Response to Schirripa Message

=Introduction=
The Carlynton school board recently passed a new facilities policy. Many citizens are concerned about the negative impact of the new policy. Everyone is encouraged to read the details of the new policy and how it was passed as well as view a video of the actual meeting.
The contents of this page are a response to a message sent by Carlynton school board director, Patty Schirripa regarding her position in support of the New Carlynton Facilities Policy. The message was circulated by e-mail in a word document entitled "swim club response letter (a).doc". The owner of the file is listed as "Thomas Brown".
Mrs. Schirripa's original message can be read by clicking here.
=Response from Francesmary Modugno=
From: Francesmary Modugno
Thank you for forwarding me the message from Patty Schirripa. 
There does appear to be misinformation going around. Unfortunately, it appears that Mrs. Schirripa’s message is a source for that. I am somewhat surprised by her comments, especially about the swim club. Her son, Robbie, was one of the first members in the club and later went on to become the HS swim team captain. The first newsletter cites Mrs. Schirripa as being very active in the club, handling concessions. I personally met with her and reviewed the documents relating to the founding of the club, which show that the club today operates almost identically to when it was started, including providing for a coach's salary. Thus, I'm at a loss to understand some of her comments, especially since she did not provide the text of the comments to which she is responding.
However, the important issue is the new facilities policy.
With respect to the new facilities policy, the bottom line for me is that the directors passed a policy based on their beliefs, hopes and desires with no factual justification for their decision. In contrast, district parents who run youth sports programs provided factual data showing that a policy like the one passed would be detrimental to the children and residents of this community. Within a month of the board’s decision, parent-run sports programs are announcing they are leaving Carlynton, raising their fees, and cutting back on their program offerings. Doesn’t that say it all?
I further question the way this policy was passed – the specific policy was unveiled to the public right before the vote, rather than 2 weeks before the vote as is standard procedure. The public was not given any opportunity to review and comment on the specific policy, as is standard procedure. The board itself had less than 12 hours to review and make an informed judgment about the specific policy. Three directors asked for a delay in vote but their requests were ignored. Why the hurry to push through a policy without public review and discussion and why the need to override their own directive, overrule their own policies, and skirt well-established board procedures in order to do so? 
I urge everyone to view the actual video of events on April 17, May 1, May 27, and especially June 26, as well as read the school board minutes and other documents so that they can learn the facts and can make their own informed decisions. Here are the videos and other links.
For those interested, the rest of this message provides details for what I said above, as well as clarification of the misinformation promulgated in Mrs. Schirripa’s message.
Please feel free to contact me with any comments, etc. I would be happy to meet with anyone to provide the actual documents and video to back up what I have written or said. I urge everyone to view the videos and read the source documents themselves so that they know the facts behind what what has gone on. The links to these sources are at the end of this message. And as I have previously stated, I welcome the opportunity to have a public meeting with any director to discuss this topic.
I would also like Carlynton residents to know that many of you have spoken to me about this topic. Several have told me you are afraid to speak out because you fear retaliation from the school board. You specifically fear for your children who attend the public schools. How sad that in 2008 in the United States of America, a country founded on freedom of speech and democracy, citizens live in fear of their public officials. 
Francesmary Modugno
http://Carlynton.blogspot.com
== Clarification of Issues Surrounding the New Facilities Policy ==
There are two issues here:
*the actual policy that was passed and its implications for the youth and residents of this district
*the way the policy was passed.
===How the Policy Was Passed===
With respect to how the policy was passed, Mrs. Schirripa states To think that limiting the debate on the issue would have somehow changed the outcome of the board’s vote is wrong. All directors were well versed on the language of the policy… As publicly stated by the board, the specific policy was circulated to all directors only that morning. Mr. Roussos, president of the board, asked for continued discussion because he needed more time to understand each part of the policy. Here is his quote published in the July 3rd Signal Item: We've gotten a motion here that's been passed and I've got a lot of questions here. It appears that at least Mr. Roussos, an attorney and CPA, was not well-versed on the language of the policy. Director Wilson was not even present at the meeting and asked for a postponement of the vote. Director Tassaro also asked that the vote be postponed. Three of the 9 directors did not feel comfortable having the vote that night, yet the majority plowed ahead anyway. Why the hurry and why the need to disregard 3 other directors’ requests? How can Mrs. Schirripa be so sure that if the vote would have been postponed or there would have been more discussion or input from the public on the specific proposal, the outcome would have been the same? 
