ShareThis Page
News

3 Uniontown Area school directors lose in primary

| Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Public outcry about a $44 million Uniontown High School renovation project apparently has cost three directors their seats. Directors scaled back the project to $34.8 million last month.

Eleven candidates, including four incumbents, ran for the board. All candidates cross-filed as Republicans and Democrats. The top five vote-getters from each party will appear on the general election ballot for five board seats.

With 91 percent of the votes in, the unofficial count indicates that only incumbent Kenneth Meadows likely will have a chance to retain his seat, with 14 percent of the Democratic votes and 14 percent of the Republican votes.

The unofficial totals also showed that Vincent Winfrey received 14 percent of the Democratic votes and 10 percent of the Republican votes. Paul Bortz Sr. received 11 percent of the Democratic votes and 13 percent of the Republican votes. Philip Holt received 11 percent of the Democratic votes and 17 percent of the Republican votes. Alan George received 10 percent of the Democratic votes and 11 percent of the Republican votes.

Barring a change in the vote totals, that means those five will appear on the ballots for both parties in the fall. Barring a write-in campaign or other unexpected turn of events, those five seemed overwhelmingly likely to be elected.

Incumbent Susan Clay received 8 percent of the Democratic votes and 6 percent of the Republican votes. Janet Guthrie received 8 percent of the Democratic votes and 6 percent of the Republican votes. Incumbent Tammy Boyle received 6 percent of the Democratic votes and 5 percent of the Republican votes. Incumbent Charles Castor received 5 percent of the Democratic votes and 3 percent of the Republican votes. Grace Miller received 4 percent of the Democratic votes and 3 percent of the Republican votes.

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.

click me