Weiss withdraws as Penn Hills’ special counsel for recovery | TribLIVE.com

Weiss withdraws as Penn Hills’ special counsel for recovery

Michael DiVittorio
Michael DiVittorio | Tribune-Review
Penn Hills School District Chief Recovery Officer Dan Matsook discusses the district’s proposed recovery plan at a town hall meeting.

Attorney Ira Weiss has withdrawn as special counsel for Penn Hills School District’s chief recovery officer one day after school board members publicly questioned the legality of Weiss’ appointment.

The Pittsburgh-based firm Weiss Burkardt Kramer LLC submitted a letter to district officials informing them of the decision Tuesday.

Weiss said via email to the Tribune-Review that his firm was retained by state-appointed recovery officer Daniel Matsook to do work on labor relations issues.

“I attended several meetings and performed related services,” he said. “Our firm serves as special counsel to the district on special education matters and has done so for some period of time predating the recovery status …We did not solicit this work and we were happy to assist the District in this difficult time.”

School board members at a fiance committee meeting Monday said no agreement with Weiss for the aforementioned recovery work was approved by the school board.

“I respect Ira Weiss totally, but we didn’t need another attorney at $165 an hour,” board President Erin Vecchio said.

Matsook said after that meeting his contract with Weiss did not bind the district, and their fees would not be paid through Penn Hills coffers.

“I signed it because, if it’s related to the transitional loan, which the district’s going to get, I figure my name shows that it’s coming out of that fund and not the district fund,” he said. “That doesn’t bind the district. The board has to approve it. To get it approved, it has to go through committee and then to the board. I just forwarded it to the board.”

Vecchio claimed Matsook violated school code by skipping the committee step.

“That was a little shocking to me that (Weiss) had been retained to do stuff,” said Rob Marra, board member and former district treasurer. “We never approved him, and it never went through the board in the first place. We’re still trying to get a resolution on what the recovery officer can do without board approval.”

Weiss’ recovery plan work was part of a miscommunication between Matsook and the board that resulted in its members submitting a letter to the state Department of Education asking for his removal as the recovery officer.

Board members said they have not received a response from the state.

Matsook, who did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Tuesday, previously said he was out of the district when the letter was submitted, and believes matters could have been resolved before hand had he had the chance to speak with district officials.

Weiss said his firm was recommended to Matsook by Vecchio. But Vecchio claimed she talked about Weiss’ special education efforts, not about them working on recovery plan matters.

Marra plans to ask for an itemized statement if Weiss’ firm bills the district.

“If it’s with special education, that’s fine,” Marra said.

The state put Penn Hills in financial recovery status in January and appointed Matsook in February to help turn things around.

District officials approved a financial recovery plan June 29. State Department of Education officials did the same in mid-July.

It’s available for review on the district’s website, phsd.k12.pa.us.

Michael DiVittorio is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Michael at 412-871-2367, [email protected] or via Twitter .

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.