Category: Gadfly’s posts

Movement on Martin Tower (1)

(1st in a series on Martin Tower)

Nicole Radzievich, “Martin Tower, landmark of the Bethlehem Steel era, to be demolished. Morning Call, January 28, 2019.

The headline in the print edition is:

LEHIGH VALLEY’S TALLEST BUILDING TO BE RAZED

“Martin Tower, once Bethlehem Steel’s world headquarters, will vanish from Bethlehem’s skyline this year after a 47-year reign as the Lehigh Valley’s tallest building, a representative of its owners confirmed Monday.”

“The developers have not yet determined whether the 332-foot building will be imploded or dismantled, Duane Wagner, director of development for HRP Management, said Monday on behalf of the owners. Wagner’s comments mark the first time the owners, a partnership of investors Lewis Ronca and Norton Herrick, have revealed their intentions for the skyscraper since the 53-acre property, at 1170 Eighth Ave., was rezoned a little more than three years ago.”

“In a 2017 interview, Ronca said he wasn’t sure of the tower’s fate even as he began a more than $4 million project to remove the asbestos from it and demolish surrounding ancillary buildings. ‘Over the past several years, even prior to the abatement process, we 009explored reuse internally and with several third-party groups, and were not able to create an economically viable plan for [its] reuse,’ Wagner said. Removing the tower opens for development the valuable property just off a Route 378 interchange. Wagner said the developers will submit a master plan for the site during the first quarter of this year.”

“Mayor Robert Donchez said the building proved over the years to be too inefficient to market. It’s better for the city as a whole, he said, to start fresh with tax-generating projects, rather than let the property continue to languish. While some may mourn the tower’s loss, Donchez said, the city can take solace in saving older symbols of Bethlehem Steel: the Steel General Offices, where famed executives Eugene Grace and Charles Schwab ruled, and the blast furnaces. ‘A certain number of people feel strongly about Martin Tower, but I think there is a stronger attachment to the blast furnaces, which really has become the skyline of Bethlehem,’ Donchez said.”

“The Martin Tower site, in the Lehigh County portion of Bethlehem, has been eyed for redevelopment since the final tenants moved out in 2007. The property was included in 003the 5-year-old City Revitalization and Improvement Zone, a tax incentive that allows developers to pay off construction loans with certain state and local taxes. Demolition will prevent the use of federal tax credits developers once eyed when they successfully petitioned to get Martin Tower on the National Register of Historic Places. It was a noteworthy application because the building was younger than 50, yet preservationists agreed its ties to mighty Bethlehem Steel made it noteworthy.”

“In 2006, Martin Tower landed in the hands of the company that now includes Ronca and Herrick. There was little demand for the tower’s 600,000 square feet of office space. Its size and shape were unattractive to investors and its mechanical system was outdated. It was difficult to find a single occupant to fill the building, and its layout was inefficient. Developers had first envisioned a $200 million residential community, but that faded when the residential market took a downturn. Those plans were shelved after the housing crash. The property lingered until 2015, when city zoning was changed to make it easier for Martin Tower to be demolished and allowed a mix of office, commercial and residential development.”

Objections to the Zrinski resolution

Tara Zrinski’s resolution (see Sunday’s post) regarding plastic bags and straws passed the Northampton County Council, but it got hammered in this morning’s issue of “Lehigh Valley Ramblings.”

In this criticism, we probably see a foreboding taste of what a proposal from our Environmental Advisory Council will encounter.

Here are key sections from the “Ramblings.”

Problems with the resolution:

There are several problems with Zrinski’s resolution. First, it was never vetted by a Council Committee, which is the norm. Second, it is essentially identical to one tabled in December. Zrinski dishonestly or mistakenly suggested her previous proposal was an ordinance. Third, it is nonbinding, meaning it means nothing. Fourth, no municipality I know of looks to Northampton County Council for guidance on anything. Fifth, the research cited in the resolution is flawed. Some of it, I kid you not, comes from a 10 year old’s school project.

The alternate solution the Rambler offers:

I agree that plastic pollution is a serious problem, but an unenforceable plastic straw ban is a joke mostly designed to make Zrinski and her followers feel like they’ve accomplished something while the world still goes to hell. They can pat themselves on the back while whales still die. What is a solution, here in the Lehigh Valley, is periodic sweeps along the waterways to pick up plastic. Open space money could be used for this and pay people with limited incomes, but we’d rather spend that money to preserve undevelopable swamps and cliffs.

It might be wise to answer the Rambler. Good practice. His fifth problem, the charge that a ban is unenforceable, and his alternate solution look to Gadfly as the three specific points on which to focus (Gadfly expertly avoids ending the sentence with a preposition.)

Gadfly asks followers to eschew (good SAT word) caustic and ad hominem comments and language. Best, in fact, to avoid the Rambler’s name. In fact, let’s stick to the facts. Let’s assume these objections will come up again and again and need to be reasonably answered.

In fact (so awkward repeating this phrase three times) some sort of look at the objections that were overcome in places that have a ban and the objections that prevailed in places where the ban was defeated might be good strategy in preparation for a Bethlehem proposal. Gadfly can see in mind’s eye a list of objections with a paragraph answer for each that goes along with a proposal.

Northside 2027 moving along (6)

(the latest in a series of posts on Northside 2027 and Neighborhoods)

“There is no reason why good cannot triumph as often as evil. The triumph of anything is a matter of organization.” (Kurt Vonnegut)

Gadfly had to miss the Northside 2027 meeting at Thomas Jefferson Elementary School last Thursday January 24.

But a tip o’ the hat and wave of the wing to follower Kate McVey for attending, participating, and picking up handouts for us.

Kate reports that attendees split into three groups: housing, mobility, and commerce.

Kate went first to the mobility group in which the discussion mostly centered on safety: crossings clearly indicated, how traffic signs were placed, making streets one way and two way, sidewalk work, and grants.

She then went to the housing group and caught the end of discussion about the shelter at United Church of Christ and affordable housing.

Here are handouts from two of the groups.

Each group has a “vision statement” to gradually fill in. The two columns filling up so far are “major concerns” and “potential strategies” to address those concerns. See summaries of concerns below. Take a look at the handouts for proposed strategies.

The Neighborhood Plan Map: shows schools, parks, churches, historical sites, commercial corridors, open spaces, and so forth in the Northside 2027 territory.

northside 2027 neighborhood plan map

Mobility: concerns include unsafe intersections, safety for children walking to school, fast vehicular traffic, minimal access points to the Monocacy Way Trail, traffic signage on alleys, bicycle infrastructure, lack of awareness of “rules of the road.”

northside 2027 mobility 1 jan 24
northside 2027 mobility 2 jan 24

Housing: concerns include conversion of homes into multi-family rental units, code enforcement on quality of life issues, aesthetic upkeep of homes, sidewalks, available resources for both renters and homeowners, lack of neighborliness and community cohesion, ways to keep up with maintenance and improving the look of the neighborhood.

northside 2027 housing jan 24

Continued kudos to CM Reynolds for leadership and other reps from the city (Congressman Samuelson’s office was represented) who may have been there (Kate suggests introductions and name-tags next time so that we can know the royalty).

Dear Dr. Roy (6)

(6th in a series on Education)

As far as Gadfly can determine so far, the issue is not about the quality of education at local charter schools (as it is at some other places) but the funding process. But the Gadfly invites information, insights, anecdotes, stories, and so forth from followers who have had actual experience with charter schools — children attending, teaching at, etc.

Doctor Joseph Roy, BASD Superintendent

Dr. Roy:

I attended the “Education Summit” Wednesday, and I wonder if you could give me a few more specific facts about the important charter school funding issue for the thread I’ve started for my 200 followers under Education on the Bethlehem Gadfly blog (see link below). You can find the thread by clicking “Education” on the right-hand sidebar on the blog.

