Cop says questions remain about his Eliz. Forward school board candidacy
An Elizabeth Township police officer who won Republican nomination for a seat on the Elizabeth Forward school board said unanswered questions remain about the upcoming general election.
Jamie Evans said he doesn't want to comment on his success in Tuesday's primary nor about decisions he might have to make come November regarding his candidacy.
“If I have to make a decision then, I'll make a decision at that time,” Evans, who was cross-filed but did not win a Democratic nomination, said.
He and police officer Daniel Novacek, who cross-filed for his unsuccessful run at a school board seat, had to fend off challenges to their candidacies filed by school board president Phil Martell, who claimed that police officers are ineligible to hold office under the state's First Class Township Code.
Allegheny County Common Pleas Court Judge Joseph M. James ruled in March that they could run but could not serve as school directors if they remain employed as police officers.
On Monday, Elizabeth Township commissioners put police Chief Robert McNeilly on paid administrative leave. The chief said the move was related to his handling of the policy regarding police officers running for public office.
The policy prevents officers from holding office but it is being changed based on several factors: the court's ruling; recent changes to the federal Hatch Act, which regulates campaign activities by federal employees; and counsel from township Solicitor Pat McGrail, who accordin to McNeilly said the officers could run for school board .
McNeilly said on Wednesday he has secured counsel from the Western Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association.
Eric Slagle is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-664-9161, ext. 1966, or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com 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.