Contrary to standard board procedures, the specific policy voted on was unveiled to the public only at the meeting. Thus, citizens were never given a chance to review and comment on the specific policy. Just days before, both the superintendent's office and an elected board member told me that there was no draft policy for the directors to consider. Instead, Dr. Panza, having been charged by the board to draft a policy, had only recently circulated a survey to solicit feedback from the directors about what should be included in the new policy. 
Mr. Brown only shared his policy draft with the entire board that morning. Thus, four other directors, having seen the draft for less than 12 hours and against their own directive to Dr. Panza, voted first to override procedures for adopting policy, then to both limit board discussion and bar public comment, and finally to approve the new policy. These same directors also refused to honor director Wilson's request not to vote on a policy in her absence and Mrs. Tassaro's request to delay a vote. They further ignored president Roussos' request for additional discussion so that he could understand the specifics of the motion.
FYI, typically the board adopts a draft motion at the first meeting of the month and then discusses and votes on it at the second meeting of the month. This allows time for the directors to think about the motion as well as time for public review and comment. The board also typically extends the courtesy of delaying votes at the request of an absent member. None of this was followed in passing the new policy.
The actual video to confirm all of this can be viewed here: http://blip.tv/file/1029285/ 
One needs to ask: why the hurry and why the secrecy? There was a month between the May 27 open facilities meeting and the introduction and subsequent passing of the policy. There was an agenda setting board meeting on June 5th. The next board meeting is August 7. Why didn't the board just adopt the draft policy on June 26 and vote on it on August 7th?
===The Contents of the Specific Policy===
Moving on to the actual policy, here is the main question that remains mostly unanswered by the directors who voted in favor of this policy:
**How does this new policy benefit the youth and residents of the Carlynton School District? 
====Limiting Non-resident participation in parent-run clubs====
Mrs. Schirippa’s main argument for her position appears to be that this policy is in the best interest of the district because the “extensive use of non-district residents” cause the programs not to serve as feeder programs to the Jr/Sr HS teams. However, with the exception of one organization (football – 68% resident participation), all parent-run sports groups have more than 75% Carlynton residents in their programs. These programs are run by parent volunteers and reimburse the district for whatever expenses the district incurred from group use. There has been no cost to the district to allow taxpaying resident parents to use the facilities to run programs that are serving kids who are overwhelmingly from Carlynton. Can Mrs. Schirripa provide data to support that these programs are not feeding the Jr/Sr HS programs? Since she prefers to use swimming as an example, let me provide at least two facts contrary to her statement: all Carlynton’s swimming WPIAL and state finalists/champs had their start in the swim club. Mrs. Schirripa’s elder son was a member of the swim club and then went on to be the captain of the HS swim team.
The other reason Mrs. Schirippa gives for the new policy is that by limiting non-residents in parent-run programs there would be more district participation in athletic-related programs. However, the explicit data presented to the board at the May 27 public meeting directly contradicts this. For example, Isabel Ford, on behalf of the Soccer program, stated that the U12 traveling team and possibly the U10 traveling team, which have greater than 75% Carlynton kids, would not exist if they had to go much below the 25% non-resident participation. Sam Millikin, on behalf of the swim club, also stated at that meeting and then followed up with specific facts from the past swim season that there would be substantially fewer opportunities for Carlynton kids to swim at swim meets if the club eliminated or severely restricted non-residents. He also presented data that by severely limiting non-resident membership, fees for all members, the overwhelming majority of whom are residents, will go up. Some Carlynton kids will likely drop out because they can’t afford the fees. 