1) What is the cost per student – regular and special education – you used for charter school payments this year? (here and below, or for the last year you have figures)

2) How many students from BASD are attending charter schools this year?

3) What percentage of BASD students are attending charter schools?

4) How much of the BASD budget – dollar amount and percentage – is going to charter schools this year?

5) What charter schools are BASD students attending this year? Both name and number.

6) Is there a limit to the number of students that can attend charter schools? For instance, is the only limit the number of charter schools and their capacity? Theoretically, could charter schools drain the district of students?

7) Is there anything else about this issue that you think we should know?

8) Superintendent Sniscak cited the PASA report. Is there anything else that you think would be good for us to read as we learn about this issue, including your own writings?

Several members of the School Board and district staff are Gadfly followers, and I’d like to invite you to follow as well (click the button at the top of the blog sidebar). We try to follow various issues of local interest and concern.

Thank you—

Ed Gallagher

“The diversion of public dollars to a private end is a major challenge for us” (5)

(5th in a series on Education)

Now let’s look at the other speakers at Lehigh Valley 4 All’s Education Summit.

(By the way, this is the second meeting of Lehigh Valley 4 All that Gadfly has attended, and that organization has made a very good impression.)

009

Here are audio recordings and summaries of the five speakers relating to charter schools. If Gadfly were to boil the presentations down, he would say that there is no gripe about the quality of the local charter schools, but the diversion of public dollars to a private end is a major challenge. The gripe from the traditional public school perspective is that the funding formula is flawed, weighing heavily in favor of the charter schools. And the practice in regard to special ed students is resulting in a higher concentration of lower needs students in charters. The Pa. Association of School Administrators has identified 11 reforms that are easy and inexpensive to implement, but recent legislative attempts have actually been in the wrong direction. Outlook not good.

As we continue to think about the charter school issue, among things that Gadfly would like to know are the exact amount of the BASD payment to charter schools, which schools they are, and how many students are attending charter schools.

Joseph Roy, BASD Superintendent (7 mins.)

“Do we believe in public schools for the public good that serve all children, or do we want to move toward privatization?” Since the 80s there’s been a move from public good and service to privatizing everything. Under the guise of choice, there’s been a movement away from the good of the community to the good of the individual, a notion that everything can be solved through the market. The crux: what’s the agenda behind the privatization movement? We have become consumers, a market. A market solution has been imposed on an inherently public good. And it doesn’t work. We see corruption in charter schools (though not in Bethlehem). Charter schools are publicly funded but privately run. They don’t have elected boards, so we remove them from the notion of a public good under the direction of an elected school board. The diverting of public dollars to privately run schools is a major issue. $1.5billion/yr in Pa. goes to charter schools. vouchers/opportunity dollars go to private and parochial schools. “The diversion of public dollars to a private end is a major challenge for us.” If that money stayed in the public system, we’d have a lot less issues with money for the public schools.

Richard Sniscak, Parkland SD Superintendent (9 mins.)

Many costs rising, but charter schools continue to tax budgets. For instance: Allentown $50m, Bethlehem $30m, Parkland $4m. And Parkland doesn’t even have charter schools within the district but are transporting students outside our district. There are good and bad public schools as well as good and bad charter schools. So that’s not his focus. His focus is on the funding of charter schools. Pa. charter school law is obsolete and increasingly out-of-date – especially for cyber charter schools. Pa. Association of School Administrators published a white paper in 2018 to address systemic flaws within the current law, and he went over the 11 recommendations. For instance, change funding formula, change cost of funding special ed students, address over-identification (?), teachers must meet same certification requirements as in public schools (applause!), evaluate by same measures as traditional public schools (applause!), scrutinize lower performance that traditional public schools, school districts have power to oversee charter schools, appeal boards must be composed of neutral members, fill-in discrepancies must be reconciled, transparency of finances, enrollment practices free of discrimination. These things are “low hanging fruit,” easily dealt with without cost, but have eluded legislative change. “Money for charter schools in Pa. is deeply flawed. It is based upon a formula that’s not reflective of actual cost, especially for cyber charter schools.” The funding is based on the cost per student in the sending school. That cost includes lots of things not included in a charter school’s costs, such as extra-curricular cost and busing/transportation. Thus, public schools send more money than is needed to operate charter schools. “Windfall for charter schools and a deficit for public schools.” Gives examples of “excessively high” tuition rates.

Susan Spick, President, Education Voters (10 mins.)

Charters can be managed by a for-profit company, with a different objective than educating students, and a different way of reporting their finances. Cost in Bethlehem 2016-2017 was $10,600 for a regular student and almost $23,000 for a special ed student. There are 2 things that should happen in Harrisburg. Our state funds about 37% of what it takes to educate a student, national average is closer to 50%. We are 46th in the nation for state finding of public schools. Money is not spread in equitable ways and also grossly inadequate. Public schools everywhere are struggling, and effort is needed to bring charter schools funds back into the system. Quality of education in cyber charter schools is abysmal. Not educating students yet taking in 1/2billion dollars a year. Legislature caved to charter school lobby on funding formula for special ed students. No relationship whatsoever between what the charter school gets to educate a special ed student and what it actually costs. Gives egregious example. Funding formula creates a big disincentive for charter schools to admit students with significant disabilities. “Perverse disincentive.” Students with less expensive disabilities go to charter schools. Charter schools all over the state are reaping a surplus from this funding formula. Children are being segregated by disabilities, and educational segregations turns out, in effect to be racial segregation. Issue is morally wrong as well as financial.

Steve Samuelson, State Representative, 135th District (14 mins.)

Funding: 70% local, 25% state, 5% federal. Gov. Wolf had made education a priority. Still feeling effects of big cuts in 2008. Just now coming back to that level. There have been some bills for charter school reform, but they tend to get stuck in committee. One bill that get to the floor went in the wrong direction, taking authorizing of charters away from the local school board.  Another bill would stack the appeal board in favor of charters. There was a bill to requite “paid for by tax dollars.” Another regarding teacher evaluation adding charter schools also failed. 3 specific proposals coming up to equalize public and charter schools.

Mike Schlossberg, State Representative, 132nd District (7 mins.)

We are lucky in the Lehigh Valley. Most of our charter schools are good. Most of the charter problems are in Phila., and they drive the conversation. Cyber charters are a major problem. Pa has high property taxes, 6th in nation, but concentrated in impoverished or rapidly growing school districts, go west and property taxes are fine. Can’t eliminate property taxes but can control, rebates, for instance. Property taxes are the only things major corporations pay. Poverty going up in suburban as well as urban areas. Lack of education funding is the key. Important as funding is it isn’t enough. If kids don’t go home to a safe environment, it’s a waste. Need wrap-around programs.

Charter Schools: Accentuating the positive, again (4)

(4th in a series on Education)

Gadfly was mistaken, was looking at an older list of participants. There was a representative from charter schools on the panel at last night’s Lehigh Valley 4 All Education Summit – Lisa Pluchinsky of the Dual Language Charter School, 675 E. Broad St. The principal of Charter Arts was also in the audience.

The focus of Charter Arts that we profiled last time is the performing arts. Here the focus is “dual language,” diversity: “The goal is bilingualism/biculturalism for all students.”

Gadfly started this thread to get to know more about charter schools and especially because of the negativity seemingly surrounding them in the public mind because of the tax burden and poor quality administration and education (cf. the Catasauqua charter mentioned in the last post).

So, Gadfly thought noteworthy this comment in the lead-off talk last night by Dr. Roy, BASD Superintendent (who, as I said earlier, one rarely sees his name without “a vocal critic of charter schools” pinned to it): “We now have become consumers, imposing a market solution on an inherently public good. And it doesn’t work. And we’ve seen it in the world of charter schools, where there’s many times where the charters become profit-making – and I will say, not here in our district – not the charters in our district – but many places we see all types of challenges around corruption, basically becoming profit-makers, or at least profit-makers for the landlords.”

