Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Partnerships topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
McKeesport speakers, board members dispute handling of Dick’s Sporting Goods Foundation program
Summary
Citizens and several board members clashed at the McKeesport Area School District meeting over the district’s relationship with the Dick’s Sporting Goods Foundation, with residents calling for transparency and some board members defending past and present actions. No formal policy change or vote was taken.
Teresa Trish, a Carmela Drive resident, urged the McKeesport Area School District board on June 11 to put students first and criticized board members for what she called neglect and secrecy over a multi-year partnership with the Dick’s Sporting Goods Foundation.
Trish said the foundation had asked the district for financial documentation and was rebuffed, and she called for either the resignation of board member Mark Holtzman or a vote of no confidence if the district wanted Dick’s to return. “Dix is willing to come back. We can have Dix back in our school district serving our kids with two simple steps,” Trish said, listing financial transparency and Holtzman’s resignation as her conditions.
Board members and other speakers disputed elements of that account during an extended public discussion. The board president said at the meeting that no one on the board had told Dick’s not to return and described media coverage and an excerpted email as taken out of context. “At no time as Dick’s Sporting Goods Foundation ever spoke to me about any finances, about anything whatsoever,” the board president said, calling some claims “a complete false, fair faced lie.”
Several board members pushed back on Trish’s assertion that no one on the board would meet with Dick’s. One board member said he and others had offered to meet with Dick’s representatives and with elected officials, and noted that a state senator’s office had offered assistance. Another board member described the dispute as political and said the district has followed the memorandum of understanding currently in place.
Speakers also debated how the original program was approved and whether adequate documentation exists from three years ago when Dick’s first provided services in school buildings. A district official told the board the district received “approximately 3 and a half million dollars” over the time Dick’s operated in the schools and that those funds were designated for specific purposes. Board members said some parts of the program were put in place before the current administration added stricter documentation requirements for facility use and contractors.
Several board members and citizens described the services Dick’s provided—washers and dryers, clothing and food, and wraparound supports—as beneficial to students; others questioned whether having community laundry and shower services in elementary schools posed security or logistics challenges. “They were providing clean clothes for kids who might not have had it,” one speaker said, noting that social supports and academics were linked in discussion but that test scores remain a concern.
No formal motion, vote or policy change regarding the Dick’s program was recorded at the June 11 meeting. Multiple board members said they would pursue clearer, written agenda motions and documentation for any future facility or program agreements so the record would show board approval going forward.
The discussion drew frequent interruptions and emotional exchanges from the public-comment microphone; several speakers requested transparency and recordkeeping for past and future agreements. The board’s leadership said it will require written plans and motions for any new or renewed facility use agreements so decisions are on the record.
Community impact and next steps cited at the meeting included: the potential return of Dick’s programming if documentation and relationships can be resolved; possible legal or petition actions mentioned by citizens; and internal follow-up steps from board committees to ensure future facility uses and third-party partnerships are approved by formal motion.
Ending: The board did not adopt new policy or take formal action on the Dick’s Sporting Goods Foundation partnership at the June 11 meeting. Citizens and board members left the session signaling continued disagreement about past handling and a shared interest, expressed by several members, in improving documentation and placing future program decisions on the public agenda.
