpcy. Mt. Lebanon is hardly in bankruptcy, and its schools are hardly failing. And yet . . .?

What happens next?

Three Rivers Film Festival

Because I was out of town, I missed the opening of the Three Rivers Film Festival, which continues through this week.

Trouble in Paradise

This entry may not be compelling for all of you who don't live in the South Hills. But wait: If one of the problems facing Pittsburgh is citizen complacency about what's wrong (and what's right) about the region, then here's a little example of someone standing up and making a compelling case that the Old Guard needs to be held accountable. Mt. Lebanon resident David Franklin has given me permission to post the text of his recent letter to the Mt. Lebanon School Board concerning the Board's unexplained giveaway of more than $500,000 to the recently-hired and now-departed Superintendent.

Members of the Board:

I trust this won't be the first or last correspondence you receive this week regarding the departure of Dr. Sable. Unfortunately, I am forced to write this email with little or no information regarding the facts of her departure or what appears to be an exorbitant buyout. I'm lacking this information because the School Board has elected to throw municipal government backwards about 100 years to a day when decisions were made without public meetings or the input of the residents.

First, I believe it insults the intelligence of the residents of Mt. Lebanon to state that Dr. Sable has tendered, and the School Board has accepted, her resignation. Resignations, particularly after less then two years of service, do not typically result in $400,000+ severance payments, six (6) years of full health care, compensation for unused vacation and sick days and legal fees.

Let me state at the outset that if there are legitimate personal reasons which dictate that the circumstances of her departure be kept confidential, you have only fueled the fire by informing your constituents that it was due to "different views concerning the administration of the School District." Different views can certainly be discussed openly and rationally - in the proper forum - before a decision is made to pay a half million dollar severance.

If Dr. Sable's views were so inconsistent with that of the elected School Board (and thus, presumably inconsistent with the majority of the residents that you are duty-bound to represent), it would seem that an eventual termination would have been proper and warranted, and would not have involved such a severance package. For example, I assume that Dr. Sable's contract contains provisions which would permit the School District to terminate her "for cause". "Cause" would include such things as failing to take direction from the Board, insubordination, violation of the law or any conduct, act or omission which, in the good faith determination of Board, would have a material adverse effect on the business, goodwill or reputation of the School District. Rarely - if ever - do employment contracts allow for severance payments or buyouts when an employee is terminated for cause. Therefore, I certainly hope that the School Board would have taken advantage of such a provision in Dr. Sable's contract if her conduct was truly out of line. If such a provision was not included in the contract, the role of the solicitor should be closely examined. Someone was asleep at the switch.

However, in light of the absolutely outrageous severance package, the residents are left to presume that Dr. Sable was dismissed without cause. There can be no other explanation. The deal is too rich and the method in which it is being presented to the community is too shady. Perhaps I'm most concerned that the School Board found itself in such a weak bargaining position that it agreed to this severance package for an employee that it had already deemed to be unsatisfactory. Severance payments made in conjunction with a termination without cause rarely afford an employee with a compensation package equivalent to - let alone better than - that which she would have received had she remained employed. One year's salary with benefits, perhaps. But all of her remaining salary (with no apparent duty to mitigate), benefits for the next 6 years, credit for unused vacation and sick days and legal expenses? That's simply too rich. What did the School Board do or not do - either when the original contract was negotiated or in the last 18 months - to wind up in such a horrible bargaining position?

We are again left to hypothesize as to what may have led to this expensive decision. If the best explanation the Board can offer is "different views" then my response is simply, "Too bad." The Board presumably had an understanding of Dr. Sable's experience, mission, agenda and program for the District when she was hired. In other words, the Board should have had a complete understanding and appreciation for her "views" when it negotiated and signed a long term contract. Anything short of this complete understanding is both fiscally and professionally irresponsible. If Dr. Sable's "views" later turned out to be not as advertised or something different than what the nine members of the School Board anticipated, I believe the Board has a similar professional and fiduciary obligation to work through it. I believe that I am in the healthy majority when I say that there aren't too many differences of opinion that are worth the buyout that the School Board approved last night - particularly when the community's first notice of the issue came after the damage had already been done.

Eventually, and preferably before it is too late, this School Board will realize that these dollars are real. The half million dollar package being paid to Dr. Sable may eventually be dwarfed by the cost of locating and compensating her replacement. If the School Board elected to pay a severance to Dr. Sable rather than face a frivolous lawsuit following her termination, then shame on you. Shame on you for failing to appropriately document her poor performance over the last year and a half (if that's truly what led to this) so that any such threats would be purely that and no more. Moreover, if the documentation was in place, shame on you for allowing yourselves to be taken hostage and using our tax dollars as ransom money. If you don't stand up for something, you'll far for everything. Further, I trust that the School District has adequate employer liability insurance coverage, which would have likely covered any such claim from Dr. Sable.