So, with that positive nod from Dr. Roy, let’s look at another Bethlehem charter school before, in subsequent posts, we try to understand the problems and criticism.

Lehigh Valley Dual Language Charter School

Principal Pluchinsky provides a nice statistical overview and statement of educational goals:

And answers a question about how the school is evaluated:

From the web site:

MISSION: The mission of LVDLCS is to create a community of bilingual, multicultural, life-long learners committed to academic excellence and leadership while celebrating diversity and identity.

VISION: Our vision is a community of bilingual and bi-cultural, life-long learners committed to excellence and dedicated to learning and leadership.

CORE VALUES: We believe that we are a community that is made stronger through its diversity.

WHY A CHARTER SCHOOL IN BETHLEHEM? Across the Lehigh Valley, school districts have struggled to meet the needs of linguistically diverse students for a variety of reasons. We envision filling this need through the establishment of a K-8 free public charter school that is smaller, more personable, and founded on instructional strategies and techniques that meet the unique needs of our linguistically diverse students.

INSTRUCTION: The teachers will be extensively trained in dual language instruction. The students will benefit from their teachers’ use of cutting-edge instructional strategies such as Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA) and Sheltered Instruction Operational Protocol (SIOP). Effective, meaningful Spanish language instruction in the content areas will be provided for native English speakers. The goal is bilingualism/biculturalism for all students.

CEO/COO Ms. Elsie Perez.; Principal, Ms. Lisa Pluchinsky; among Founding Coalition Directors is Councilwoman Olga Negron; Board president, Ms. Raiza Roman

Principal’s Corner:

“We are dedicated to providing all students with the educational foundation necessary to succeed in school and in life.  Not only does our educational commitment focus on Language Arts and Math, we also provide a rich educational experience in the Spanish language.  Spanish class, science, and social studies are all delivered by quality, bilingual staff to ensure the LVDLCS students succeed in two languages.  We continue to strive to meet each student’s educational needs in both languages.”

“Please remember that parents are responsible to complete 25 hours of volunteer service for the school.  There are many different ways to complete these hours from volunteering in the cafeteria, working in the classroom, completing projects for the classroom teacher, donating necessary items, attending workshops and events at the school, and also participating in an approved educational program.  Please call the school office if you have questions about completing volunteer hours.”

Our School: Fully immersive dual language classes, Small Class Sizes, Multidisciplinary Project, Individualized Attention

So we’ve now had a chance to look at two of our local charter schools in an educational positive light and are ready to learn about the financial ramifications that create a lot of the negative noise.

Charter Schools: Accentuating the positive (3)

(3rd in a series on Education)

Yesterday Gadfly posted a notice about the Education Summit tonight. Charter schools are among the topics for discussion. But I see there are about a dozen people on the panel, and no one identified seems to be from a charter school. Therefore I’m neither sure how much time can be given to charter schools nor what balance there will be.

Gadfly likes balance in the discovery stage.

So let’s accentuate the positive.

Some charter schools are or have been a complete mess, right? Out of the corner of my mind, I have been following the saga in Catasauqua, and, in fact, there is an article on the front page of this morning’s print edition of the Call about it:

Steve Esack, “Catasauqua schools must be reimbursed for defunct charter school’s pension obligations, court rules.” Morning Call, January 22, 2019.

But the only charter school in Bethlehem that I, frankly, can place is Lehigh Valley Charter High School for the Arts, 321 E. 3rd St. (I have a hard time thinking of schools without playgrounds!) What and where are the others? But I guess it doesn’t matter, for, as I understand it, charter schools are not bound by the kinds of boundaries public schools are.

Lehigh Valley Charter High School for the Arts

In 2018 Charter Arts ranked 46th in Pennsylvania and was the highest-ranking school in the Lehigh Valley in the U.S. News & World Report ranking.

In 2018 the “U.S. Department of Education awarded the [Charter Arts] as a Blue Ribbon School, which recognizes the state’s highest performing schools” – one of only 20 charter schools nationally so recognized.

National Blue Ribbon Schools Program

2018 National Blue Ribbon Schools: Charter Schools

That’s pretty hot stuff.

 From the Charter Arts web site:

“The Lehigh Valley Charter High School for the Arts provides a unique environment that fosters a creative academic approach to learning and a development of talent in the arts. Built upon passion, discipline and a commitment to excellence, this integrative educational experience inspires all students to believe in themselves and what they can accomplish.”

Mario Acerra is President of the Board of Directors, Dianne LaBelle is executive director and CEO, and Carise Comstock is the Principal.

“The sponsoring districts for Charter Arts are the Bethlehem Area School District and the Northampton Area School District.  These two districts renew the charter every five years. Northampton Area School District renewed the Charter Arts charter in June 2012, and the Bethlehem Area School District renewed the Charter Arts charter in June 2013.”

“Charter schools receive public funds from the sending school district of a child who chooses to attend.  A charter school receives 75% of the funding for that student.  The student’s sending/home school district utilizes a funding formula developed by the Pennsylvania Department of Education (form 363) and can deduct more than 20 categories of expenditures from their budget that are not passed on to charter schools.”

The Performer (in effect, the school newspaper)

According to the Morning Call: Begun in 2003, “The Lehigh Valley Charter High School for the Arts enrolls more than 600 students. Academically, it’s one of the best in the area: 94 percent of students passed the English Keystone exam last year, while 73 percent passed algebra and 85 percent passed biology. The school has a 99 percent graduation rate.”

Ok, I’ll report on anything pertinent tonight, and we’ll continue to go deeper into the controversy.

W-ers ‘n B-er’s: Coalition for Appropriate Transportation (7)

(7th in a series of posts on Walkability and Bikeability)

Gadfly’s trying to raise his knowledge about “walkability and bikeability” groups he should know about. So much he doesn’t know. Suggestions?

Coalition for Appropriate Transportation

cat

Speaking of things he doesn’t know. From the “Love Our Trails” page of CAT’s web site, Gadfly learns of a trail he hadn’t heard of, the Stockertown/Plainfield Twp Trail. On my list of places to go.

Gadfly’s MLK Day 2019

“Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Thanks to a nudge from follower Doug Roysdon, Gadfly went to the Ice House to see art work and to hear poems and songs from the Northeast Middle School “Rally 4 Peace” club under the guidance of Denise Parker, Christopher Bellman, and Jennifer Doncsecz.

And then to Banko Alehouse Cinema for a showing of Anita, Freida Mock’s documentary about Anita Hill, who “sparked a national conversation about sexual harassment in the workplace when she testified at the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Clarence Thomas in 1991” – followed by a discussion with our US representative Susan Wild, our Councilwoman Olga Negron, our NAACP president Esther Lee, and Lehigh University prof Suzanne Edwards, moderated by Deborah Sacarakis.

Both events were dramatic examples of people finding their voices.

Speaking out is dear to Gadfly’s heart and mission.

It’s not ever easy.

We sometimes think that MLK, 26 when he went to Memphis, was fearless, but he was almost always afraid, even when denying it.

Hill was 35 when she found her voice, reluctantly but inescapably. “It would have been more comfortable to remain silent,” she said, “[but] I felt that I had to tell the truth. I could not keep silent.”

But when teens and pre-teens find their voices, it is unnerving, almost other-worldly.

Listen to Frances defuse hate:

Listen to Bianca indict the love that is deadly:

Listen to Justin daring violence to sit down:

Listen to Elyza’s fight song:

A few audience members at Banko sounded a note of weary impatience and frustration at the rate of social change.

What we need is a steady stream of people who cannot not speak out.

That promise filled the Ice House.

As Elyza said, what Rally 4 Peace is “really about is changing the world and spreading world-wide peace through many different and beautiful forms of art.”

A big wave of the Gadfly wings to Northeast Middle School.

Dialogue on development

(14th in a series on Bethlehem’s Climate Action Plan)

Followers will recognize that Gadfly has been fussin’ over how to feel about “development.”

