Share This Page

Slate endorsed by anti-school-closing group wins North Allegheny election

| Wednesday, Nov. 6, 2013, 1:21 p.m.

The four candidates supported by a group fighting to keep Peebles Elementary School in McCandless open won seats on the North Allegheny School Board on Tuesday, according to unofficial results.

Save NA Schools endorsed Scott Russell, Tara Zimmerman-Fisher and incumbent Ralph J. Pagone, who were three of five candidates running for four seats with a four-year term, and they won.

Incumbent Thomas C. Schwartzmier won the fourth seat, while incumbent Daniel E. Hubert was defeated.

In the race for a two-year term, Kevin Mahler, who was endorsed by Save NA Schools, beat Gary S. Wenig.

The North Allegheny School Board has discussed closing Peebles and sending its students to other schools in order to save money.

In the breakdown of results, percentages might not add up to 100 percent because of rounding.

Here are the results:

Two-year seat

One seat open

Kevin Mahler (I) — 56 percent

Gary S. Wenig (R) — 44 percent

Write-in — less than 1 percent

Four-year seats

Four seats open

Scott Russell (R/D) — 24 percent

Tara Zimmerman Fisher (R/D) — 25 percent

Thomas C. Schwartzmier (R) — 17 percent

Ralph J. Pagone (R/D) — 24 percent

Daniel E. Hubert (D) — 10 percent

Write-in — less than 1 percent

There were no contested races for municipal positions in the communities that make up the North Allegheny School District — Bradford Woods, Franklin Park, Marshall Township and McCandless.

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.