I was reluctant to write this email without having all of the facts. However, since I can't "un-ring" the bell and reclaim what the School Board has already given away, I sat back and tried to evaluate the events from all sides. This email represents the assumptions and conclusions that I have developed. I concede some may be wrong, but I also believe that others are right on target. Perhaps most unfortunate is that I am left to assume that you had it right and Dr. Sable had it wrong. This is particularly troubling because many in the community have expressed great satisfaction with Dr. Sable's performance and her goals.

Regardless, I am certain that any sort of respect and deference to the taxpayers during this process was and is lacking. In making this decision, the School Board has embarked on what will likely be a $1 million patching up project. This is money that will not be spent on improving our now flat test scores, special education programs, computer science and technology initiatives, character-building athletic programs, facilities and countless other items that deserve our attention and funding. As a lifelong resident of Mt. Lebanon and a Mt. Lebanon graduate, I can assure you that our School District is no longer head and shoulders above the rest. While we continue to produce excellent students on a somewhat consistent basis, we continue to take pride from national awards received in the mid-80s and early 90's. We can no longer be considered a leader in education when other schools in Allegheny County are doing better. Further, we know from our recent School District Report Card:

** Nearly 10% of all 11th graders are performing below the basic requirements for Math and Reading skills.

** The percentage of 6th graders performing in the below basic range for writing (11.9%) nearly doubles the percentage of those performing in the advanced range (6.3%).

** The percentage of disabled and economically disadvantaged 5th-11th grade students performing at the below basic level in nearly every subject is somewhat alarming, ranging from 12-46%.

Like many taxpayers, I want to know more about what led to Dr. Sable's resignation and the decision to award her a complete windfall in the process. If the Board has negotiated away the ability to share these details with the taxpayers by making her severance agreement confidential then we are left to use our own good judgment when considering your collective role in the administration of this school system. Unfortunately, even if you were 100% correct in your decisions, your last decision to keep it confidential may be the worst possible mistake. If you were right in the decision to terminate Dr. Sable, the facts would have stood on their own merit. Please understand that I have never been one to criticize the thankless efforts that each of you has agreed to assume in performing this service for the community. However, in this instance, I am afraid you have fostered an environment in which most residents will now question all future decisions.

Respectfully,

David P. Franklin

I'm Back

I was out of town for a while but returned over the weekend. It will take a couple of days to get back up to speed, though I'm planning to blog something shortly about the little scandal that's brewing (I hope) in Mt. Lebanon, where I live and which much of Pittsburgh loves to dislike. Last week, the Mt. Lebanon School Board fired the Superintendent and gave her an extravagant going-away gift. The deal includes a confidentiality stipulation, which will make it difficult to get at what really happened.

Cool Beans

Just because it's interesting: I came across Highland Coffee Trading in the South Hills, an importer of free trade organic coffee, and wanted to give the company a plug.

The coffee is available online, at company HQ in Bridgeville, and at the MarketPlace on Valley Brook Road in Peters Township.

Pirateball

Last Thursday's Times ran a feature titled "The Loss of Tradition" that used the Pirates to illustrate the decline of small-market major league baseball while clubs with more money (Yankees) and national following (Red Sox) make the playoffs year after year.

The story has little that's news to local baseball fans, though it does have a pretty photo of PNC Park. It does remind me of some things that are peculiar about the psychology of professional sports in this county, and it prompts a little metaphorical thinking about local problems. American sports fans either embrace collectivism (i.e., revenue sharing in the NFL), or wish for it (in Major League Baseball), in an economy that is otherwise tethered to the ideology of the free market. We tie support for our team to the belief that the team has (or at least should have) an "equal chance" at winning each season's championship. If the team doesn't or can't have a shot at the playoffs, then a lot of people aren't going to go, or watch, or even care.

In both senses, in other words, sports fans in this country not only believe that teams and players belong to the fans in an abstract, pscyhological sense, but they believe that the leagues, players, teams, and local governments should share that ownership with fans in a slightly more concrete sense. Fans who stop buying tickets because the team is lousy aren't just shoppers in a free market; they're like shareholders who are getting out of a stock. Revenue sharing and public financing for stadiums are subsidies for small "stockholders" -- ways to help small investors get into the market for less than full price, and ways to keep the stock price moving upward later.

I don't own season tickets, and I'm not really a sports stockholder, but if I did, and if I were, the first thing I would want before buying in is honest accounting from leagues, owners, players, and cities. My guess -- and it's just a guess -- is that the Pirates are in the dumpster because psychologically, the team and the city are fiscally indistinguishable. Too much money borrowed by feckless leaders and spent on the wrong stuff, hoping for the ship that's not really going to come in. The Steelers are different, psychologically speaking. Strong, stable ownership and leadership. Accountability and responsibility. And these days, great results.