Tuesday, August 16, 2011
By Janice Crompton, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Peters Township school director Julie Ann Sullivan resigned Monday night, saying she no longer had the time to continue serving on the board.
"I now find myself in a situation where the life of being a school board director and my personal life are no longer compatible," a tearful Ms. Sullivan told fellow board members. "I no longer have the ability to work for this school district at that high level of commitment that I promised myself I would have. So tonight I will be resigning my position as a director effective at the close of this meeting."
Ms. Sullivan was ending her first, four-year term as a board member, had intended to run for another term in November. She said she's unsure whether it's too late to remove her name from the Nov. 8 general election ballot.
The remaining seven board members accepted the resignation, thanking Ms. Sullivan for her service and voting unanimously to appoint school board candidate Ronald Dunlevy as her replacement. Board member Mark Buzzatto was absent from the meeting.
Mr. Dunlevy, who was not present at the meeting, secured both parties' nominations for school board. If he accepts the post, Mr. Dunlevy will serve until December, when Ms. Sullivan's term in office was to end.
If Mr. Dunlevy wins a seat on the nine-member board in the general election, his new term will begin in January.
Ms. Sullivan's announcement came at the end of a contentious board meeting, in which dozens of private school parents came to express concern about a district plan to alter busing schedules.
At issue is whether the district is required to provide half-day busing for private school students who live in the district.
State law requires the district to provide free transportation to the more than 400 private school students who live in Peters, but the district had planned to eliminate busing for early dismissals to save money.
Parent and lawyer Mike Farnan, who has seven children attending local parochial schools, indicated that parents may seek an emergency injunction from the Washington County Court of Common Pleas if the issue isn't addressed before school begins Aug. 29.
More details in Thursday's South Xtra edition.
Read more: http://www.postgazette.com/pg/11228/1167692-100.stm#ixzz1VEXwwxZf
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Here we go again. Doesn't NZ preach Covey. Well how about thinking with the end in mind for once? We are all tired of the controversy and chaos. It is a shame that person after person has had to seek legal action on decisions made by the administrative leadership of this district. The distractions are too numerous to count and the lawsuits will soon be also. And we criticized the former high school principal for standing his ground. Now we are all getting a taste of what we should have seen all along---the real problem is within!
I fully understand that private school students are to receive busing that is exactly like public school students. It is the law!
I am not clear on what they are asking for. Current students in PTSD, that are in Kindergarten, only receive one way transportation. Are these people asking for transportation that even the public school kids do not even get?
I think what the private school parents were saying is that the private school students sometimes have a half day of school and PTSD was not going to take their kids home, like they used to do.
Well, we have to pick up our kids when they have a half day during their senior year. We are responsible for finding our own transportation, why can't they? Or, should we all be getting attornies as well?
Well, we have to pick up our kids when they have a half day during their senior year.
Wait a minute are we still doing that. I liked it with my oldest but i thought the super had a hissy fit over this a few years ago?
"Wait a minute are we still doing that."
Yes we are still doing it. The hissy fit was about kids arriving five minutes late for graduation practice and the doors being shut on them, then they were sent home on the spot. No transportation or parent notification until 3 hours later.
I had a child that was a senior that year. They were required to be there at 8 AM. My child made it, but we sat in traffic on McMurray road for over 15 minutes. I had no clue that a typical three minute drive would take that long. They were told to not take the bus because they had nowhere to put the kids for a half hour. In my opinion, the entire process was flawed and I do not understand why they can not take the bus to school on those days.
Kids are still required to go to those little half day graduation practices and find their own way home. Maybe it is tradition? I am not sure.
August 24, 2011 8:19 AM
Sorry no difference whether it be on the spot or not they theory is the same the kids are left to fend for themselves. Back in that day it was clear that kids may be released early and thus there was no transportation. They came in cars. Mine did as did others. The hissy fit was an issue if control and now the control is with NZ so its OK to let kids go. Please don't try to cut it any other way my kids lived that mess and this will just be another one under a different name.
Makes no sense to me early is early no matter what.
Here is the problem:
"Back in that day...."
Wake up Rip Vanwinkle. It is 2011. It is no longer "back in the day" when this community was half of the population it is now and there are now more than 370+ students in each grade level, not 250+. Isn't living in the past a prodrome to psychosis?
Traffic is awful. I live along McMurray Road. I no longer have kids in school but would NEVER want my child walking along that road or route 19. (Yes, mine did "back in the day"!) Do you think everyone is rich and families can afford cars to just hand their kids to go to school? Would you permit your child to ride in a car, loaded with kids, after school? You might not have cared about your kids, but I would have never permitted it. The kids should be riding buses, not driving to and from school just because they want to.
"Back in the Day"
Those days are over. Back in the day we had Dr. Jack, Dr. Urso, Dr. Kirk who were strong superintendents with skills. Back in the day we had strong boards made up of community members who were not self-serving.
Back in the day is over. Deal with what we have now.
So, they got rid of the football coach last year. I see that worked out well last night, didn't it! I guess that worked out as well as on-line classes, the graduation project, 5-10 central office people leaving the district, the spend millions on a field when the state education budget is cut, the we are in trouble financially but give the superintendent a huge raise, the 10,000 for Covey, the 10,000 for ??? that no one knows where it is going. But don't worry, everyone will pretend that things are going well, that none of these problems exist and if they do, it is not our problem. By the way, don't ask these questions to the superintendent. She might use her "It is me against the world and no one understands me and you have to understand how difficult my job is" when she talks to board members, they will then be upset because what she said is true (: and she will continue to have carte blanche. It has worked well the last three years, hasn't it?
Post a Comment