Southmoreland director seeks formation of fiscal solvency committee
A Southmoreland school director who painted a bleak financial picture for the district earlier this month, pushed for the formation of an ad hoc fiscal solvency planning committee Tuesday but her motion failed.
Catherine Fike moved to have a committee formed to develop short-term (one year), intermediate term (two to three years) and long-term (four to five years) plans.
“It's for us to get started in a very solid way,” Fike said. “It's the board's responsibility to keep this district fiscally solvent...We fit nowhere in the budget process. It's handed to us, take it or leave it.”
The motion failed by a 5-4 vote of the board. Joining Fike in voting in favor of the motion were school directors Ken Alt, Jason Pawlikowsky and Josie Kauffman. Voting against the motion were school directors Gail Rhodes, Levi Miller, Aimee Love, James Beistel and board President Michael Bentz.
“This is stuff that could be done by the planning committee and it's all stuff that is being done,” Bentz said. “We don't need the motion to have it done.”
“I think the intent of this is totally honorable,” Miller said. “In some ways, I see this motion as being the job as the board as a whole. We as a school board should be dealing with that.”
Alt was not happy with the way the vote unfolded, even saying he was disgusted.
“This is a disgrace that this was not a 9-0 vote,” he said shortly after the vote was taken. “Everybody should have been on board.”
Among the tasks of the committee would have been the preservation of the fund balance, ensuring it was not used to pay ongoing expenses. The committee members would have been appointed at December's reorganization meeting.
Paul Paterra is a staff editor for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 724-887-6101 and 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.