Ellwood School Board Amends Academic Competition Policy

Controversy ensued at Thursday’s Ellwood City Area School Board meeting when the board voted to approve amendments to its academic competition policy. The amendments were requested by board member Renee Pitrelli to better promote students involved in competitions.

According to Pitrelli, the new policy will enable the district to support academics as much as athletics and leadership.

Board members Jennifer Tomon and Danielle Woodhead believed the amendments were too vague and requested tabling the motion in order to polish the language.

The amendment requires the district to pay all the travel expenses for students in statewide and national competitions, while previously the district only footed half the costs. In addition, the district’s policy previously limited students to one chaperone and prohibited a student from attending more than one state and one national competition in any school year. Both these limitations were removed.

Tomon and Woodhead feared the new policy could require the district to pay inordinate travel costs incurred from plane tickets, hotel stays, gas mileage, food and other expenses. Both believed the motion needed reworded to be more specific and correct errors.

However, other board members countered that the superintendent, Joe Mancini, still had to approve all travel budges and that the policy was similar to ones in place for athletic competition travel.

Board president Mike Neupauer and board member LeRoy Cortez agreed with Tomon and Woodhead that the amendments could be polished, resulting in the board voting on a motion to table the original motion.

“If we don’t need the policy ready in the next 30 days, let’s take time to clean up the language,” Neupauer said.

However, this motion failed 5-4 and the board proceeded to vote on the original amendment. Cortez and Neupauer approved the amendments, resulting in a 7-2 vote as Tomon and Woodhead remained opposed.

Pitrelli and board member Kathleen McCommons felt voting on the amendment came down to supporting or not supporting academic competitions, while Tomon and Woodhead stressed their opposition was based on the language on the amendment, not the spirit.