Special meeting produces no vote

EAST LIVERPOOL - No vote was held on an agreement for the East Liverpool Board of Education to lease, with the option to purchase, the WOHI Building for administrative use at a special meeting Saturday, at which the lease vote was the only board action on the agenda.

Before the start of the meeting, a petition from 19 of the district's administrators was distributed asking the board to give "thoughtful consideration" to the lease or purchase of the WOHI building and expressing their wish to stay either in the current administration building or move to Westgate. The petition listed several reasons for that wish, including a lacking of parking and lack of space for meetings at the WOHI building, as well as no handicap access on the second floor, no room for records and store, and no common work areas for things such as copy machines. "As a group that works together for the good of the district, we feel that the efficiency of our operation will be jeopardized...As we understand the finances of this project, we feel this is not a good proposal for the citizens of our district," the petition reads, adding that the district's new master plan does not provide for over 300 students in 5th and 6th grade and does not provide adequate gym space for the middle and high schools.

Following the acceptance of the agenda, board member Scott Dieringer made a motion to table the vote until the board's meeting on Thursday in light of the petition. "This changes everything in my book...Here's 19 administrators that do not want to leave the building. How do we justify leaving?" asked Dieringer.

Board president Gary Bonnell denied the motion to table the vote, saying it was his prerogative to do so, adding that the petition "is a tactic. We have set an agenda."

Dieringer also spoke of a study on mold and asbestos in the current administration building conducted by Emerald Engineering, saying that he conducts and analyzes such surveys for a living and that in reviewing the amounts listed on the survey, little to no asbestos was found in the air and that more mold spores were detected outside than inside.

Bonnell responded that the board took a vote to leave within 90 days and opened themselves up to litigation if they stay. "(The administrators) can make any claim against us," Bonnell said, adding that he had spoken to legal council and that it was their advice to leave.

"I beg to differ," with the legal council's advice that the building is a health hazard, said Dieringer.

"If it's so unsafe, why are here about every other day breathing in the air?" asked board member Janice Martin, adding that it had been 108 days since they voted to leave within 90.

Dieringer said that if the administrators wanted to leave the current building, "I would vote in a heartbeat to get out of here...If they're willing to stay there, we have this building...Why put money into another building?" Dieringer asked.

Bonnell said that the board voted to leave the building after Superintendent Ken Halbert said he and other employees were suffering health problems from being in there. Bonnell also asked if the petitioners and Halbert himself would be willing to sign a waiver that they would not sue the district over any health concerns.

"That is entirely out of line. I resent that you would put our superintendent in an untenable position," said board member Larry Walton.

Board member Robert Estell said that it would not matter if any of the petitioners signed a waiver because the district was already liable and could be sued for negligence.

After much heated discussion about the vote, further arguments ensued over whether or not the matter could be tabled or whether the meeting could be adjourned without a vote, since a motion to vote had been made and seconded, then discussed. Halbert, who said that due to the unusual circumstance of it being a special meeting with only one action item and therefore "uncharted territory," briefly left the room to consult with a source over the rules that govern the board but said after the meeting that his source was not available.

At one point during the discussion, Walton called for the vote to take place, which Halbert said normally would have resulted in the vote being held right then. The discussion continued, however, and Halbert reiterated after the meeting that in relation to the rules of the board, it was a situation he had never been in before, and therefore he made the recommendation that the board take a vote to adjourn the meeting.

"When it was obvious there would not be a vote, we just got out of there as well as we could," said Halbert. "It just seemed the best thing for the board."

Dieringer said that he wanted it to be stated that the building is a health hazard before Thursday's meeting, and Bonnell said he would have a legal opinion by that time.