Palmerton Area School District’s board of directors reversed course Saturday on two top personnel moves, voting 5-4 to rescind new five-year contracts that had been approved in late November for the superintendent and one of its two assistant superintendents.

The action restores Superintendent Dr. Angela Friebolin and Assistant Superintendent for Academic Programs and Technology Dr. Dan Heaney to their original three-year agreements and follows weeks of disagreement among board members and residents over how the new deals were handled.

Voting in favor of rescinding the contracts were Earl Paules, Danielle Paules, Magin Gursky, Sherry Haas and Brandon Mazepa. Meanwhile, MaryJo King, Erin Snyder, Alyson Krawchuk-Boschen and Stacy Connell voted against it.

“I have been advised not to comment on the reversal of the contract motions at this time,” Friebolin said.

Supporters of the rescission framed the move as a correction, not a punishment. Before the vote, newly elected Board President Haas addressed the room to clarify the purpose of the motions and asked that her full explanation be entered into the public record.

“No one is losing their current position,” Haas said. “They are by no means any form of retaliation for any current or pending legal issues. If these motions pass, it simply places them back on their three-year contract.”

Friebolin and Heaney were both in the early stages of their current agreements when the five-year contracts were approved last month. Friebolin took over on Dec. 2, 2024, under a contract running through June 30, 2027. That agreement set her starting salary at $135,000 for the 2024-25 school year, with yearly increases of 3.5% for the following two years.

Heaney moved into the position of Assistant Superintendent for Academic Programs and Technology in April 2025 as part of an administrative restructuring. His annual salary was set at $135,000, an increase of about $12,000 from his prior role due to expanded responsibilities, which included continuing to oversee the technology department while adding human resources duties.

Friebolin’s new five-year contract called for her to make $142,830 in 2025-26 with a 3.5% raise each year that follows through 2030-31. Heaney’s new contract called for him to make $136,350 with a 3% raise each year through 2030-31.

Haas emphasized concerns about process rather than personnel. The new contracts were introduced, drafted, and voted on in less than a month, she said.

“These motions are a result of how and when these contracts were drawn up,” Haas said. “There is nothing personal against these two persons that the contracts were drawn up for, but rather the lack of due process of including the negotiations team and the board as a whole in the process.”

The Nov. 25 approvals had passed by the same 5-4 margin although Rob Moyzan, who was on the board at the time, was replaced Saturday by Gursky, who won the seat in the general election.

Some directors said they first learned of the proposal through a text message on Nov. 5. Others questioned why the board acted a week before new members were seated.

At that meeting, Mazepa explained his opposition.

“My vote is not based on anyone’s performance,” Mazepa said. “It is based on the way that this board has handled this motion.” He also said he requested an executive session for further review but “was ignored.”

Residents raised similar objections Saturday.

Constance Banko thanked the directors who opposed the contracts and said they “did a very good job explaining why it was wrong to do this.”

She called the November actions rushed and said it “should have been a unanimous no vote.”

The board’s debate on Saturday grew tense when discussion turned to who signed the November contracts. Earl Paules, board president when the new contracts were passed, questioned the process after saying he never signed them.

“Who signed that contract? Because I’m the board president, I didn’t sign anything,” Paules said.

King, who was vice president at the time, responded that she executed the signatures while acting as board president.

“You weren’t here,” King said. “I was acting board president, and I signed it.”

Paules argued he had signed other documents under similar circumstances. King disputed his comparison.

“Under the current circumstances, you were not permitted,” King said.

The exchange grew sharper as Paules insisted he could have been contacted to sign. “Somebody could have called me and said, ‘Come and sign this,’ Paules said. “If I declined that, then the board could have said, ‘Mary Jo King, you sign that contract.’ That did not happen that way.”

As the discussion closed, the board moved to a roll-call vote and rescinded the superintendent’s contract 5-4. The following vote to rescind the assistant superintendent’s contract produced the same result.

In November, King had defended the new contracts and disputed claims that they originated with the administrators.

“This was presented by several board members asking to put this into motion,” King said. “This came up two months ago.”

Snyder argued then that retaining Friebolin under a longer agreement was financially prudent.

“Every time we lose an administrator here we have to bring in another one at a higher cost,” Snyder said. “For the most part, every single one of us has raved about how good of a job she is doing. Why would you want to lose someone that’s doing such an amazing job?”

Danielle Paules countered at that meeting that the district was in a transition period.

“The school board will be changing in December,” she said at the time.

Near the end of Saturday’s meeting, King delivered a personal statement addressing criticism she received while presiding over sessions earlier this fall during the president’s absences.

“For the past few months, I have been criticized, berated, and my integrity questioned because of the role I’ve had to take,” King said. “That is not something I asked for. As the vice president, when the president is not present at board meetings, that is the role of the vice president. The clear fact is the reason I was put in that position was by the actions of the president. Nothing I personally did.”

The Times News filed a Right-to-Know request Nov. 11 seeking “any written directives, instructions, or communications from the district’s solicitor or legal counsel representing the district advising any board member whether or not to attend the October 21, 2025 board meeting, or subsequent board meetings.”

In a written response, the district denied the request, stating the records were exempt from release. The district cited attorney-client privilege and attorney work product protections, noting the communications involved the solicitor’s legal advice to the district and its board members.

The district also referenced Section 708(b)(7)(vii) of the Pennsylvania Right-to-Know Law, stating the materials qualified as “grievance material, including documents related to discrimination or sexual harassment.”

Additionally, officials said the records related to an “ongoing, non-criminal investigation” exempt under Section 708(b)(17).