The East Penn Schools Are On the Line
A quick and dirty guide to who to vote for...and why.
It's coming whether you like it or not: Two weeks from today, the East Penn community will choose a new majority for the school board. I strongly urge people to vote for the following five school board candidates: Levinson, Klotz, Jankowski, Ford, and Kelly. They are conveniently the first five names listed on the ballot for school board, so should be easy to remember!
Why these five? In a nutshell, they have demonstrated the greatest ability to work together across political differences; are the most focused on local, East Penn-specific issues; have shown the most knowledge about both the strengths and weaknesses of our schools; and have been the most transparent and accessible to community members.
Want more detail? Then check out these previous posts:
But I'm not the only one speaking out. The strength of these candidates, and the danger of extremism posed by the other candidates running for the board, has been widely recognized throughout our community, by people from all different walks of life, both Democrats and Republicans. Here's a sampling:
East Penn, remember what happened with 'Books not Bricks' in the 1990s? Don't make that mistake again - Jane Ervin (former Lehigh County Executive)
Take a look at the two East Penn Board slates. There's no comparison - Edward J. Erickson (Macungie)
Vote for East Penn candidates who support critical thinkers - Cherie Raub (Upper Milford Township)
School board candidate needs to be able to take criticism - Nancy Hearn (Macungie)
East Penn group is a threat to district schools - Jane Aylor Fretz (Lower Macungie Township)
Be wary of 'parents' rights' in school board elections - Terry Richwine (Lower Macungie Township)
Pennridge is a mess. If you're not careful, your school district could be too - Lauren Bradley (Bedminster)
Too many people don't think it matters who is on the school board. Or they don't think their vote makes a difference. Or don't feel as if they know enough about the candidates to make a good choice. Please forward this post to friends, neighbors, colleagues, fellow parents and grandparents, and anyone else you can think of. Let them know that it DOES matter who governs our schools, that votes for school board candidates do MAKE A DIFFERENCE , and that the links above provide a LOT OF INFORMATION about the choice we face here in East Penn.
One of the articles you reference is from morning call's special opinion piece by Jane Ervin, which has many unfortunate inaccuracies which need to be addressed I'm sorry that Mrs. Ervin was traumatized during her failed 1991 run for the EPSD board of directors. For those who don't know me, in 1989, I was a successful non-partisan candidate for the same board, and served on it from 1989-1993. We inherited a facilities AND FINANCIAL mess from the years before, some of it created by the people which Mrs. Ervin supported as her running mates in 1991. I didn't have a horse in that race. I would have gladly served with anyone who had been elected, and did.
I could say much more about the financial mess we inherited, which was the real cause of building delays. In fact, I have spoken to the EPSD earlier this year about that while complementing the district's current business administrator for his planning tools. (I called it Mr. Saul's amazing spreadsheet). When I was on the board, and PC based spreadsheets were first coming into vogue, I used a similar, but much simplified technique to come to my own conclusions about why a 26% tax increase was proposed for my first (1990-91) budget.
We ended up with about 19% that year and 10% the next year, without getting anything for it except for maintenance of the status quo, never mind building anything. These increases made up for neglected increase during the previous 3 years which depleted the fund balance from a relatively healthy 6% to essentially zero. By 1993, when I left the board, the fund balance was above 8%, and the fiscal damage was repaired, and the building started soon after, with a much better plan that touched nearly every building in the district.
There are many inaccuracies in Mrs. Ervin's article. I will comment on only one here - Superintendent Leary's resignation (not firing). During the weekend after the 1991 election or maybe it was the Thanksgiving weekend, I was called by the board president for what he termed as an essential, emergency meeting with Dr Leary, when he informally tendered his resignation to us, contingent upon board approval of a decent settlement. If you lived through it, that was a day that is hard to forget, even today, 32 years and nearly half a lifetime ago. I thanked him for his service, but expressed that it probably would be good for him to leave, both for his own sake and that of the district.
That Monday, Dr. Leary made his offer to resign from the podium, rather from the board's dais. The settlement was approved 6-3, including my vote, the president's, and the votes of all four board members whose terms were expiring, including a couple who ran unsuccessfully for re-election along with Mrs. Ervin, and were supported by her group. Mrs. Ervin surely wasn't a direct party in Dr. Leary's departure, but I feel it's important to correct her inaccuracies about what happened, since that was all in public and well reported at the time and it can be found in the archives for those who might be interested.
There are several other factual inaccuracies in Mrs Ervin's article, but rather than pointing them all out, I'll just say that during the summer of 1991, the school board was able to purchase the LMMS property, when as VP, I signed the purchase agreement when the President was unavailable and away because of his regular work.
For now, I'm anxiously replaying yesterday's EPSD's meeting that presumably covered the next iteration of facilities planning. It will be interesting to see what they come up with. My preliminary view is that the biggest needs are in elementary. Expansion of the middle schools to accommodate 5th grade may be a decent, but I'd need to hear more. Building a new a new $200 million HS seems unaffordable, just like it was in 1989.