He is much intrigued over the phrase “socially conscious development” in Council candidate Grace Crampsie Smith’s press release and is anxious to hear more about what’s behind that phrase.

So he couldn’t help but be drawn into the public dialogue between our past mayor Don Cunningham and our present Councilwoman Paige Van Wirt (who is running again) on Amazon, truck traffic, and the growth of warehouses (delightfully termed “sprawl in a box”!).

What Gadfly has seen now several times and really likes in CW Van Wirt is her dismissal of dichotomies. You know, the simplistic either/or kind of thinking that characterizes so many politicians. When she says things like “as if our only choice is between warehouses and economic stagnation,” Gadfly’s antennae go up and his wings flutter. That’s an interstice (good SAT word) he needs to believe in. Yes, maybe we can have significant development with its economic advantages but common-sense and socially conscious development.

PVW’s thoughtful piece worthy of attention.

Don Cunningham, “You can’t use Amazon and then complain about truck traffic.” Morning Call, January 16, 2019.

Paige Van Wirt, “Lehigh Valley shoulders heavy burden of warehouses.” Morning Call, January 21, 2019.  (online link not available yet, will add later)van wirt newspaper

“You’re not allowed to hate what you love and what you use, and then complain about what it [Amazon] creates.” (DC)

“I think characterizing truck traffic in the Lehigh Valley as a consequence of our own dependence on internet retailers such as Amazon is in error. This opinion ducks our responsibility as a region to adequately plan for warehouse expansion that minimizes traffic and environmental impacts, and it disregards the loss of our farmlands to warehousing.” (PVW)

“If you order products online and have them delivered to your door, you are not allowed to complain about trucks on the road.” (DC)

“It’s easy to point the finger at internet retailers and say the rest of us should consider ourselves lucky, as if our only choice is between warehouses and economic stagnation. But people who are stuck on Route 22 behind six big rigs, or the mom dealing with yet another asthma attack as her child breathes our air, might find this dismissal of the problem just wrong.” (PVW)

“People are inherently lazy and love little wrapped gifts and surprises, even if we know what’s in them. So, the idea of sitting on the couch, ordering things and having someone bring them to our door is appealing. Voila, a new industry is created: e-commerce. And, yes, trucks deliver the packages.” (DC)

“Watertown, Mass., recently mandated the installation of solar panels on all new commercial buildings, and even on renovations of buildings over a certain size. Imagine the pollution and energy costs that could be avoided by mandating solar panel installations on top of all those flat, treeless warehouse roofs.” (PVW)

“Nonetheless, we go online, order packages, try on clothes, return them if they don’t fit and have someone carry a new package to our door all the while complaining about the explosion of warehouses in the Lehigh Valley.” (DC)

“What we should be demanding from our region-wide planners is a path for centralization of the warehouses, so truck traffic impact is minimized, as well as conducting highly localized studies of the particulate burden in our air in order to prevent the siting of any warehouses in current air pollution hot spots and creating green standards that specify how warehouses can operate.”

It’s Monday, January 21, do you know where your local Climate Action Plan is?

Charter Schools: Let’s reset (2)

(2nd in a series on Education)

Prothero, Arianna. (2018, August 9). Charter Schools. Education Week.

The impact of charter schools on our taxes has been significant, and Gadfly has wanted to investigate and learn more.

So Gadfly started a thread on charter schools a week ago, suggesting we start with a 2017 article focused on Bethlehem.

That was a mistake.

That Carol Burris article took me into the mud too deeply and too fast.

Let’s reset with the above basic article in the respected Education Week for a big picture overview.

—————-

“As the first credible competition to the traditional system of public schooling—and a direct competitor for tight resources—charter schools are the source of ongoing controversy and debate.”

What Are Charter Schools? How Do They Work?

  • a tuition-free school of choice that is publicly funded but independently run
  • conceived to loosen red tape around public schools
  • conceived to free up educators to innovate
  • exempted from many of the state laws and regulations that govern public schools
  • bound to the terms of a contract, or “charter,” that lays out a school’s mission, academic goals, fiscal guidelines, and accountability requirements
  • enjoying the “charter bargain”: more freedom for more accountability
  • do not draw students from an assigned area
  • families choose to send their children

Who Runs Charter Schools?

  • a school leader or principal overseen by an appointed board
  • unlike public schools, not overseen directly by an elected school board
  • an authorizer with power to approve and close down
  • a growing share are run by larger management organizations

Are Charter Schools Non-Profit?

  • many of the best-known networks are run by nonprofit charter management organizations, or CMOs
  • some states allow for-profit companies, education management organizations, EMOs
  • non-profit schools may hire for-profit companies to manage the school

How Are Charter Schools Funded?

  • state and local money based on the number of students enrolled
  • federal funds to provide special education services

Are They Public or Private?

  • a source of debate depending on how you define a public school
  • generally viewed under state laws as public schools whose students are required to take all the same assessments as those who attend traditional district schools

Pros

  • classroom innovation
  • freedom of choice
  • competition for students spurs improvement
  • alternative curricular approaches
  • focus on specific fields of study
  • virtual or cyber schools

Cons

  • divert vital resources from cash-strapped school districts
  • educate proportionately fewer students with disabilities
  • cherry-pick students
  • punitive discipline practices
  • more racially segregated
  • financial mismanagement
  • nepotism

Effectiveness: What the Research Says

  • mixed, contradictory

Ok, now Gadfly feels a little bit better. How about you?

A modest proposal: the more the merrier

(2nd in a series of modest proposals)

Gadfly has been reading back through distant past meeting minutes and newspaper archives and has noted in passing that there seemed to be a time when, for instance, the executive director of the Bethlehem Parking Authority attended Council meetings.

Gadfly’s not sure if that was on a regular basis or just special occasions.

But it struck him that some such attendance and reporting would be a good idea.

And not just the Parking Authority but all the “independent” authorities: Redevelopment Authority, Housing Authority, Bethlehem Authority. Maybe even the Environmental Advisory Council and Backyards for Wildlife that are identified under “Authorities and Boards” on the City web site. Maybe even important players like BRIA.

As the unofficial official representative of the public, Gadfly hungers for information.

Maybe Council needs information too. Council members might receive minutes from meetings of these groups, and that is good if so. But some personal contact would be better. There is a Council liaison to the Parking Authority (there may be liaisons to other Authorities, not sure), for instance, but he has not attended a meeting as far back as the publicly available minutes December 2017, though he has said he keeps in phone contact with the Board chair. A couple months ago there was some question about an action by the Redevelopment Authority when “no one” from Council was there.

The City Council meeting is “our” only regular, centralized, top-level meeting. It is the public face of city government.

Gadfly wonders if the City Council meeting could be thought of (to change the metaphor)bicycle wheel as the hub of the wheel of City governance – the one place at which if a resident paid regular attention (now via tv!), he or she could have a reasonable understanding of what’s happening along the various spokes.

Hence, a modest proposal:

that the half-dozen or so “independent” Authorities be requested to attend at least two City Council meetings per year, once in the first six months and once in the second, to report on current activities and future plans and to receive comments and questions from both Council members and the general public.

(As the new year begins, Gadfly has been thinking of adding some new occasional yet regular features, such as this one called “Modest Proposals.” Things – even really small things – that we’d like to see happen. Gadfly invites you to contribute your modest proposals.)

The timeline of the strange separation (76)

(76th in a series of posts on parking)

Here is the timeline of the interaction among City Council, the City, and the Bethlehem Parking Authority that resulted in the split responsibilities for the naturally linked revenue streams of meter rates and fines discussed in the previous post. Gadfly’s sources were City files (tip o’ the hat to Tad Miller and Louise Kelchner) and Morning Call files (Dan Hartzell was the main reporter in the 1980s).