Thus, by limiting the clubs, we limit Carlynton’s kids opportunities to grow in their athletic and sports-related abilities. The directors have not provided a single piece of evidence that by eliminating or restricting non-resident participation there would be any benefit to district youths or to the JR/SR HS teams. However, those directly involved in the youth sports programs provide substantial data to the contrary. Of note, the youth football and possibly soccer programs have found other venues to run their programs for next season – they are leaving Carlynton. Within less than a month of the new policy, opportunities for Carlynton kids at Carlynton facilities have diminished – just as the program leaders stated. 
Additional benefits of non-resident participation were presented by groups present at the May 27 meeting who are not 100% district youth. Non-residents help to offset their fixed costs, thereby keeping costs for district parents low. They also enable more teams to be fielded, providing greater playing opportunities and more competition for the Carlynton youths. This will only help the Carlynton kids improve in their athletic and other life skills. Non-residents also provide a source of additional adult volunteers so our resident parents don’t have to provide as many volunteer work hours. Finally, no group, whether or not they have non-residents, stated there was any benefit to their organization to severely limit or exclude non-residents. Yet the directors went forward with a policy do to just that. Why?
As a taxpayer, I can give additional benefits to keeping vibrant, competitive, cost-effective programs in our district, especially because they come at no cost to the district:
*It keeps kids off the streets and engaged in positive, directed pursuits
*It teaches kids healthy competition with their peers, which I define as other children around their age regardless of where they live. We live in a global world. We need to teach our kids early on how to be world citizens, not isolationists. 
*It makes our community more attractive to families. People will want to move here, which will increase our property values and our tax revenues. Of interest, US Census data show that the number of school-age children has remained relatively constant in Allegheny County. In contrast, Crafton’s school-age population has declined by almost 2% and Carnegie’s by almost 5.5%. As a comparison point, Mt. Lebanon has gained 9% in its school-age population. Thus, our district is already losing kids. Do we need to enact policies that are less desirable to families, thus hurting our property values?
====Assessing a fee to non-residents only in athletic programs - $100/quarter ====
With respect to the actual fee to non-residents, data from other school districts show either no non-resident fee or a fee on the order of $25/year. District data show that the cost of operating and maintaining facilities is $1.8 million a year. This includes everything: personnel, benefits, equipment and supplies. There are 15,500 residents in the district. Thus, the cost of facilities per resident is $116 a year. Given that the majority of time the school buildings are used for school and school-related activities, is it fair to charge non-residents using a field or the pool for a limited time each year fees that are more than 3 times what facilities cost residents? By the way, resident taxes only cover only about 55% of the school budget. The school also receives state and federal aid as well as income from other non-tax sources.
Here’s another point for comparison to assess the reasonableness of the new policy fee - $100/quarter or $400/year to non-residents. The YMCA youth fee is $22 a month, which entitles members to access from morning to night, almost every day to state-of-the-art equipment, multiple indoor and outdoor facilities and a variety of programs. All that for only $66 a quarter or $264 a year. 
Beyond her personal opinion about the fee being reasonable, can Mrs. Schirripa or any of the other directors justify how they obtained the fee amount? Notably, Mr. Brown’s original proposal that he circulated the morning of June 26th had the fee set at $150 a quarter. Mr. Brown changed the amount on the fly when reading his motion and provided no justification for doing so. The other directors who voted for the policy didn’t question the new amount or the reason for the change. They simply agreed with it with no discussion. 
One reason the directors give for enacting the non-resident fee is that non-residents don’t contribute to the tax base and we must be fair to our taxpayers. I agree that non-residents need to pay a fee just for that reason (In fact, I was the first person to publicly propose it at the April 17th meeting). However, if fairness to the tax payers is their goal, one needs to ask the directors: why does the non-resident fee apply only to non-residents participating in athletic organizations using Carlynton facilities and not to all non-residents participating in all groups using Carlynton facilities? 
