A vote is planned Thursday on a new collective bargaining agreement between Lehighton Area School District and its teachers union, but as of Monday night, the public had not seen a word of it.

The debate ensued during the district’s workshop meeting Monday, when board member David Bradley pressed administrators on whether residents would have any opportunity to review the contract before the board acts on it.

“Will the public have the opportunity to review that CBA prior to Thursday’s meeting so they can be fully informed to make public comments?” Bradley asked.

The answer, at least legally, is that the district is not required to show it to anyone.

“It doesn’t matter if it’s legally right to do so,” director Jeremy Glaush said. “It’s morally right.”

District solicitor Jeff Sultanik acknowledged the tension but drew a clear line between legal obligation and moral counsel.

“Very few people go to their lawyers for moral advice,” he said. “There are other people who are far better at moral advice than lawyers. I’m just telling you legally, you don’t need to do it. If you want moral advice, you should talk to your local minister, preacher, rabbi, whoever.”

Sultanik said posting the agreement publicly before a union ratification vote could create problems.

“The general rule of thumb is, and usually the mediator specifies, that a board should not post and make public a tentative agreement or a collective bargaining agreement until the union has an opportunity to engage in the ratification process,” Sultanik said.

The teachers union is expected to hold its ratification vote Wednesday. Superintendent Jason Moser told the board the contract could be posted to the district’s website immediately after that vote.

“I just don’t think that gives the public enough time to look it over,” director Denise Hartley said.

Several board members agreed, with one raising the possibility of pushing the Thursday vote to the following week.

“If we postpone the meeting past Thursday, what are the ramifications?” director Jeremy Glaush asked. “Why can’t we allow the public to have a view of the contract for a couple of days until next week?”

A ticking clock on employee health insurance enrollment, officials said, complicates any effort to delay.

“We have significant impacts to the open enrollment period, which is scheduled to begin on Monday,” Moser said.

Sultanik said the contract’s health benefit provisions are time-sensitive in ways that go beyond the vote itself.

“Any modifications to the plan design or premium share must be included in the open enrollment process, or if that gets delayed, you will not be able to implement it by July 1, which is your plan year,” he said. “We are already at the cusp of being late to implement health benefit changes as of July 1.”

The stakes of further delay, he added, are financial.

“You will then lose the dollar benefits that were accruing as part of the open enrollment process. There will be a definite monetary loss,” he said.

Hartley questioned whether the district could simply move the open enrollment start date to buy more time.

“It normally takes three months to make health benefit changes with a carrier, and we’re already late in the implementation,” Sultanik said. “You could theoretically do that, but you’re not going to be able to take the benefit of the health benefit savings that have been negotiated.”

Board President Alex Matika said the financial and procedural consequences of delay outweighed the concerns about public review time.

“If it’s going to cost the district extra money and possibly disrupt the faith that the bargaining unit has in the negotiation process, I think it’s a bad idea for us to postpone it further,” he said.

The broader question of public input during contract negotiations also came under scrutiny Monday night. Bradley asked whether the district’s negotiating committee had engaged residents during the bargaining process.

“They (residents) were quite aware who was on the committee and quite aware we were in the midst of negotiations,” Glaush, who was on the board’s bargaining team, said.