Share This Page

Moon school closing fought

| Saturday, July 19, 2014, 12:01 a.m.

An attorney representing two Moon Area School Board members and five district parents said he will seek a court injunction on Monday against the board's recent vote to close an elementary school.

Attorney Jack Cambest said on Friday he plans to ask Alle­gheny County Common Pleas Court to stay any other action related to closing Hyde Elementary, until the court can decide whether to void the board vote.

School board members Michael Hauser and Jerry Testa and the parents allege that the board violated the state Sunshine Act because the public was not given an opportunity to comment on an amended motion to close Hyde at a June 25 meeting, Cambest said.

The board voted 6-2, with Hauser and Testa opposed and Samuel Tranter absent, to close the school.

The group also claims the members who voted to close Hyde made a preliminary decision while on a break during the 6½-hour meeting, Cambest said, and that amounted to an executive session about which the public was not informed.

School board President A. Michael Olszewski denied those allegations. “Just because they don't like the outcome, they're trying to change the rules of the game, and it's ridiculous,” Olszewski said.

Moon Area staff had recommended closing Brooks Elementary, and that proposal was on the board's agenda for June 25. About 40 parents commented on that topic before the board opted to close Hyde.

Scott LaRue and some other board members had said they stressed for months that all 13 options considered for closing and renovating schools would remain on the table until a vote, and that the public was given ample opportunity to comment.

Tory N. Parrish is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 412-380-5662 or tparrish@tribweb.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 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.