From the PG, Heather Arnet District 2 has resigned.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09177/980164-100.stm
The article indicates that per the Board president the mayor appoints a replacement- but PURE's research indicates that mayoral appointments may only apply for resignations closer to the next municipal election.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
So sad. I just talked with H.A. on WED in the hallway at the BOE. Asked her how the gender equity study on sports was progressing. I think it was to be due this summer. Title IX and all. ....
She was a big ray of hope.
Watching the school board meeting the other night and hearing her comment that was a little "off" during the discussion about making a deposit to Dwelling House was a clue to her concern about funding for non-profits. Recipients of charitable giving are hard hit in this economic downturn. What is most difficult to watch is the deflation of enthusiasm, usually temporary, that accompanies money worries. Perhaps Ms. Arnet's resignation from the Board will draw attention to the issues all non-profits are facing at this time. Best of luck to her.
Also the early 30's, when a person is building a career and building a family, is a really difficult time to take on an extra responsibility with a lot of meetings. Unless there's a full time "home spouse" ready and willing to handle almost everything relating to home and kids and you are willing to delegate. For many women in particular, no matte how hard they are willing to work, the wsacrifice in terms of time with children before those children have grown and gone is just too much.
There may also be other reasons for the resignation. Board members are required to live in the district.
Yes it seems that her house is for sale, but the decision to sell was probably wrapped up w/ the dicision to resign.
I'm not sure what a ray of light Ms.Arnett truly was. In stating that she firmly believes that the district is on the "right track" in an academic sense, either she is delusional, incredibly naive or simply part of the Roosevelt machine that needs to be shoved out of town.A great many good young board members have come and gone in the past 20 years. Losing another "yes" ally to the superintendent is no great loss, to be sure.
HA did seem like a "big ray of hope" when she asked all the right questions- for example when she asked for a 5 year plan for facilities and programs. But that ray dimmed a long time ago when she decided to accept responses that weren't real answers. Such as the "5 year road map" that was a list of general ideas like "address CTE" in a given year. On this she voted to close Schenley.
Told my wife (better half fur sure) that H.A. was about to resign for PPS Board because of the nonprofit job and how it has been hit hard in the econ downturn. That needs her attention, it seems.
Humm...
So she thinks that the school district do NOT need the attention now???????????
Humm squared.
Going onto a board takes careful consideration, be it appointed or elected.
It's really easy with the best of intentions to bite off more than you can chew. Especially when you're young and think you know everything (been there done that).
As some have noted, my 'ray of hope statement' was made above. Note, it was given with the past tense.
For example more recently, I told her I had no hope, but keen interest, in the gender equity study for sports.
Rays come and go. We need more FIXTURES.
Regardless of the resignation, whether it be for professional reasons or whether it be in order to send a child to a non PPS school outside of the city limits, what needs to be considered is that a major portion of the district is not being represented. If, in fact, a new board member is appointed by the mayor- who will the mayor turn to in order to choose that member? Will it be the superintendent, with whom he has partnered for the Pittsburgh Promise? After having not served even 1/2 of the tenure, there needs to be a newly elected individual who truly represents the people who are voting, not only the district at large. The last 2 board members were very concerned with the district at large- as they should have been- but also at the expense of their electorate. I think that Mrs. Colaizzi should reread the process of replacing board members.
I stopped by the law library to check on procedures for filling vacancies and found that procedures vary depending on the "class" of the school district. "Class" in turn is determined by the size of the district. Districts with a population of 1.5 million of more are "first class." Districts with a population of 350,000 to 1.5 million are "first class A." Districts with a population of 30,000 to 350,000 are "second class." 24 P.S. Section 2-202. Pittsburgh, then, would be in the "second class."
The only instance I saw for mayoral apppointment to fill a vacancy was for "first class A." 24 P.S. Section 3-3-2.1(b).
For second, third and fourth classes, according to 24 P.S. 3-315 the remaining members of the board by a majority vote are to fill the vacancy within 30 days. The person selected holds the office until the first Monday or December after the first municipal election occurring more than 60 days after the vacancy occurs. At this same electioin an eligible person is to be elected for the remainder of the unexpired term.
So it looks like remaining members will appoint someone to serve until December 1, 2009, and that an election should be held this November.
Correction of a typo:
3-3-2.1(b) should be 3-302.1(b).
Good research.
State law is sorta funny in that there is generally one class A city = Philly. And, one class B city = Pittsburgh. Then come the rest. This was / is done to allow state folks to make certain laws apply to one location and not the others. (unfair)
Wonder if, by the old rules, Pgh's pop decline has made a drop from its own category. ???
The election dept will have an opinion on this as will the city law department.
The classes were set up in 1949 so it's true that at that time Pittsburgh did have the population to make it the only "first class A" district.
i think if you go back in history and check legislation passed in PA on education and other initiatives plenty reads based on class of city. this is how at times only Philly and Pgh are impacted by knuckelhead ideas.
Link to article in today's PG:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09178/980246-53.stm
Regarding the process of replacing the outgoing school board member, there is the question as to whether the school board president was advised by the district's legal counsel and if, in fact, she was advised correctly. This situation brings up another situation that should be addressed, the fact that the PPS, the 2nd largest district in the state, does not have its own in house legal counsel. Every time the present legal consultant answers a phone call regarding the district, the PPS is billed at an exceedingly high rate. The amount that the district is paying to an outside lawyer is fiscally irresponsible. In fact, two full time lawyers, along with benefits, could be hired for the cost that the district is paying in the present situation. In a time when schools are being closed and teachers are losing their jobs, every cost-cutting measure must be examined. And perhaps there will be a less politicized approach to the legal opinions as well!
Article from the Trib:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/s_631343.html
The Trib article says:
"One of her ideas was to create a committee of student liaisons between the district's high schools and the board."
Does anyone know if this committee actually was formed?
I have learned that the numbers for categorizing school districts have been updated to keep Pittsburgh as a First Class A district (population 250,000 to 1,000,000), which means that an appointee named by the mayor will serve "until the first Monday in December following the next municipal primary occuring one hundred twenty days after the vacancy occurred" 24 PS Section 3-302.1- so until December 2010. It looks like the online versions are more reliable than the library's hard copies these days!
I have been informed that the next municipal election is in 2011 so the press release is correct, the appointee will be in place until December 2011. If the resignation had taken place early this year District 2 would have had the opportunity to elect a representative.
This is pretty exciting. Does anyone know who the mayor might have been lunching with lately? Can we blow the selection way out of proportion to take some of the thunder away from city council goings-on? Lets talk "hats in the ring."
Post a Comment