ShareThis Page

School board transparency?

| Saturday, Jan. 28, 2012

Congratulations to the voters who placed the new Armstrong School District Board of Directors in place. These directors were elected without stating a plan, and it looks like they still don't want us to know what their plans are.

The previous board majority (Stitt, Solak, Smeltzer, Monroe, Yassem and Kozuch) assured that all school board and committee meetings were both audiotaped and televised live so all taxpayers were made aware of school district actions. They had nothing to hide.

The new school board majority (Close, Choncek, Rearic, Lobby, Lhote, Robb and Berdell) don't want us to see what they're doing. In power since December, they have already done the following:

Changed board meeting dates to make it impossible for meetings to be videotaped live for TV. Changed their attorney in their first voting meeting with no public discussion.

While they chastised the other board for hiring a Pittsburgh attorney, the new attorney's office is in a building across the parking lot from the attorney the former board majority hired. The other board hired an attorney at no additional cost to the district. How much does the new board's choice cost the taxpayer?

The board conducted a building and grounds meeting with Kimball Associates on Jan. 16. Did you know they heavily discussed a new high school• Mr. Rearic even questioned about students from Ford City and Kittanning high schools fitting into Lenape Technical School until the new school is built. They can do this now that Lenape Technical is a half-day program for all courses next school year.

Of course you don't know that. There is no recording of that meeting due to "technical difficulty" on behalf of the Armstrong School District.

Transparency is gone from the Armstrong School District, thanks to the newly elected board of directors. Taxpayers beware!

Jane Anderson


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.