Local Security Contractor Issued New School Contract
By Jonathan Weaver
A local security company hired in February by Armstrong School District board directors was issued another contract effective last night.
In February 2014, school board directors first approved the non-statutory school police officers contract with Armstrong Lock and Security in Kittanning at a rate of $25 per hour. Another contract was issued after the beginning of the school year, and another unanimously approved at last night’s regular meeting. Region I Board Director James Rearic was absent.
School Superintendent Stan Chapp praised the security contractors.
“Armstrong Lock and Security has done an excellent job – we’re very happy with them. They’re committed to maintaining the integrity of the building to make sure there isn’t anybody on the job site that isn’t supposed to be there. They work around-the-clock to make sure,” Chapp said. “They’ve done an excellent job, not only at the construction site, but also working throughout the district to provide security.
“They’re very professional and very thorough.”
About a dozen security officers, led by business founders Tom Burke and Mike Bramlet (who also secure school board public meetings) are able to patrol all schools and athletic events in the district
Last year, Armstrong School District received a $40,000 grant through the state Department of Education to enhance security efforts. Security personnel are able to patrol all schools in the district
School Board President Joseph Close also thought Armstrong Lock and Security personnel indeed were providing the level of security needed, and he said the district hoped it could further expand security as funding permits.
Before the regular meeting, board directors met in executive session to discuss personnel and student confidentiality items, as well as a vandalism investigation – which could have been due to a recent criminal report filed by the State Police in Kittanning.
According to that report, a black pick-up truck spun its tires on the West Shamokin High School football field and soccer fields during the weekend, leaving about $3,000 worth of property damage.
After student representatives and board directors were recognized during “School Board Recognition Night,” Ford City Senior Representative Lauren Pyle voiced her safety concerns about the board’s decision to have varsity, junior high and team football squads play at Kittanning High School’s David “Red” Ullom Field this fall.
“Kittanning’s locker room and weight room are in better condition than those at Ford City – but as far as safety, this “Plan B” is a mistake. And it’s a matter of time before somebody gets hurt,” Pyle said.
“At the last Ford City – Kittanning (football) game, I watched a player from Ford City hit a Kittanning player into the fence. Luckily, neither players were hurt – but what if they had been? Or a cheerleader or somebody standing in the way wouldn’t’ have gotten out quick enough? It could have been broken bones, concussions or even life-altering injuries like paralysis caused by that fence.”
Pyle said she saw her friend – a fellow cheerleader –nearly suffer a broken ankle two years ago.
“There’s no reason Triple-A schools should be playing on that field when there’s a better alternative. A safer alternative,” Pyle concluded.
Pyle cited National Federation of High School Football 2012 handbook regulations– which she stated any school in the Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association (PIAA) must adhere to.
Close said board members respected Pyle’s concerns and will take them under advisement for possible reconsideration.
Armstrong School District | jweaver January 13, 2015
By Riverhawk92, January 13, 2015 @ 10:10 AM
I Agree that the Kittanning Football Field is too small not only as a playing surface, but as a fan you feel like a sardine.
By worthingtonman, January 13, 2015 @ 9:42 PM
I don’t remember this young lady or anyone else campaigning to not have Ford City play at Kittannings field in October.football is a violent sport. Every parent that allows their child to suit and play realize that and accept the fact that any of the injuries the young lady says could happen by the fence, could happen in any play, at any portion of the field. Does it really matter that much where the kids play at? Parents these days kill me. The district already caters too much to these parents with hauling the kids to and from practice. I don’t seem to remember these activity buses when I was in school.
By bob, January 14, 2015 @ 8:30 AM
Worthingtonman,
I agree that there are many injury risks with football. The question is, why add to those risks by choosing the inferior field? Injuries due to that fence not just to the players, but to anyone standing on the sidelines. 2002(?) I think was the year Kitt/F.C. started playing against each other after a few years off. The first thing I noticed was that fence and even commented to the people I was with about how close it was to the playing field and the safety issue. One of the cheerleaders did get knocked into it by a player before the end of the game and hobbled out early. There was no option to but to use that field at the time. There is an option now to use a nicer, larger, safer field. And I would like to add as someone who attends games, there is much more room to move around @the Ford Cliff site. It would be nice to not have to try to get through a crowd packed like sardines (as Riverhawk pointed out) just to get to the restroom or concession. But more important once again, less injury risk to players and anyone on the sidelines during the game.
By Elderton Parent, January 14, 2015 @ 9:12 AM
worthingtonman, back in the day when my siblings and I were in school (different district), we had activity buses. And back then, usually, dads worked and moms stayed home with the kids. In today’s world, both parents work and there are a lot of single parents.
I would much rather see my tax dollars for education and “hauling kids to and from practice” than it being spent on outrageous admin and teacher salaries, paving the parking lot at West Hills, or a $10 million sports complex.
The powers that be tend to forget that it should be all about the students and not their own political agenda.
I’m sure you will have an argument back, but it is reality.
By Rat_Smeller, January 15, 2015 @ 12:21 PM
@worthingtonman - The issue is this, The fence is perilously close to the sideline. In the past Kittanning did not have a choice of where to play their home playoff games. They had to play them at the existing field which has no room for expansion and no parking along with that dangerous fence. With consolidation, the district had a choice of where to play the home football games. Either in Kittanning with the dangerous fence, no parking and no room for expansion - Or Ford City with no dangerous fence, ample parking and room to add more if need be and ample room for expansion if desired. Its not about “Small minded rivalry”. In this instance Its about player safety and common sense planning. Yep, football is a dangerous game. injuries (some of them critical) happen to football players. However, the next time a kid gets hurt by being plowed into that fence at the Kittanning field can be prevented right now. However, the board (of which most are from the Kittanning area) in its short sightedness chose to ignore.
By worthingtonman, January 16, 2015 @ 5:14 PM
My question was and remains, where were the concerns about this fence in the past? How many injuries have been caused by the fence. My point was that no matter what, if this board decides to play the games at the kittanning field, there will remain problems. The board members again find themselves in a no win situation. The same old folks on this board are playing the Kittanning favorite card. Personally, I will not be attending any games in the near future, so where they play is not important to me. I just like to point out the hypocrisy. Ford City is like three miles from Kittanning. It really is like the same place anymore folks. maybe the Boris should merger. Now that would be progress.
By bob, January 19, 2015 @ 9:41 AM
I can’t speak for everyone, but I just assumed the Ford Cliff location would be the one used for the football games. More room and no fence butted up against the field seems to make this a more desirable location. If others assumed the same, then they were also probably taken by surprise by the boards decision. There were no public comments prior to the vote for anyone to voice concerns about this. I guess I assumed the fence issue was a well known concern and I for one was relieved @ the last football game that we were done using that field. I guess I’m a bit clueless.
By forward, January 19, 2015 @ 11:58 PM
Perhaps we are missing something here…. is it possible that the decision to use the Kittanning field was made on purpose ???!!!
Maybe just to get people stirred up about the safety issue with the fence, stirred up about parking and other things so that people would be more receptive about the ten million dollar sports facility we will pay for !!?? Maybe some would be stirred up enough to demand it !!??
Psychology perhaps, just perhaps.
By bob, January 21, 2015 @ 9:24 PM
@ forward,
Actually, I was wondering that myself. Oh, and don’t forget it will only be 7 million instead of 10.