A divided Palmerton Area School District board voted 5-4 on Tuesday night to approve new five-year contracts for both Superintendent Dr. Angela Friebolin and Assistant Superintendent Dr. Daniel Heaney, moving ahead with a resignation-and-reappointment structure that drew public criticism over timing, transparency and whether the board should act during a lame-duck period.

Friebolin and Heaney are both in the early stages of their current agreements. 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 contract calls for her to make $142,830 in 2025-26 with a 3.5% raise each year that follows through 2030-31. Heaney’s contract calls for him to make $136,350 with a 3% raise each year through 2030-31.

“Dr. Heaney and I are proud employees of the Palmerton Area School District,” Friebolin said after the vote. “We are grateful for and humbled by the confidence the board has placed in us, and we look forward to providing years of steady leadership and vision to support the students and staff of our district.”

Palmerton resident Jenna McHugh asked the board “to provide some clarity on this for the public, because after seeing this on the agenda many of our public do not understand what it actually means.”

“If the public does not understand the agenda, they cannot meaningfully participate, and that’s a problem, especially before you take a vote for it,” she said. “Traditionally, superintendent contract discussions occur after at least several years, often three, so there is sufficient data to evaluate performance. Why are we rushing this after only a year?”

Friebolin and Heaney, board vice-president MaryJo King said, did not ask for the new contracts.

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

Director Sherry Haas said the first time the new contracts were mentioned to the board as a whole was in a text message on Nov. 5.

Both votes fell along the same 5-4 line, with King, Erin Snyder, Stacey Connell, Rob Moyzan and Alyson Krawchuk-Boschen in favor. Earl Paules, Danielle Paules, Haas and Brandon Mazepa voted no.

“My vote is not based on anyone’s performance,” Mazepa said. “It is based on the way that this board has handled this motion.”

Mazepa said he asked for an executive session on Nov. 11 to discuss contract details but “was ignored.”

“I’m disappointed in that,” he said.

Snyder, who voted in favor of both contracts, said the cost of finding a new superintendent is costly and this provided an opportunity to lock in an administrator for five years.

“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 have raved about how good of a job (Friebolin) is doing. Why would you want to lose someone that’s doing such an amazing job?”

Director Danielle Paules read a statement Tuesday arguing that the district was in a lame-duck period because “the school board will be changing in December.”

Palmerton’s board will largely have the same personnel but Magin Gursky will be replacing Rob Moyzan with a seat at the table.

“The current board cannot contractually bind the next board, and any contracts that may be on the agenda for today’s meeting are subjected to the lame-duck limitations,” Paules said. “Voting on and binding the next board to these contracts if they exceed the term that expires in December of the current board is improper and could subject the school district to liability. Improperly voted on contracts during lame-duck status may be rescinded when the incoming board takes office.”

Solicitor David Conn responded to questions from both the public and board members and said the motions did not constitute extensions.

“This is not a renewal or a contract extension,” Conn said. “The reason that the motions are structured this way is that it will essentially be a new five-year contract. The resolution has both the superintendent and one of the assistant superintendents resigning and then creating a vacancy and then getting appointed to a new five-year contract.”

Concerns

Reading from the proposed contracts, Haas said the motions should not combine a resignation and appointment into a single action.

“Pennsylvania courts talk about the need for a wall of division between different administrative functions to eliminate the threat or appearance of bias,” Haas said. “Combining the end of one contract, which is a resignation, with the beginning of a new one or motion, particularly for the same individual, can raise concerns about due process and proper procedure.”

Haas said the superintendent contract offered “a 3.5% increase every school year through 2031.”

“There has been no discussion as a board for any new contracts,” she added. “ As far as I understand, there was not even a discussion among our negotiating team. We were directed by counsel that the way we are doing this does not meet school code.”