  • May 26, 1958: Kate Zoll Laepple begins a 7-part series in the Morning Call entitled “Bethlehem’s Parking Challenge,” identifying, among other things, the need for a parking authority to solve a parking problem so bad that one solution proposed was to use the flat area under the Broad St. bridge and build an escalator up to Main St.!
  • June 2, 1970: The Bethlehem Parking Authority is established, called “a key to the renaissance of the downtown” – its purpose to provide the financing for the Walnut St. Garage, which is completed in 1976. The BPA provides only financing; parking operations and enforcement stay within City Hall.
  • July 1988: New mayor Ken Smith’s “sweeping proposals to restructure city parking operations” include raising parking rates and fines, doubling the number of parking meters, eliminating the large annual subsidy of the Walnut St. Garage, moving total control of parking from City Hall to the BPA, and planning for two parking decks.
  • City officials recognize “new space will be needed if the city is to be in its best position to lure developers. . . . We stand to lose development as a result of the parking shortage.” They also recognize that “There will be significant opposition to more meters and increased rates and fines,” but “a much more realistic and financially self-sufficient parking system will be the reward.”
  • August 1988: City Council’s Public Safety Committee unanimously approves the administration’s recommendation to raise the penalty for overtime parking violations because fines are too low to provide enough incentive for motorists to obey parking regulations.
  • October 4, 1988: Mayor Smith’s plan to reorganize parking administration wins first-reading approval of City Council. Council members express concern over several aspects of the plan, including whether differences in policy between the authority and council might cause problems. But the vote on first reading is 5-0, with two members absent.
  • October 18, 1988: Mayor Smith’s parking reorganization plan is given final approval by City Council, but questions remain over whether the administration’s funding estimates for the program will be realized. Some Council members, especially Paul Calvo, are still choking on doubling the number of parking meters in the city. The administration proposes to deal with this potential problem by instituting a residential parking permit program. Calvo warns of the potential for trouble, saying that differences between the operating authority’s goals and council’s decisions on funding matters could result in some difficult situations.
  • November 18, 1988: The BPA announces it will recommend that City Council increase the cost of using city parking meters and expects to unilaterally raise the rate at the Walnut St. parking garage next year. While council approval is needed for meter rate increases, the authority has the sole power to raise rates at the garage.
  • December 29, 1988: BPA and City reach a “cooperation agreement” that spells out the roles and services of each party.
  • January 1, 1989: The BPA officially becomes an operating rather than a financial agency.
  • January 23, 1989: City Council’s Public Safety Committee votes unanimously to allow the mayor and not council to review and approve BPA requests for the location of new parking meters and the rates charged for using them. Committee member Calvo suggests this transfer of power, and city and authority solicitors determine that it would be legal for council to delegate control over meter location and rates. Calvo says he will vote against the addition of a large number of meters, but to subject authority requests for new meters to council’s review would be to jeopardize the mayor’s parking plan. Calvo says he does not want to be put in the position of turning down new meters or fee increases only to be told later that his action resulted in the authority being unable to meet its income projections. And the city must repay any parking fund deficit. Calvo says his motion was not a way to escape responsibility but rather an assurance that the mayor’s parking plan has the best chance of working. Councilman James Delgrosso suggests that, if the change is approved by resolution of council, the mayor be required to conduct public hearings prior to making decisions.
  • February 7, 1989: Council approves on first reading, by a 5-2 vote, an ordinance empowering the mayor as the final authority over the number and placement of parking meters and the rates to be charged at the meters. Council President Jack Lawrence dissents, believing the BPA should have the power, and Councilman Otto Ehrsham Jr wants to retain the current law by which powers are reserved for council. Proponents, including Calvo, deny the change is a move to reduce the political heat for the placement of the new meters and for the increase in fees for their use. Calvo says Council wants to give the mayor’s parking reorganization a chance to work. Calvo opposes the wholesale installation of new meters but does not want that opposition to be misinterpreted as an attempt to thwart the financial premises on which the reorganization is based. Smith readily accepts the responsibility for meter placement and rate-setting. Council and City Hall agree on a provision calling for public input into large-scale meter placement.
  • February 21, 1989: at 2nd reading, an ordinance transferring the power to locate and regulate parking meters and rates from council to the mayor passes 5-1. The ordinance requires a public hearing prior to either the installation of new meters or to any rate increase affecting more than 10 percent of the meters.
  • In all of these recent deliberations, nothing is ever said about changing the responsibility for the amount of parking violation fines, so that power remains with Council.

The strange separation (75)

(75th in a series of posts on parking)

Do you remember the controversy centered on the Bethlehem Parking Authority that sucked the life out of the last third of 2018?

Is the Walnut St. Garage going to be repaired or rebuilt? Is there going to be a Polk St. Garage? Are the parking meter rates and fines going to be increased? If so, what is the new revenue going to be used for? Does the BPA have a business plan? Is the BPA acting in a good faith, transparent fashion? Are there straight answers to anything?

At the core of the controversy, the BPA wants more money from its twin sources of income, meter rates and fines, which should march in sensible relation to each other, which should increase in tandem – fines, for instance, living 10-15% higher than the meter rate.

The Mayor approved BPA’s proposed meter rate increase. City Council, however, denied their fine increases. The reasons are complicated and the subject of the first 73 posts in this sequence. So now there is no symmetry between rates and fines. The meter rates went up January 1, but the fines did not. A situation the two sides will attempt again to resolve in the near future.

But the question for this ol’ researcher is, how did we get to a system where such naturally joined elements as parking meter rates and parking violation fines are separated – the mayor controlling the former, City Council with responsibility for the latter?

The question was asked several times during the course of the controversy in the latter part of 2018. You can understand why. If responsibility for the two revenue streams were located in one agent, either the Mayor or City Council, there would be no gnarled dispute.

Nobody really knew the answer to that question. The answer that this must be a separation of powers/checks and balances element consciously envisioned by “the Founders” didn’t seem to satisfy and, indeed, is not the answer. The answer is the complete opposite. Rates and fines were separated precisely to eliminate tension between the two “houses” of city governance not to enhance it.

Here, in a nutshell, is what ol’ Gadfly found researching both Morning Call and City Hall files. See expanded information in the timeline on the next post.

The Parking Authority was established in 1970 to finance the Walnut St. Garage. Financing was all that it did. At that time and continuing into the 1980s, parking operations continued to be handled by the City, and City Council continued to set the fee structure for meters and fines. In 1988, for what seem like various and good reasons, Mayor Ken Smith proposed sweeping changes, giving the BPA complete responsibility for parking in the city, though Council retained responsibility for setting the finances. City Council not only acquiesced to the Mayor’s radical plan but went further. Councilman Paul Calvo proposed also relinquishing responsibility for the number of meters and meter rates to the Mayor so that 1) the BPA could reasonably control its budget without interference, and 2) so that Calvo (and others) could argue and vote against the Mayor’s plan for increased meters without being accused of “political” bias. Calvo was quick to deny that he was trying to escape the “heat” from the public that the Mayor’s plan to double the number of meters as well as increasing the rate would likely generate. In any event, any political fall-out would be borne by the Mayor. Fines were not part of the discussion or the legislation [was that an oversight?], hence fines remained in control of Council.

Now we know why we have what everybody seems to believe is an illogical system.

Call it the Calvo plan.

(Paul Calvo was a teacher, accomplished athlete, successful coach, 25yr. member of City Council, and a Gadfly neighbor. He died only six years ago.)

Was Gadfly’s research just an academic exercise? Or does it have some utility?

Gadfly kept an open mind up to a certain point in the controversy, but he ended up thoroughly negative about the culture of the BPA.

The majority of City Council likewise had problems of a serious nature that led to their denial of the BPA fine proposal as a means of getting some answers to key questions.

Resulting in the current limbo situation, a situation that cannot persist for long.

One wonders, then, now knowing the rather arbitrary origin of the meter/fine split, whether City Council could, if it so desired, legislate itself back into full financial control in order to be able to completely “call the shots” where parking is concerned.

