ShareThis Page
Kiski School Board can’t agree to quit for the night |

Kiski School Board can’t agree to quit for the night

| Tuesday, January 21, 2003 12:00 a.m

Say what you will about Kiski Area school board members, but no one can deny that they are a principled bunch.

With just seconds remaining at Monday’s school board meeting, members deadlocked over whether to adjourn for the night.

The vote was 4-4. Members Charlie Fox, Ron Ferrara, George Vagionis and Leroy Frederick wanted to end the meeting. The other four members wanted to have a closed meeting with an attorney about a Kiski Area case that’s before a Westmoreland County judge.

The four who wanted the closed meeting were Jim Summerville, Patrick Leyland, Debra Peppler and Joanne Retter.

Alas, if only member Ben Silvestri hadn’t been absent, he could have cast the tie-breaking vote.

Summerville explained why some members might have been reluctant to go into so-called “executive session.” He said certain board members have made calls from their cell phones from these meetings to reporters at local newspapers. This defeats the purpose of closed meetings.

At this, Leyland felt the need to defend himself, indicating that he only did it because he thought the state Sunshine Law was being violated.

Eventually, the board voted again and adjourned, leaving many to ponder the lost entertainment value of what could have been an endless night with the Kiski Area school board.

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.