ShareThis Page
Highlands stalls on releasing name of employee placed on unpaid leave | TribLIVE.com
Valley News Dispatch

Highlands stalls on releasing name of employee placed on unpaid leave

Brian C. Rittmeyer
692991_web1_web-highlandssign

The Highlands School District is not identifying an employee recently placed on unpaid leave.

The school board approved that action, and a statement of charges, against the unidentified employee at its Jan. 21 meeting.

The employee was referred to only as “employee #7121,” and no information on the charges was released.

Under the state’s Right to Know law, the Tribune-Review filed a request on Jan. 22 to obtain the employee’s name and the charges filed against him or her.

Lori Byron, the district’s right-to-know officer, said the district is invoking a 30-day extension to respond to the request, citing three reasons: that the records are “stored in a remote location,” that the district cannot provide a timely response “due to bona fide and specific staffing limitations,” and because “the extent or nature of the request precludes a response within the required time period.”

District Solicitor Ira Weiss said his firm was not involved in the district’s response.

While not identifying the employee, Weiss said the employee is not a teacher and the matter does not involve any students. Police are not involved, he said.

“It’s an internal employment matter,” Weiss said.

The request should not have been necessary, as the employee’s name, job title or position, and salary are public information under the state Right to Know law, according to Melissa Melewsky, media law counsel with the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association.

“The board should have announced the name prior to the vote so the public could provide meaningful public comment prior to official action, so that’s a Sunshine Act issue,” she said. “The public can’t exercise their right to provide public comment if they don’t know who/what’s being voted on.”

Weiss said he disagrees that not releasing the employee’s name is a violation of the Sunshine Act. The person’s name will be released when the matter is finally resolved, he said.

“Right now, we’re in the midst of the employment process,” he said. “I don’t believe the Sunshine Act requires disclosure of the name at this point.”

According to Melewsky, what often happens is that a school district administration will suspend an employee outside of a public meeting.

“But, when the board is involved and makes the decision to suspend, it has to happen at a public meeting, and only after a meaningful opportunity for public comment,” she said. “The public can’t provide meaningful input if they don’t know who is subject to the vote.”

The school board cannot deny public comment on any issue that is up for a vote, Melewsky said.

“Such a prohibition would clearly be inconsistent with the plain letter of the Sunshine Act,” she said. “If the board is proposing to take action, any action, the public gets to comment — meaningfully, before the vote.”


Brian Rittmeyer is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Brian at 724-226-4701, brittmeyer@tribweb.com or via Twitter @BCRittmeyer.


Brian C. Rittmeyer is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Brian at 724-226-4701, brittmeyer@tribweb.com 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.