Photographer sues C-M over contract
Notice: Undefined variable: article_ad_placement3 in /usr/web/cs-washington.ogdennews.com/wp-content/themes/News_Core_2023_WashCluster/single.php on line 128
A Canonsburg photography company said it has little to smile about after accusing Canon-McMillan officials of unfairly awarding its contract to another school photographer.
Mirisciotti Photography, owned and operated by Clifford and Frankie Newell, filed a lawsuit in Washington County Court Wednesday alleging Canon-McMillan School Board and district administrators wrongly gave the school contract to Redford Photography after deliberating behind closed doors.
The company said it was baffled by the May 20 decision to award the contact to Redford since it has conducted photography services for the school district since 1955.
The couple also alleges an administrative recommendation to hire Redford was merely “a ruse intended to deflect attention” away from the school board’s decision.
“The actions of the school board have caused and continue to cause irreparable loss of good will and financial harm,” according to the lawsuit.
Superintendent Mike Daniels did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment on the lawsuit.
The lawsuit points to a side-by-side comparison of rates between Mirisciotti and Redford that appear to show a sizeable difference in school portraits and dance photos. In every category, Mirisciotti has lower or comparable prices to its competitor in Cecil Township, the lawsuit claims.
Moreover, Mirisciotti insinuates a scholarship donation or fundraising donation offered by Redford might have swayed the decision. Redford offered the school district an annual $5,000 scholarship or giving 15 percent in pretax donations. The lawsuit claims such an offer was never detailed in the bidding requirements and put the Canonsburg photography studio at an unfair disadvantage.
But the most stunning claim might be that the school district violated the state’s Sunshine Law by deliberating the proposal and awarding the contract behind closed doors. The company claims the administration was “on a course to steer the contract to a particular vendor.”
The suit is seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction against the contract, legal fees and compensation “for the losses stemming from the improper award.”