Of note, the Carlynton policy specifically targets and restricts youth sports programs, whereas many neighboring districts specifically exempt youth sports programs from their facilities policies. 
In addition to the fees charged to non-residents, groups falling below the 90% will have to pay rent. Looking at the rental fees, it is evident that these fees are well above the actual cost of running the facilities. At the January 17th meeting, the board stated that it costs the school district $6000 a year to run the pool. The pool serves the Jr and Sr HS swim teams, which run from November through May and practice 2-3 hours a day, 5-6 days a week. The pool also serves junior and senior high school students, who satisfy about 25% of the state’s mandated 72 hour PE requirement each year by swimming-related classes. The swim club uses the pool for 2 hours a day, M-F. At the $35 an hour pool rental rate, in less than 4 months the club will have paid the entire cost of running the pool for the district. Over the course of the swim season, the club will have paid to the district 3 times the cost of running the pool. That’s in addition to the monies paid to the district by non-residents on the team. Can we really justify that – running an enormous profit from a tax-payer, state and federally-funded facility and having that profit come from a majority of people who already pay taxes in the district with one of the highest tax rates in Allegheny County?
Of interest may be the fact that when I first proposed the idea of a non-resident fee privately to Mrs. Schirippa in February of 2008, she dismissed it stating that the district is not in the business of making money. Mr. Brown and Mr. DiPietro made similar comments at public meetings. Apparently, they have changed their minds and now think the facilities should be used for excessive profit.
Contrary to what Mrs. Schirripa states, there will be a cost to residents as a direct result of this policy change. Assuming a club can remain viable without non-residents, it can reduce its membership by limiting or excluding non-residents to stay within the 90% requirement. But it will still have fixed costs and volunteer requirements. Those financial and time costs must be shared by a smaller number of members. How will those lost revenues be recovered? By either cutting back on program offerings (thereby providing our kids with fewer opportunities), increasing fees (costing district parents more money) or increasing fund raising (increasing parent time involvement). The extra volunteer effort will also have to be shared by fewer members resulting in an increase in district parent time commitment to their kid’s activities. Aren’t parents already stretched for time? If a club must have non-residents in order to exist, where will it get the money to pay rent? By either raising fees, cutting programs or increasing fund raising. Or, the group can go find other facilities, which will cost district parents more in time, gas and inconvenience. Whichever way a group chooses to go, it is an unnecessary financial and time burden to district parents as a direct result of this policy change.
Mrs. Schirippa paints the picture that the non-residents in our parent-run clubs are flocking to Carlynton because of the low fees. Most non-residents in our programs are from our neighboring boroughs: Thornburgh, Ingram, Scott and Greentree. Many attend parochial school with Carlynton residents, especially St. Philips in Crafton, which is itself located in the Carlynton school district. They were introduced to our programs by their classmates and friends. In many cases, too, their families live physically closer to our schools than Carlynton residents. They go to school, shop and worship in our district. Because of that, many non-residents say they feel more associated with this district than their own. They are not here because of any bargains. They’re here because their kids want to be with their friends. Just ask the kids! Similarly, there are many Carlynton youths in KO, Scott and Montour programs for the same reason: kids just want to play with their friends, regardless of where they live.
What gives great cause for concern from both Mrs. Schirripa’s statements and those of other board members is that they are enacting policy based on their beliefs and wants with no fact-based justification instead of enacting policy based on what the residents of the district want or told them would be in the best interest of our youth. To quote the last sentence in paragraph 5 of Mrs. Schirripa’s message: This is the goal we wish to obtain. The directors were not elected to impose their own policies on residents. They were elected to represent the will of the people. That is the basis of a democracy. In this case, they have ignored the input of those most affected by the policy change.
==Clarification of the Misinformation Mrs. Schirripa Puts Forth==
Mrs. Smith did not include her original message to which Mrs. Schirripa responded, so we do not know the specific questions Mrs. Smith asked, nor the information that Mrs. Smith provided to Mrs. Schirripa. Mrs. Schirripa also does not provide any of the text of the “misinformation” she refers to in her responses. If she and Mrs. Smith would be so kind as to forward all this information so I and anyone interested can critically evaluate it, I would appreciate that.