If Gadfly remembers correctly, the Desman consultant to the BPA indicated that this split is unique. We are alone in having such a divided system.

Should the system be unified again?

Should what might be thought of as a “delegated” power be revoked?

Can you say “no” to a developer?

(17th in a series of posts on City Government)

Followers might have noticed Gadfly wrestling a bit about how he should feel about developers.

Let me tell you a story.

Gadfly began shadowing city meetings one year ago, January 2018. He described it as “auditing,” as one might do in college, going from meeting to meeting getting a sense of what was going on in each.

He found the historic commissions most interesting of all. Sometimes bigger projects, but sometimes discussion and decisions were about the color of paint, the height of lettering, the script on a sign. Fascinating in the commissioners’ attention to detail.

Immediately in January he watched Philadephia developer Robin Reshetar pitch renovations for the Grace Mansion, 114 W. 4th. Having worked on the Southside, Gadfly knew the property well. There even used to be a restaurant there at one time.

002

The developer described his knowledge of and substantial portfolio in historical renovation. Conversations with commissioners was always cordial and thoughtful. Reshetar presented plans on January 22, February 26, especially April 16, where you can find great images of his proposed work.

Gadfly watched the commissioners work with national guidelines (the property has an historical designation) and local historical district guidelines.

Each time, Gadfly repeats, the interactions were cordial and thoughtful. The developer listened and came back twice with revised plans. The commission hesitated on his most developed plans, which included town houses. Take a look.

Gadfly wondered about past history with the property. He assumed that there had been other developers who looked promising but eventually disappointed. Here was one who looked very interested, who had invested in several rounds of plans. As I sat there on the sidelines, I worried that the commission was going to chase him away.

But they stuck to their principles.

And, yes, he disappeared.

I felt a sense of loss. I wondered how the commissioners took it. Would, then, the Grace Mansion continue to decay? Perhaps never to be saved. Would it have been better to bend a bit to save the place?

Must have been on some level a tough decision for the commissioners.

But they stuck to their principles.

And six months later another developer – Dallas Basha, only two years out of college — showed up and now renovation is moving along.

Nicole Radzievich, “What’s on tap for Bethlehem’s other Grace mansion?” Morning Call, November 20, 2019.

Historic Conservation Commission November 19

Lehigh University Brown and White

I’d like the moral of my story to be that you can say “no” to developers for the right reasons, and everything will eventually turn out ok.

Gadfly didn’t see a happy ending here.

A wind-fall from Wind Creek

(16th in a series of posts on City Government)

The Sands is changing hands. New Owners Wind Creek coming soon.

To tell the truth, the Sands has been invisible to me.

The Gadfly was aware of the hubbub surrounding its approval and construction. But did not feel especially involved one way or the other in the decision.

And he has not been involved since it opened. Though a regular at ArtsQuest/SteelStacks events, Gadfly has never been to the casino, never been to a show – maybe once or twice to the outlets, never even been caught in a traffic jam in the vicinity.

To tell the truth, Gadfly is hardly aware of the Sands’ existence.

So how should I feel about the fact that so soon after it started, the Sands is getting a new owner?

As I read the news stories yesterday, I could not help but remember CM Callahan’s claim at Council a couple of weeks ago that the Sands brings in more money for the City than the Bethlehem Steel Co did in its heyday.

He made me think that not only is the Sands invisible to me but the “good” it does for the City has been pretty much invisible to me as well – tax dollars that fund public services.

So maybe that’s where his thoughts should go when wondering how he should feel about the entrance of a new owner.

Because some serious money will be generated. One-time, not continuing. But a wind-fall from Wind Creek.

The City stands to gain a yet undetermined but significant amount of money from a “casino transfer tax.”

In fact, the City provisionally included $6m income from the casino transfer tax in the 2019 budget (see p. 278 – 7th column from the left).  Remember that is not a fixed number. It could well be considerably less. But the City will receive one-time income from the casino transfer tax when the sale is consummated.

Read down that 7th column and see what the City tentatively plans to spend that “extra” money on if it gets $6m.

When the exact amount is determined, the City and Council will have another conversation about the exact expenditures. But that list will give you an idea what’s on the radar.

For instance, Gadfly knows there are followers who will be glad to see $40,000 for a pedestrian bridge feasibility study and $50,000 for Rose Garden improvements.

So Gadfly guesses that he should be more aware of and appreciative of the benefit that this developer brings to the City.

Here are some links to bring you up to speed on the Sands/Wind Creek situation. Perhaps you will be amused as he is about speculation that there might be a water park on the old steel property. Now that might get Gadfly to break out some old 60s demonstrator duds and posters and take up a battle station on the Minsi Trail Bridge.

Timeline: “It’s been 10 years since the Sands Bethlehem opened: Here’s a timeline.” Morning Call, January 15, 2019.

Five key takeaways: Nicole Radzievich, “What we know about Sands buyer’s plans for Bethlehem Steel property.” Morning Call, January 16, 2019.

Main story: Nicole Radzievich and Jon Harris, “Sands Bethlehem casino buyer pitches $190 million investment, second hotel on Steel land.” Morning Call, January 15, 2019.

Video interview with new owners: Lehigh Valley Live

Public comment: “What they’re saying about Wind Creek’s plans for Sands Bethlehem casino.” Morning Call, January 15, 2019.

BPA-time again! (74)

(74th in a series of posts on parking)

New year. Girding my loins, as they used to say in the old days, for the first meeting of the Bethlehem Parking Authority.

Look at the number here. Gadfly devoted 73 posts in the old year to the BPA.

And didn’t come away unscathed. He was gruffly told he couldn’t question the Board at one meeting. And after another meeting the ticket machine in the parking garage ate his credit card.

Don’t mess with these guys.

They have powers.

I missed the December meeting. They changed the time twice, and I couldn’t make the 3rd time.

So I’m not up to speed on the latest developments.

But here’s what’s on my list:

  • It looks like the parking meter rates did go from $1.00/hr to $1.50/hr on January 1.  I don’t remember seeing any fanfare. Did anybody? Did I miss? For I understood there was to be a publicity roll-out, including keeping the old rate till June 1 if you used an app. Is anybody griping about the 50% increase? Did it go down smoothly?
  • The Mayor promised that the Redevelopment Authority would provide Council with a timeline of their involvement in the Polk Garage saga. I wonder if that happened.
  • The BPA is to meet with Council about funding options for Polk in the first quarter of this year (January-March). So we’ll be looking for that to happen.
  • Decisions about the fines are to happen at the time of the funding meeting as well.
  • The mayor included several things, like investigating variable rate parking, when he approved the meter rate proposal. So we’ll be looking for the status of those things. See the mayor’s letter to BPA:  Mayor Parking Meter Rate Increase.
  • Gadfly was to investigate when and why the strange system that splits responsibility between rates and fines between the mayor and Council started. Gadfly does have info on that which will be coming soon (shameless tease).

Have I forgotten anything?

Anybody have concerns?

 

 

Attention walkers and bikers: LVPC drafting a Regional Active Transportation Plan (5)

(5th in a series of posts on Walkability and Bikeability)

From the Gadfly’s clipping file from December–

Tom Shortell, “Road Warrior: Is biking or walking to work in the Lehigh Valley’s future?” Morning Call, December 7, 2018.

Work/Roll LV

Next meeting Wednesday, January 23, 3:00 – 4:30 PM, Northampton Community College/Fowler Family Southside Center, 511 E. 3rd Street, Bethlehem, PA 18015

LVPC: Walk/Bike Lehigh Valley wikimap

“If you hate your morning commute, would you consider a walk instead? Or a bike ride? I’m not suggesting you quit your job and enjoy a brisk morning stroll, as pleasant as that might sound. But instead of being secluded in steel box, hurtling down the street at high speeds next to stressed out people doing the exact same thing, would you jump on a bike and pedal?”

