Leechburg Area solicitor vote sparks clash among new school board members

Several Leechburg Area School District school board members are criticizing school board president Ashley Coudriet for what they claim is a lack of transparency surrounding a recent vote to appoint an interim solicitor.

In a 6-3 vote Dec. 6, the board appointed a new interim solicitor, Gary J. Matta, to replace former Solicitor Amy Schremph.

Board members Candy Stewart, Darius Lovelace and Melanie Knight voted no during a combined public work session/reorganization/regular voting meeting Dec. 6.

Matta attended the meeting and confirmed Schremph had submitted a letter of resignation.

Schremph did not respond to requests for comment.

For six-year incumbent Darius Lovelace, the lack of communication surrounding the issue of replacing Schremph is a red flag in the transparency department.

“I didn’t know anything about it. I was shocked and, if they were going to do that, how come they didn’t bring forth several solicitors to choose from? Someone just cherry-picked a solicitor and put them there,” Lovalace said.

Fellow incumbent Candy Stewart shared Lovelace’s reaction.

“The incumbents did not know anything about this until we saw this agenda. We had no information or knowledge,” said Stewart, a board member for six years.

Stewart said she tried to get answers after reading about the vote for the first time on the board’s December meeting agenda.

“I wanted to know how and why this issue got on the agenda,” Stewart said.

Stewart said she sent a group email to all board members but didn’t receive a reply.

“It’s not the first time that my emails have been ignored,” Stewart said. “I made a statement during the meeting about the board — that I feel we don’t have enough transparency, and, if you’re supposed to have everything upfront, this certainly wasn’t how to do it. I’m not sure what went down, but it appears Coudriet handpicked the new interim attorney. We were asked to approve this person, but we didn’t know anything about him.”

Superintendent Tiffany Nix declined to elaborate on the issue but confirmed via email that Coudriet was the person who asked to have the matter placed on the agenda under board related issues.

Coudriet said the board “wanted to change direction” and that appointing a solicitor at a reorganization meeting is “common practice.”

“All members, old and new, had the opportunity to review the agenda and add further suggestions or changes,” Coudriet said.

Additionally, Coudriet said no vote was needed to terminate the previous solicitor because it’s a board appointed position and a professional service.

“On Election Day, our voters spoke. It became clear our constituents wanted change and new representation. The new board is committed to initiating positive change. All actions have and will follow policy, statute and school code,” Coudriet said.

The youngest board member requested a new solicitor.

Andrew Pallus said he voted yes because he didn’t agree with how past situations were handled, but he declined to provide specific examples of any situation.

“I requested a new solicitor due to the way issues were handled in the past that I didn’t agree with. I’ll not elaborate any further. I’m still sticking with my answer of a change in representation was needed. It’s vague, but that’s my answer,” Pallus said.

During the meeting earlier this month, five newly elected and re-elected board members were sworn in: James Dunmire, Knight, Joseph Lepish, Anthony Townsend and Pallus, who was sworn in separately via a Notary Public because he attended the meeting virtually.

Dunmire and Lepish did not respond to requests for comment, and Townsend declined to comment on the issue.

“I voted no because the solicitor we had was totally fine,” Stewart said. “I felt there were no issues with the previous solicitor. I was shocked and blindsided this was added to the agenda.”

New board member Knight said she received no information on the law firm listed on the agenda.

“I cannot vote in favor of anything I do not have the proper information for. I will not vote last minute for anything I am not informed of without adequate information and proper time to review,” Knight said. “None of the new board members being sworn in received any information on this. That being said, I want the public to know I will not blindly vote on anything.”

Former longtime school board member Neill Brady spoke publicly at the meeting, criticizing the manner in which the interim solicitor was appointed.

“I think it’s ironic that existing board members constantly cite transparency and, in the first reorganization board meeting, the existing board members Candy Stewart and Darius Lovelace were not aware that the existing solicitor was being fired.”

Additionally, Brady said proposal(s) were requested for a new interim solicitor and no information on the firm Dodaro, Matta & Cambest was provided to board members on the issue.

“Clearly, transparency seems to be for selected parties, not the entire board and public,” Brady said during the meeting.

Brady previously served on the board, including as president, for more than 20 years.

“I wasn’t surprised this vote passed because the new people on the board all campaigned together, and it’s becoming political to me. I’m not on there for politics. I’m here there for the school district for the students,” said Stewart.

The solicitor pay rate will remain the same, with a monthly retainer fee of $1,000 and hourly rate of $125 for all items that aren’t covered by the retainer, according to district business manager and secretary Teresa Edinger.