===Regarding the May 27th meeting:===
The May 27th meeting was held after I went to two previous board meetings (April 17 and May 1) to urge the directors to get input from those groups who use the facilities. The board had been ready to adopt one of 7 proposals at the April 17 meeting and then vote on a final policy at the May 1. School Board policy states that when making policy the board is to “seek input from stakeholders” (policy 001 c.1). Originally the board appeared to have no intention to do so. They did not agree to a public meeting on the topic until after my presentation at the May 1 meeting. Elected officials doing what they agreed to do when assuming office is not “bending over backwards”. It’s doing the job they chose to do.
Contrary to what Mrs. Schirripa states, “many of the people” did not state that they are running successful, competitive programs with 100% Carlynton residents: Carlynton Boys basketball was not present and did not make any public statements at the May 27th meeting. Carlynton wrestling was present but did not make any statements about the policy. According to the official school board minutes, the wrestling program has 3-4 non-residents, contrary to what Mrs. Schirripa states. When asked, both wrestling and the girls in-house basketball representative stated they would like to have more youth on their rosters. Only the girl’s in-house basketball program stated their group is 100% Carlynton, because they decided to limit participation to residents. They already have 50 girls for 4 teams; that’s an average of 12-13 girls per team, when the ideal for basketball is about 8. So it is understandable and laudable that this group, assessing its needs, chose not to open its program to non-residents. It is wonderful that a parent run program had a choice as to how they think the program is best run. Of note, the traveling girl’s basketball team, has non-residents on its team. Also of note, none of these programs are run by the HS coaches as part of their jobs. They are run by parents and members of the community.
Contrary to what Mrs. Schirripa states, there were not comments from the public at every school board meeting this year about this policy. Review the board’s own minutes to confirm that. I appeared and spoke about this policy on April 17 and May 1. I also appeared at the June 5th meeting to correct misinformation about other school district’s and their policies that Mr. Brown reported on May 27th using information passed to him by Mrs. Schirripa. My husband, Jeff, also spoke at the April 17 meeting and Rev. Ed Bowan, a member of the audience on May 1, gave an impromptu comment to the board on the topic after hearing the discussions.
Please view the May 27th meeting video to confirm all of this for yourself.
=== Regarding the Board Reviewing All the Facts in Making its Decision===
Unfortunately, I can't asses that statement because the district denied me access to the documents related to their deliberations that were prepared by and/or distributed to all directors at tax payer expense. Current PA law does not require documents used in deliberation to be made available to taxpayer; nor does it deny the right - the decision lies with the school district, which in this case denied my request. We therefore do not know what information they considered in their decision.
===Regarding Jr/Sr HS Coach involvement in youth programs===
Of concern is the board’s view expressed by Mrs. Schirripa: All of our coaches are expected to be involved in youth programs of the area. They are expected to be involved without receiving any monies from the district. Are these coaches told that this type of involvement is a condition of their job? Does the union know that the school board is expecting the coaches to work extra hours with no compensation performing activities not outlined in their job descriptions or contracts? 
I’m unfamiliar with the youth programs Mrs. Schirripa mentions. I did not know we had active, competitive baseball, softball and volleyball teams for children in k-6 that practice regularly throughout the year and compete in leagues against other teams. I was also unaware that the Jr/Sr. HS coaches are involved in these programs. Can someone please send me the contact information on these programs so I can learn more about these opportunities for my children?
As far as the girls in-house and traveling basketball teams, youth wrestling and soccer, I was told that they are parent-run with no Jr/Sr HS coach involvement beyond their roles as parents, not as employees of the district. Can someone confirm or refute that? 
