ShareThis Page
Communications firm sues over unpaid bills |

Communications firm sues over unpaid bills

Karen Zapf
| Sunday, March 31, 2002 12:00 a.m

A Plum businesswoman whose company provides Plum School District with telephone systems and voice mail networks has filed a civil action against the district for what she claims are nearly $5,000 in unpaid bills.

Mary Ronco, owner of Allegheny Communication Systems on Shasta Drive in Plum, filed three separate civil actions in Plum District Justice Linda Zucco’s office.

Ronco filed one action against Plum School District for $4,992. The paperwork in Zucco’s office states, the school district “owes past due invoices from November 2001.”

“We made a business decision with Mary Ronco’s company, and she was not happy with the decision,” Plum spokeswoman Dawn Check said. “I am not at liberty to comment on the unpaid invoices.”

Ronco also filed separate actions against two employees of the Plum School District.

Ronco filed a civil lawsuit against Ed Hela, Plum’s director of educational technology services, for $4,985 for “interference with my ability to do business” in the Plum School District.

Ken Stancliffe, Plum’s supervisor of facilities, also is named in a civil action for $4,262 because he allegedly “interfered with business on-site at Plum schools.”

Hela and Stancliffe could not be reached for comment Friday.

Hearings on all three actions are scheduled for 9 a.m. April 30 before Zucco.

In a telephone interview last week, Ronco said she has provided telephone services and voice mail hardware to the Plum School District for seven years.

In addition to the Plum School District, Ronco lists the City of Pittsburgh Department of General Services as a client.

“I told the (Plum) school district two months ago I would give them another 30 days (to pay the invoices),” Ronco said. “The work was done in October. They are hurting me financially. Don’t they value their telephone system?”

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.