Crowd blasts school board over superintendent's departure

Harvey Hilburgh is new interim schools chief in Chester, By Becca Tucker Chester — There were new faces at the Chester school board dais, and one familiar face missing. District lawyer Mike Lambert joined the board, as did Interim Superintendent Harvey Hilburgh, a tall wiry man with graying hair in a crisp brown suit. Until called upon by the audience to speak, Hilburgh sat a chair’s length back from the table, as if reluctant to interfere. “I get no joy following somebody under these circumstances,” he said. Hilburgh will be standing in for former Superintendent Helen Anne Livingston until a permanent replacement can be found, ideally before the end of the school year. When the crowd started to razz Hilburgh about what he announced would be his $700-a-day salary — “the going rate for interim superintendents” — he joked: “I don’t officially start until tomorrow.” That produced the only laughter at the otherwise heated, accusation-filled meeting. The missing face was Livingston’s, and her absence the reason for this impromptu board meeting. The crowd that packed the auditorium was rowdy, yelling things like: “We’re asking questions and you’re not responding properly!” They booed, clucked, spoke out of turn, and exchanged high fives in the aisles. Thunderous applause greeted statements in support of the departed superintendent, and there was one standing ovation. Board President Wendy Murray read a “joint press release” by Livingston and the board that included a separation agreement, which grants Livingston paid leave while she pursues other employment. Livingston earns $139,000 a year. That means taxpayers will be paying Livingston’s salary, Hilburgh’s salary, and recruitment fees to search for a new and permanent superintendent. Before the board approved the agreement, John Pasichnyk called upon Jason LaTassa to recuse himself from the vote, saying that LaTassa had a $10 million lawsuit against the school district that alleges his son was improperly searched. “No,” said LaTassa, the tie-breaker in the 3-2 vote. Wendy Murray, Dawn DeLuca-Guevara and LaTassa voted to accept the agreement, while Pasichnyk and Frank Sambets voted against. Teachers and parents repeatedly hammered LaTassa for not having recused himself. Lambert explained that night, and again at Wednesday’s regular board meeting, that LaTassa was legally allowed to vote — indeed, he was obligated to do so. “A conflict of interest does not exist as a matter of law,” he said Wednesday. “When conflicts do not exist [board members] are obligated to vote.” ‘I don’t see you crying’ The reason for Livingston’s sudden departure remains a mystery. That enraged parents and teachers, no matter how they felt about Livingston herself. Hilburgh explained that while it may seem things are being done in secret, “that’s what all boards have to do” when it comes to personnel issues. The separation agreement itself is accessible to the public under the Freedom of Information Law, but as for the details that led to the separation, “that will not come out,” Hilburgh said. “Oh, yes it will!” said a few voices from the crowd. Two teachers said Livingston had been crying at the faculty meeting last week when she announced her resignation, suggesting the agreement was not in fact mutual. “She was crying in front of us,” said one teacher. “I don’t see you crying that she left. Can the decision be reversed?” “There was a great deal of surprise and disappointment,” said Pam Kavanagh, president of the teacher’s union, which took out a half-page ad in support of Livingston in Thursday’s Times Herald-Record. She questioned whether “the board really realizes or understands the impact” of their action. “How is it possible to get a contract extension, and now all of a sudden she resigned?” asked Chester parent Dan Mulvey. “There’s something very fishy.” “Did she murder somebody?” asked his wife, Maureen Mulvey. “What happened?” “My voice is shaking because I’m upset,” said Joelle Newsome, another parent. “I feel like this was done in secret. I feel like you gave the public no chance in supporting Miss Livingston. Everyone here is here because we did not know what was going on.” Murray summed up: “What I can say is this. I read the statement put together between the superintendent and the board. I can assure all of you that no decisions get made lightly for this district. I myself as well as four other members of the board have children in this district. We take it very seriously, and we lose a lot of sleep over it.” After about an hour, Murray tried to adjourn the meeting but was shouted back to her seat. Wednesday night’s meeting was not as well attended as Tuesday’s, but some of Livingston’s supporters came out to speak along with some who supported the school board. Resident Dottie Connolly commended Murray for her behavior the previous night in the face of “a lot of undeserved animosity.” “I applaud the way you handled yourself,” she said. “Not many people could have handled what you did.” She compared the new board favorably to the old one, which had severely restricted public comment. Former board president John Pasichnyk often banged his gavel to shut people up during public comment sessions. “I have one question to ask you,” Connolly said, addressing Murray. “Did you wish you had a gavel last night?” Murray smiled but did not answer. Pamela Chergotis contributed to the reporting of this article.