What I am aware of is that the Jr/Sr HS coaches sometimes run limited clinics for youths as a way to generate funds to pay for equipment, etc. for their teams. Occasionally there are free programs. For example, I am told last year the baseball coach ran a 2 week 8 hour program for kids and the basketball coach ran 4 open gyms. Are there any other programs out there? Can someone provide more detail about what the coaches do for specific youth programs beyond Mrs. Schirripa’s vague statement “involved in youth programs”? 
===Regarding the Swim Coach’s Compensation===
What Mrs. Schirripa states about the swim coach compensation is contradictory. In paragraph 1, Mrs. Schirripa states the board was told by the swim club that it pays the coach $600 a month. In paragraph 7 she sates she that the board was never told that salary was for the coach’s involvement in the youth swim program. Review the January 17th meeting video (coming soon). Mr. Milliken specifically states the coach is compensated $600/month by the club. Coaches are compensated for doing their job – coaching.
Above and beyond the public discussions, I personally met with Mrs. Schirripa in February of 2008. I reviewed with her the original agreement between the school board and the swim club. That agreement shows that the operations of the current swim club are almost identical to how it was approved in 1995 by the school board. Specifically, that agreement clearly states a coach’s salary for coaching the club members. Moreover, Mrs. Schirripa was one of the first parents involved in the swim club when it began in 1995. The first newsletter from the club specifically mentions her involvement in running concessions. As an active club parent, she was unaware that the club was paying the coach?
Does anyone think it is unreasonable to compensate someone who works on average 65+ hours a month performing duties not in his work contract?
===Regarding Fiscal Responsibility===
Let me thank the directors for working hard to keep our taxes the same, especially because we pay one of the highest school tax rates in Allegheny County.
Since Mrs. Schirripa did not provide data on the salaries and raises of paid professionals in “currently negotiated agreements”, I cannot assess her comment that the annual raises for Carlynton employees are less than those currently negotiated by other school districts. 
I can only compare the raises in the contract with what I received as a full time professor at the University of Pittsburgh – 1.5-2.5% per year. Here are the salaries and raises for a sample of the Carlynton paid professionals from the low end (new teachers) and to the high end (teachers with the district for 14 and 15 years): 
*07-08 Salary	08-09 Salary	Annual Increase
		
*$35,928	$37,728	5.01%
*$37,136	$38,936	4.85%
*$82,057	$86,029	4.84%
*$82,857	$87,129	5.16%
(data from the Carlynton School District – Local 2120 AFL-CIO Collective Bargaining Agreement July 1, 2007-June 30, 2013)
(By the way, what I find disturbing about these data are the low salaries we pay our new teachers to do one of the most important jobs in society – educate our children).
===Regarding age restrictions on club membership===
According to the new policy, residents in the pre-school soccer team, swim lessons, and children under age 5 (as of September 1 of any school year) in any sports program don’t count as residents. So a program that has 99 Carlynton kids who are in pre-school and 1 non-resident kid in kindergarten would pay rent because 100% of k-12 members are non-residents, even though 99% of the members are from Carlynton.
 
Our youngest residents no longer “count”. So what motivation do clubs now have to reach out to our youngest kids to get them engaged in sports as early as possible? 
In addition to no longer counting young children, the new policy no longer counts adults (the real taxpayers) as residents. So an exercise program for the elderly would have to be limited to 100% Carlynton residents to use Carlynton property without cost. So would an adult GED program. 
 
As far as the accusation that the 4 college students were on the swim club roster “to inflate the % district residents”, that is false. All 4 of those students were actively involved in the club. Some are on college scholarships and use the club as a venue for maintaining conditioning and competition skills during breaks. Here are some de-identified excerpts from e-mails sent to me by a mother of one of those swimmers. This information was communicated to the school board publicly and privately:
I know that with XXXXX being on scholarship she has to sign a contract that she will continue to train at a high level over the summer break and all other breaks. They have sets that they must be able to do when they return to school to prove that they have trained all summer. There would be no other place for her or other swimmers to train but at their 'home' clubs.
I also mentioned that in all of the information regarding XXXXX (website bio & media guides) they list XXXXX’s high school (Carlynton). So to me these alumni are still representing their high school. Just like Bill Cohwer is a representative for Carlynton.