“For the first time, the Lehigh Valley is getting serious about promoting walking or biking as a way to get around the region. The Lehigh Valley Planning Commission has created a special committee to draft a Regional Active Transportation Plan. A final report is due in May.”

“One interesting [idea] being pursued by LVPC, local government and some nonprofits is building a better trail and sidewalk system. It’s a radically different way of thinking about how we use the transportation grid.”

“Since World War II, the Lehigh Valley has been designed around cars. Trolley and railroad tracks were dug up to allow smoother car rides, and rural townships surrounding the cities transformed into suburbs where driving is the only reasonable way to get around. But promoting trails and sidewalks has a certain logic to it. The cheapest way to alleviate congestion isn’t to build more roads but to rely less on cars and more on our own feet.”

‘The culture will need to change, too, for this plan to succeed. If we expect people to bike to work, for example, they’ll need training on how to bike in traffic and how to change a flat tire. Motorists need reminders on how to share the road with bikers.’

“Personally, I don’t expect this to be a game-changing plan for most commuters. The 2010 Census found just 0.2 percent of Lehigh Valley workers biked to their jobs every day. People who walk tallied just 2 percent of the workforce. If this strategy doubles that combined total to 4 percent, we’re not exactly redefining transportation here.”

“But the project can still be worthwhile despite those limitations. Creating a more pedestrian friendly environment can have positive effects on our culture, health, quality of life and economy. And that’s worth exploring.”

 

Shout out to President Waldron!

Gadfly not going to City Council tonight

but wants to give a shout-out to President Waldron for instituting videoing the meetings

so that he can catch up tomorrow by going to the Council meetings page on the City site.

He would have conveyed his thanks during public comment tonight.

(If any other follower is making a comment tonight, you might pass along Gadfly’s shout-out and appreciation.)

Gadfly’s making this a LEPOCO day, just returning from their “Tuesdays with Toomey” gathering,

and heading to their MLK event tonight.

Gadfly’s making a concerted effort to get around to events by Bethlehem organizations

and Bethlehem wings of national organizations.

For instance, there’s a Women’s March event at Payrow Plaza, Saturday, 10-1.

Gadfly welcomes notice of events you think he should know about and might want to attend.

 

 

 

And they’re off ‘n runnin’! (15)

(15th in a series of posts on City Government)

Gadfly got a chance to hear some of the candidates for City Council last night making brief 2-minute presentations at the Bethlehem City Democratic Committee meeting.

We hope we will be hearing more from them on the pages of Gadfly as they make their cases.

Gadfly goal: we want to be the most informed voters that we can be!

Running for City Council that we know of so far are:

Incumbent J. William (Willie!) Reynolds (’08)

Running for his 4th term, JWR thanked everybody at BCDC for their great organizational JWReynoldswork and pointed to his Climate Action Plan, Northside 2027, and Open Data initiatives. His campaign kick-off is Feb 21, 5:30-7:30 at the Brew Works – “All Democrats are invited!”

Incumbent Paige Van Wirt (’18)

PVW pointed to the fresh new energy and perspective she has brought to Council, Van Wirtemphasizing accountability and transparency, and ethics reform as her focus for the upcoming year. She too thanked the BCDC, indicated that she learned a lot from JWR, recounted a collegial atmosphere on Council, and sought a voice of challenge and a voice of concern in new candidates.

New candidate Grace Crampsie Smith

GCS comes from a public service background and pointed to current family members in political positions. Her focus is on socially responsible economic development and her strength advocating for all citizens. Gadfly will be publishing her press release soon.

———-

Incumbent Michael Colon was ill and did not attend.

Basilio Bonilla is also running, and he will speak at the next BCDC meeting.

First Amendment and Robert’s Rules (14)

(14th in a series of posts on City Government)

Respectfully, again, this gadfly thinks that President Waldron’s comments at the January 2 meeting on the relationship between the First Amendment and Robert’s Rules are tricky.

Here’s the primary source again:

I also want to make a couple general remarks which I’m sure some other members of council will want to jump in on once we get to new business about some of the accusations of some of the rules of Robert’s Rules, and my opinion on that. I spoke to Mr. Spirk about it, and I went back and did some research on some of the minutes and some of the things that were said by members of council and by members of the public, and I just don’t see a lot there as far as violation of Robert’s Rules. Personal attacks, I think, is a term getting thrown around for political reasons. I think there’s a healthy debate, and I think there’s respect for each another on Council. We may not agree with each other, and that’s fine, and that comes down to the vote some times, and I like to think they we can move forward professionally. But I think there is a decorum here, and I don’t think that there has been a lack of professionalism. There’s been calls for me to gavel down other members of Council when they are speaking, and I don’t see myself doing that in 2019. I think that the First Amendment is strong and well in this room, and I have great respect for it to the point that I respect it over Robert’s Rules. I think that people should have the ability to speak their mind as long as they are doing it in a respectful way, and I think that disagreement is good because it shows different points of view and perspectives. Again, you may not agree with that assessment, and you might think that we should follow Robert’s Rules to the “T,” but my view is that we should be able to have a positive conversation in which we respectfully disagree with each other. That is not prone to personal attacks just because we use each other’s names. That doesn’t mean that it is a personal attack. It’s just a differing of opinion. . . . I give great respect to Robert’s Rules, but I think the First Amendment, as Mr. Spirk would agree, in court rulings is that the First Amendment will trump Robert’s Rules any day of the week. So if you want to point to Robert’s Rules and say these are the rules we are supposed to be following, I do respect those, however, I think that a healthy dialog starts with the ability to express yourself, and if you don’t like what someone else is saying, I don’t think censoring their speech is the right thing. I think topping it with better speech, more accurate, or a different point of view is a fine thing to do, just like Mr. Antalics and I did this evening. And we can respectfully disagree on a different point of view, but that’s part of the process, I think. 

Here is the pertinent section from our Rules of Council:

RULE 12. Robert’s Rules of Order shall govern the proceedings of the Council on all matters not specially provided for herein.

President Waldron says, “you might think that we should follow Robert’s Rules to the ‘T’.”

Pause there. Gadfly thinks the default answer from most of us would be “yes.”

President Waldron, though, introduces a “but.”

President Waldron: “but my view is that we should be able to have a positive conversation in which we respectfully disagree with each other.” [my emphasis]

President Waldron introduces a second “but” construction, here founded in authority from the solicitor and court precedent.

President Waldron: “I give great respect to Robert’s Rules, but I think the First Amendment, as Mr. Spirk would agree, in court rulings is that the First Amendment will trump Robert’s Rules any day of the week.”

As an inquisitive, curious, nerdy kind of scholar with too much time on his hands, Gadfly would be interested in reading a few such pertinent court cases. He asked the solicitor for references if there are specific cases involving Robert’s Rules or analogous situations but hasn’t heard back.

But the question is really moot. For President Waldron and I disagree at point one. I don’t see the “clueless” comment compatible with having “a positive conversation in which we respectfully disagree with each other.” He does.

So that’s not the point on which I would focus here.

Gadfly does not doubt the trumping power of the First Amendment, but the thing that’s bothersome to him here is the unilateral assertion by President Waldron of the subordination of “Rules of Council.”

If a rule of Council is to have a qualifier, should it not be explicit and adopted by majority of Council? Is such a judgment for the rest of 2019 as President Waldron is making a permissible part of presidential discretion and authority?

Just asking.

For the question is part of a bigger picture Gadfly has noticed – the valuing of personal viewpoint over, say, the Comprehensive Plan or a Zoning ordinance.

Gadfly never thought of himself as such a strict constructionist as over the last few months watching opinions and decisions in the 2 W. Market and 306 S. New controversies.

Gadfly has said that one of the functions he hopes to serve is helping to form better informed voters. It’s become clear to him that CW’s Negron and Van Wirt start their thinking on – for want of a better term – law, whereas several, but not all, of the other Councilmen, seem to start their thinking on what they feel or believe, even to setting themselves up as authorities on neighborhoods they don’t live in.

