Lawsuit dropped against police officer elected to Elizabeth Forward board
Elizabeth Township commissioners dropped a lawsuit against police officer Jamie Evans, who was elected to the Elizabeth Forward school board in November.
The 4-3 vote took place on Thursday during a continuation of the April 7 commissioners meeting and allows Evans to continue serving in both roles without the threat of possible Civil Service violations. Board president Gene Francesconi, vice president Paul Saxon and commissioner Claire Bryce opposed the motion.
Before Evans could run for a seat on the school board, he first had to overcome a legal challenge to his candidacy by school board president Phil Martell, who maintained police officers are ineligible to hold office under the state's first-class township code. State Rep. Rick Saccone, R-Elizabeth Township, later successfully pushed an amendment through the General Assembly that allows police officers in first-class townships to serve as school board members of districts within second-class counties.
In December, township Solicitor Pat McGrail said council only wanted to avoid any potential conflicts of interest and the details of Saccone's amendment are so narrow it may violate the state constitution.
Elizabeth Forward Superintendent Bart Rocco spoke on behalf of Evans during Thursday's meeting, requesting the case be dropped.
Evans was not available for comment, but police Chief Robert McNeilly said he's glad to see the controversy come to an end.
“(Dropping the lawsuit) will definitely save the township money,” McNeilly said. “And it's good to see we have a police officer who can continue to be an asset to the school board.”
Tim Karan is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-664-9161, ext. 1970, or email@example.com.
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 â 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.