These are student athletes on scholarship. They need to be supported as much as possible in their academic and athletic pursuits. Their achievements serve not only to benefit them, but future Carlynton scholar-athletes as well. As someone who has participated in University admissions, I can state that the performance of previous students from a school is a factor in admitting future students. Kids from schools with good track records get more attention and have a better shot at admission than those from schools with an unknown track record, or worse, a bad track record (such as having an athlete-scholar not meet his contractual requirements). We should promote and support our students even after they graduate. Everyone benefits. 
If these residents are participating in our programs and bringing positive benefits to the school and district, why should they not count as part of our programs?
===Regarding the Swim Club===
The first question one must ask is: Why is Mrs. Schirripa so focused on the swim club? The topic of discussion is the facilities policy and factual justification for the board’s vote based on the entire community, yet the file forwarded in e-mail is called “swim club response letter (a).doc” and her third sentences launches into a diatribe about the swim club that spans much of her text. 
Unfortunately, Mrs. Schirripa continues to promulgate misinformation about the club. This misinformation was repeatedly corrected by myself and Mr. Millikin in public board meetings, and confirmed by Dr. Panza and other board members. Everyone should read the Jan 17th school board minutes and view the available videos to see what was told to the entire board publicly about the club by club representatives. I clarified information and answered questions on April 17 and May 1. Mr. Millikin, club president, further clarified information and answered questions at the May 27th meeting.
 
In particular, the club has repeatedly clarified in public that:
* no non-residents are paying less than the full family fees to be in the club; ie, no non-resident is paying less than a resident to be in the club. I personally verified this sitting next to the treasurer with the club computer and accounts.
* the club provided all answers to the board questions that were asked of us by the board (verified by Dr. Panza on May 27th). Furthermore, we repeatedly offered publicly to meet with any director to answer additional questions. I personally met with Mrs. Schirripa in February 2008 and answered her questions, after which she told me she was satisfied with my responses. 
*the school board requested one official roster from the club, which was provided and validated the 75%+ district membership (verified by Dr. Panza on May 27th). 
*the club has compensated the district as requested by the district for expenses incurred from use of facilities.
All this was publicly stated by our club representatives and verified by Dr. Panza and others at the January 17, April 1 and May 27th meetings. 
The swim club has been a vibrant, positive force in this community for 14 years. Hundreds of Carlynton youths have participated in programs run by the club – from swim lessons, lifeguarding, competitive swimming to water aerobics and recreational swim. This is more than any other parent-run group that I am aware of (please correct me if I’m wrong). Moreover, the club has provided resources to the district totaling over $14,000 through the purchase of equipment for the school, including the pool lane lines, the high school record board, kickboards, flippers, pull buoys, stop watches, and other equipment. In the recent Carlynton “Relay for Life” for the American Cancer Society, the club in collaboration with the Jr/Sr HS teams, raised $12,900 – more than 25% of the total $46,000 raised by the event.
 
The continued misrepresentation of facts by Mrs. Schirripa, despite repeated, public correction of this misinformation, denigrates the reputation of the swim club and those who run in (ie, me). Such behavior is inappropriate and serves as a poor example to our children. Moreover, it is a specific violation of section 10.d of the school board’s Code of Ethics.
===Regarding arguments in support of non-district athletes===
To quote Mrs. Schirripa: We are only concerned about our district athletes and are tired of hearing arguments in support on non-district athletes
Please review the videos and meeting minutes from April 17, May 1, May 27. At no public session did I hear arguments in support of non-district athletes. I have only heard comments and data showing the non-resident children bring benefits to the kids in our district and to our organizations. I am unaware of anyone advocating for including non-residents in our clubs because it benefits the non-residents. If there is someone or something out there, please forward to me.
In a global world, one would hope our elected officials would care about all children, with priority being given to district children. One would also hope that our leaders would teach our children by their example to be concerned about others and not care about only about themselves.
