ShareThis Page
School district audit stirs acrimony at meeting |

School district audit stirs acrimony at meeting

Ellen James
| Thursday, April 24, 2003 12:00 a.m

An otherwise-quiet Pittsburgh Public Schools board legislative meeting turned ugly Wednesday night after one member proposed suspending contract services for an internal audit.

Board member Randall Taylor made a motion to suspend the audit commissioned by the board to look into the district’s funds during the 2000 school year. At that time, there was a reported $40 million deficit, which resulted in the board’s decision to raise taxes and close schools.

Taylor questioned the $175,000 the board is paying the auditors and wanted to know how the firm is charging for its services.

Board President Darlene Harris defended the audit, which she said shows the deficit was not $40 million. She also promised that a thorough report on the auditor’s spending would be provided.

A shouting match developed between board members Theresa Colaizzi and Alex Matthews after Colaizzi defended the audit and the board’s decision to reopen some of the schools.

“Maybe all of us board members should have brand-new elementary schools in our own districts,” she said in reference to the new Homewood Elementary School in a neighborhood represented by Matthews.

“That’s a racial comment,” Matthews said before Harris ruled them both out of order.

Board members William Isler, Mark Brentley Sr. and Matthews supported Taylor’s motion, which was defeated, 5-4.

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.