Greensburg Salem official granted 2nd leave
Greensburg Salem school directors on Wednesday approved a second sabbatical leave for an administrator who has threatened to sue the school district and directors.
In a 6-2 vote, directors granted Lisa Rullo's request for a second leave for health restoration.
Dr. Richard Payha and Angela DeMarino-Tooch voted no. Frank Gazze and Rullo didn't attend the regular meeting.
The leave will run one-half a school term and be retroactive to Sept. 14, when Rullo's first sabbatical ended, Superintendent Eileen Amato said.
Directors discussed the second sabbatical leave during a closed-door meeting held for personnel and legal reasons.
“I want the public to know, most board members are listening to legal counsel,” Payha said.
He said he would have liked an “independent examination” to be done, although that isn't required.
The first leave for Rullo, director of student and district services, began on May 6.
In March, Rullo filed notice in Westmoreland County Court that she might sue the school district, Director Lee Kunkle and President Ron Mellinger for harassment. Both directors voted in favor of granting the second sabbatical leave.
Former President Nat Pantalone, who Rullo also indicated might be named as a defendant, quit the board in June, in part over the handling of the Rullo case.
The school district's attorney in the case, John Smart of the Pittsburgh law firm of Andrew and Price, filed a notice on Monday in county court telling Rullo to file her civil complaint in 10 days or face the possibility of a dismissal order.
Rullo, Kunkle, Mellinger, Pantalone and Amato all have declined to comment on the proposed suit.
Bob Stiles is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. Reach him at 724-836-6622 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.