 
===Regarding being a “good neighbor===
Let me thank Mrs. Schirripa for now publicly advocating for the program I told her I was working on for the swim club 2008-2009 season – outreach to district residents who are in the free and reduced lunch program (40% of our k-6 students). Programs like that take time and money to implement. Unfortunately, with the extra expense and volunteer time I and other swim club parents must now bear because of the new facilities policy, this program cannot be implemented at this time. Yet another loss to our own residents as a result of this new policy.
It is unfortunate that parents are being criticized by a district director for trying to keep costs low for district kids participating in parent-run programs in the district. Some of our programs may be the “best deal in town”- but that’s not to serve non-residents. It’s to serve our own kids.
===Regarding Newspaper photos===
Mrs. Schirripa refers to a photo appearing in the July 17th Signal Item. The photo shows several girls who participated in the Westminster College swim camp. The photo lists only the names of the participants, not their school districts. The Carlynton Swim Club had nothing to do with that program. Swimmers who attended did so at the discretion of their families. 
The photo was placed by the Westminster Coach at the request of the girls participating in the program. They were proud to be there and to be associated with Carlynton, regardless of their residency. Unfortunately, their pride in this district was met with criticism from a school director.
FYI - there are 6 young ladies in the photo who identified themselves with Carlynton, including Carlynton resident and CHS graduate Emily Paul who attends Westminster as a swimmer-scholar and served as a camp counselor. Mrs. Schirripa didn't count correctly.
===Regarding Dr. Panza’s Opinion on the Policy===
I invite Dr. Panza to make a public statement on the new facilities policy and what would be his preferred policy to see in place. Mrs. Schirripa states Dr. Panza expressed to her a desire to limit programs to 100% Carlynton residents. Dr. Panza made a different statement to me. 
If Dr. Panza does make a statement, everyone should keep in mind that Mrs. Schirripa was instrumental in hiring Dr. Panza. She also performed his annual review, and Dr. Panza’s job depends on the approval of the school board members.
==Summary==
I hope this has helped clarify some of the misinformation and confusion as a result of Mrs. Schirripa’s message. Please feel free to contact me with any questions, comments or concerns.
=Links and Sources=
*A message sent by Carlynton school board director, Patty Schirripa about her support of the new policy.
For further information about this issue and the history behind it:
* A detailed accounting on how this policy was passed. 
* A brief introduction to the history behind this issue
* A detailed accounting of the history behind this issue
* http://Carlynton.blogspot.com is an open forum for discussion of this issue. 
* Video clips of some directors expressing their viewpoints of this issue at various school board meetings. Entire meeting discussions are also here.
* Comments to the Carlynton school board on April 17, 2008 and May 1, 2008 urging the school board to adopt a more open policy and to seek input from the community prior to adopting any new policies. 
* A letter to school administrators and board about facilities use policies in other districts in response to misinformation presented by some school board members at the May 27, 2008 school board meeting.
* Proposed modifications to the existing policy that would address the concerns raised about the current policy while at the same time ensure that resident groups can create the best possible environment for citizens, especially youth. 
* The 7 original proposals put forth by the Carlynton school board. These clearly show an intent to heavily penalize any group that has non-resident members. Some even penalize youth sports teams for hosting home meets against non-resident teams.
=Press Coverage=
*Post Gazette West August 14, 2008
*Signal Item August 14
*Signal Item Editorial July 24, 2008
*Signal Item Letter from Francesmary Modugno, Rosslyn Farms, July 24, 2008
*Signal Item Letter from Kathy Fisher, Carnegie, July 24, 2008
*Post Gazette July 3, 2008
*Signal Item July 3, 2008
* Post Gazette May 8, 2008
* Signal Item May 22, 2008
* Post Gazette Editorial June 19 2008
* Post Gazette West June 12, 2008
** See the last sentence of paragraph 6: "Some board members believe Carlynton children are left out in favor of children from the communities crowded around tiny Carlynton's borders."
* Signal Item May 8, 2008