In a late meeting prepared statement Monday, Lehighton Area School District director David Bradley accused the board president of blocking the group’s legally required evaluation of Superintendent Jason Moser.

Bradley distributed printed copies of his statement to all board members present before beginning to read.

“The board of school directors is part of the government agency that takes full responsibility for staff hiring, firing, oversight, overall performance, and the agency’s financial efficiency,” Bradley said.

Monday’s meeting ended without formal board action.

During Bradley’s prepared statement, which was on a topic not on Lehighton’s agenda, a majority of board members voted to adjourn the meeting and several left the building.

He cited two provisions of Pennsylvania School Code he said the board is obligated to follow: Section 321, which he described as requiring board members to act with fidelity, and Section 10-1073-1, which requires the annual evaluation of a superintendent.

“Our school code requires us to act with fidelity,” Bradley said. “Black’s Law Dictionary defines fidelity as faithfulness, loyalty, trust, and an obligation to the people and to the board; basically the opposite of being unaware and uninformed.”

Bradley argued the evaluation process currently underway was flawed, contending the board was using a form from the Pennsylvania School Boards Association, which he called a third-party lobbying organization rather than one grounded in the Pennsylvania Department of Education’s school code requirements. He said the board needed to collect data, deliberate on it publicly, and then meet privately to conduct a proper performance evaluation.

The confrontation drew in Solicitor Jeff Sultanik, who was asked to weigh in. Sultanik confirmed the legal obligation is real.

“It is the board’s obligation to annually evaluate the superintendent in accordance with his contract and in accordance with state law,” Sultanik said.

Board member Jeremy Glaush, while not disputing that obligation, said he saw no problem with the evaluation form the board had been using.

“It is our job to evaluate them, and we can make decisions based on what we hear in the community, what we see at the meetings, and what we gather in discussion,” Glaush said. “I don’t see a problem in the form that we have.”

Board President Alex Matika told the board he had sent out the evaluation form approximately three weeks prior and was waiting for all members to respond before proceeding.

Bradley accused the majority of the board of having “actively blocked knowledgeable community members, staff, and even fellow members of this board from information needed prior to making an informed decision” — a pattern he said extended beyond the evaluation dispute.

He also referenced past legal action against the district, including what he described as a prior student hazing incident that resulted in settlements, depositions in the courthouse, and what he characterized as a lack of board accountability.

Moser was not Lehighton’s superintendent at the time of the hazing incident.

“I am happy that the superintendent at the time was let go,” Bradley said. “It looks like many staff hid behind the board’s plausible deniability while the facts are out there in black and white.”