ShareThis Page
Fadzen blames former superintendent for hands-off policy |

Fadzen blames former superintendent for hands-off policy

Bill Zlatos
| Thursday, February 16, 2012 12:00 a.m

Former Pittsburgh Public Schools Superintendent Mark Roosevelt changed school police officers’ approach toward problems to a see-no-evil policy, schools police chief Robert Fadzen testified this morning during a hearing to determine whether he should keep his job.

“The move since 2005 is to move against finding anything in our schools,” Fadzen said, noting that he opposed the change. “If somebody has a gun in our school, we’re going to find that gun.”

“They (the district) want to hide things,” he said later in the hearing, now in its fifth day. “They didn’t want you to report the rapes. They want you to hide things. Throw the guns in the river. I can’t do that.”

Roosevelt, now president of Antioch College in Yellow Springs, Ohio, declined to comment.

The district removed Fadzen, 60, of Green Tree from his job in September and placed him on unpaid leave in November after he followed an ambulance that he said was driving erratically near the David L. Lawrence Convention Center on July 22.

Fadzen said he was doing a traffic study near Pittsburgh Creative and Performing Arts school at the time. The administration contends that Fadzen has a history of acting outside his jurisdiction.

District officials cited the ticketing of a Westwood man in Green Tree in 2005 and a student’s weapons conviction, later overturned by the Pennsylvania Superior Court, resulting from the discovery of guns in his car by Fadzen and other school police.

Hearing officer Carl Beard will make a recommendation about Fadzen to the school board, which will decide whether he should keep his job. Fadzen, who has worked 17 years for the school district and makes $90,000 a year, requested that the hearing be open.

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.