Judge to decide on whether board violated Sunshine Act
A Fayette County judge listened to a morning of testimony and legal arguments and will render a decision as to whether the Uniontown Area School Board violated the Sunshine Act in making a board appointment and approving a now-scuttled bond issue during a December meeting. At issue is whether calling a board member in the middle of a meeting to vote on those two issues, without her having listened to the entire meeting was a violation of the act.
The December special meeting was advertised as being for general purposes, but attorney Herbert Margolis questioned if appointing a school board member, after accepting the resignation of member Ronald K. Machesky, constituted a general purpose.
The suit was filed on behalf of district residents Darren M. DeCarlo, Steve A. Gavorchik, Thomas R. George, Peter A. Malik, Shawn McAninch, Dale R. Rexrode, Timothy B. Sandstrom, Angela D. and Paul D. Yankulic Jr., Jeraldine and Ralph Mazza and Margolis.
Named as defendants in both matters are school board members Tammy J. Boyle, Susan S. Clay, Dorothy J. Grahek, Harry J. Kaufman and Herring.
According to Margolis’ testimony, the board only received Machesky’s resignation about one hour before the special meeting. He indicated that the board had to appoint a replacement within 30 days, but contended that they had to review applicants from the public before doing so.
District solicitor Michael Brungo, however, argued there is no law that requires a school board to conduct interviews or solicit applications from the public before naming a replacement on a school board.
“There’s nothing in the law that requires the school board to take any type of public process to fill that vacancy,” Brungo.
He also noted that all of the board members except Lloyd Williams had worked with Castor before and were happy with his performance.
Castor lost his re-election bid in the last school board race.
Margolis said that although the board accepted Machesky’s resignation, he never questioned them about who would fill the vacancy during public comment.
“I knew if they complied with the law, they would make public interviews with all of the interested candidates,” he said.
“We strongly believe there’s been no violation of the Sunshine law,” Brungo said.
He argued that even if Wagner did find fault with Castor’s December appointment, the jurist would have to believe it was cured when the board again appointed him as their newest member during a January meeting. That second appointment came in January after Margolis filed suit.
Bruno also contended that because the district never received the QZAB money because of the litigation, so that issue was moot.
The bond issue was voted upon with the five board members in attendance at the December meeting but the motion to approve failed because only four of the directors cast a yes vote. To pass, the bond issue needed five affirmative votes. It was when the issue initially failed that board members – after contacting the office of the solicitor for approval – called Herring via speakerphone.
She cast the fifth vote needed to pass the measure, and Margolis contended that the issue was “absolutely” too difficult for her to understand without further explanation, even though it had been explained at other meetings.
“If you understand what those 50 pages (about the bond issue) said, you’re the smartest attorney in the United States,” Margolis told presiding Judge John F. Wagner Jr.
The bond issue was contingent upon the measure being free from litigation. Margolis’ suit, filed on behalf other district residents, was filed soon after the vote.
After the QZAB vote, with Herring still on the phone, the board voted 5-1 to appoint Castor to Machesky’s seat.
Margolis questioned why the board chose to call Herring instead of the other two board members who were absent – William Rittenhouse and Kenneth Meadows – and said that when Herring got on the phone that the votes were immediately taken without additional discussion.
“You can’t call a board member on the telephone that you know is going to vote yes when the other two are going to vote no,” Margolis said.
Although it had nothing directly to do with the two issues before Wagner, Margolis indicated he felt that the school board had stifled the public’s ability to fairly comment on issues by limiting comment to three minutes and only at the beginning and end of the meeting.
As Margolis continued to talk about issues outside of the two at hand, Wagner stopped him.
“I am not a sounding board for all of the problems on the Uniontown school board,” Wagner said.
When Margolis continued to discuss the board’s time limit for public comment and how they generally conducted business, Wagner stopped him again.
“I’m not a school board member. Thank God I’m not a school board member. There’s not enough money in the world to make me a school board member,” Wagner said.
“I’m not going to tell the school board how to conduct themselves. … They’re not going to make everyone happy all of the time,” he continued.