Worth noting.  Worth thinking about.

A matter of censorship (11)

(11th in a series of posts on City Government)

To begin:

Two things, not unrelated, as you will see.

1) Socrates died a premature death.

2) President Waldron has a soft gavel.

The second point gives me hope that this gadfly will not suffer the fate of the first point.

President Waldron has a “clement” gavel. “Clement” was the Merriam-Webster “word-of-the-day” on Saturday. I never thought I’d use it. But it’s appropriate here. President Waldron has a clement gavel.

The rules for public comment are made by City Council. And they have been different at different times. The public over the years has been allowed 12 minutes, 2 minutes, unlimited time – and now 5 minutes. There is a timer. Those of you “attending” your first Council meeting via the video now and henceforth available (or the live feed soon) will see a timer in front of President Waldron facing the speaker’s podium. Speakers can see their time dashing to zero. “Like sands through the hourglass, so are the days of our lives.” Sigh. But President Waldron has a soft, clement gavel. He does not gavel the wind demons like me-self precisely at the mark of doom. He prompts conclusion, and most times we obediently gallop to conclusion.

We the public are grateful for President Waldron’s soft gavel.

Apparently, that soft gavel has been criticized lately, and President Waldron felt compelled to clarify his position at the January 2 meeting, transitioning so quickly from his annual report that his clarification almost seemed part of his annual report. The key line in his position statement seemed to be “There’s been calls for me to gavel down other members of Council when they are speaking.”

Some people are asking for a harder gavel.

As always, let’s go to the primary source:

I also want to make a couple general remarks which I’m sure some other members of council will want to jump in on once we get to new business about some of the accusations of some of the rules of Robert’s Rules, and my opinion on that. I spoke to Mr. Spirk about it, and I went back and did some research on some of the minutes and some of the things that were said by members of council and by members of the public, and I just don’t see a lot there as far as violation of Robert’s Rules. Personal attacks, I think, is a term getting thrown around for political reasons. I think there’s a healthy debate, and I think there’s respect for each another on Council. We may not agree with each other, and that’s fine, and that comes down to the vote some times, and I like to think they we can move forward professionally. But I think there is a decorum here, and I don’t think that there has been a lack of professionalism. There’s been calls for me to gavel down other members of Council when they are speaking, and I don’t see myself doing that in 2019. I think that the First Amendment is strong and well in this room, and I have great respect for it to the point that I respect it over Robert’s Rules. I think that people should have the ability to speak their mind as long as they are doing it in a respectful way, and I think that disagreement is good because it shows different points of view and perspectives. Again, you may not agree with that assessment, and you might think that we should follow Robert’s Rules to the “T,” but my view is that we should be able to have a positive conversation in which we respectfully disagree with each other. That is not prone to personal attacks just because we use each other’s names. That doesn’t mean that it is a personal attack. It’s just a differing of opinion. . . . I give great respect to Robert’s Rules, but I think the First Amendment, as Mr. Spirk would agree, in court rulings is that the First Amendment will trump Robert’s Rules any day of the week. So if you want to point to Robert’s Rules and say these are the rules we are supposed to be following, I do respect those, however, I think that a healthy dialog starts with the ability to express yourself, and if you don’t like what someone else is saying, I don’t think censoring their speech is the right thing. I think topping it with better speech, more accurate, or a different point of view is a fine thing to do, just like Mr. Antalics and I did this evening. And we can respectfully disagree on a different point of view, but that’s part of the process, I think.

Respectfully, this gadfly thinks that in this statement President Waldron blurs the distinction between “decorum” and “censorship.”

Gadfly is not a lawyer (just plays one – as the joke goes – on this blog), but censorship relates more to the elimination of content, of material, of ideas, of subject matter, whereas decorum relates to presentation, conduct, style, attitude, civility, propriety, decency, politeness, taste.

If people are asking President Waldron to gavel down others on Council for what they are saying, they are asking for censorship, and that’s a violation of the First Amendment, and they are wrong, and President Waldron should forcefully resist such calls.

But that is not what I and others who have spoken to me had in mind. This gadfly was asking for decorum. To use President Waldron’s own terms, this gadfly felt the instance he used in post 9 as an example was a personal attack, did not advance healthy debate, did not show respect for another, was not professional, was not positive conversation, was not respectful disagreement.

And this gadfly was not suggesting censorship of any individual but was suggesting reviewing the principles of decorum with the entire Council.

This gadfly thought CW Van Wirt got the distinction right when she said, “people are confusing First Amendment rights with an agreement to follow Robert’s Rules of Order in a parliamentary procedure. You can say whatever you want but keep it within Robert’s Rules. It’s not a way of editing speech, it’s a way of containing it so it doesn’t involve personal attacks so that we don’t get bogged down in personalities and stuff like that. The things that I’m asking that we follow are that we keep our speeches at 10 minutes each, we have no personal attacks, saying “you” don’t understand something, or “you” this – that’s what Robert’s Rules of Order are about in terms of conduct.”

Decorum not censorship.

Get your questions ready (10)

(10th in a series of posts on City Government)

We have to look beyond today’s Eagles game.

It’s election season.

So how can we get a handle on candidates who come forth for the seats on City Council?

4 seats up for grabs.

Remember that there is one new opening.

And that there are three incumbents running for re-election: Reynolds (’08), Colon (’16), Van Wirt (’18).

 

Can you identify the incumbents?

Could you recognize their voices?

Do you have some basis on which to judge their qualifications?

Though the other members of Council (Waldron, Negron, Callahan) are not running, they might use their powerful incumbent positions to back candidates.

 

Can you identify the Council members not running?

Could you recognize their voices?

Do you have some basis on which to judge their recommendations?

This last question in each series, of course, is the most important. Gadfly has been trying to provide you with a basis for such judgments and will continue to do so.

Time to do our homework.

What do we want to know to help us make our judgments?

When CM Evans’ seat opened up a year ago, each of the candidates for the unexpired term was asked to provide written answers to a series of 14 questions. Gadfly doesn’t know who put those questions together, but he thought they were good, thought they were very helpful. Here they are (minus two that don’t seem relevant now):

1.What uniquely qualifies you to serve on Bethlehem City Council?
2. List the top three (3) priorities of your campaign platform.
3. As several development projects are considered in the City, do you feel Bethlehem can honor its architectural history while simultaneously promoting economic growth and business?
4. Do you feel that transportation is an important issue for the City of Bethlehem, and if so, how do you envision the City better meeting its transportation needs in the future?
6. What is one issue you believe Bethlehem is currently not properly addressing and if on City Council how would you help in this area?
7. What do you think about the idea of a pedestrian bridge over the Lehigh River, and what are your thoughts for potential funding sources?
8. What can be done to encourage more constituent participation in local Government, particularly in the budget process?
10. What are your thoughts for the long term best solution for the pools in the City?
11. Within the next several years, the Parking Authority will need to replace the Walnut Street garage. How do you think the Authority and the City should plan for the financial and business impact of the construction of a new garage?
12. One of City Council’s most important functions is to pass the yearly budget for Bethlehem. What ideas would you bring to City Council that involve the area of finances?
13. Making decisions on City Council often involves seeking compromises that balance the individual self-interests of multiple groups of people. How do you feel you can contribute to the culture of compromise that is necessary to a functioning legislative branch of government?
14. 2017 saw City Council create several new initiatives relating to municipal climate action, neighborhood investment, open data and efficient city government. How do you feel you can participate in and add to these initiatives?

Does this still look like a good list of questions that we’d like to see candidates tackle? What would we add, what drop off? What priority would we set in our list?

Perhaps a good final question would riff on question 6: “what topic or topic would you like to address that we haven’t asked you about?”

If we had such a list of questions in print or in mind, Gadfly could ask candidates to share their ideas here in the time leading up to the election.