Moon school hiring under fire
Two Moon Area School Board members are unhappy with the hiring process used to select the chief financial officer/chief operating officer, who used to work in the same Virginia school district as Moon Area's superintendent.
The board voted 8-1 on Monday to approve a committee's recommendation to hire Margaret Lindsey for a position newly established by Superintendent Curt Baker to replace Alan Bennett, who is retiring as Moon Area's director of fiscal and school services.
Lindsey's salary will be $130,000 annually, Baker said.
Board member Jerry Testa, who voted against Lindsey's hiring, said at the meeting he has an issue with Lindsey being one of only two candidates interviewed for the job, that she worked with Baker in Roanoke City Public Schools in Virginia and that no school board members were involved in a selection committee. Only the superintendent and two other Moon Area staff members were on the committee, he said.
Board member Michael Hauser said he was displeased with the lack of transparency in the selection process. He said he voted to hire Lindsey, however, because he was impressed with her skill level.
Baker asked if Testa was making accusations of wrongdoing, to which Testa replied that he was not. The job was advertised on the district's website and those of education-related organizations, such as the Pennsylvania School Boards Association, in the typical manner.
“This school system should be thrilled with the caliber of candidate that is being brought here,” Baker said.
Several school board members said they were satisfied with the hiring process.
“We need to trust our superintendent … he's out to make decisions for the district,” said Gia Tatone, board secretery.
Tory N. Parrish is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 412-380-5662 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
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.