The Lehighton Area School District Board of School Directors rejected a policy Wednesday night that would have required board members to get permission before visiting district schools.

The rejection sparked debate over whether such restrictions conflict with Pennsylvania law.

Policy 012, titled “School Director Visits to Schools,” failed on a 3-6 vote. Board members Joy Beers, David Bradley and Jeremy Glaush voted in favor, while Heather Neff, Timothy Tkach, Lory Frey, Denise Hartley, William Howland and Alex Matika voted against it.

The defeat left unresolved questions about what authority board members have to enter school buildings and whether any formal procedures will govern their visits.

“This doesn’t mean we will not have any policy in the future,” Board President Alex Matika said. “It just means we will not have Policy 012, as written. We are looking to neighboring school districts and not reinventing the wheel. We want to find something that allows for reasonable access without allowing for overreach.”

The proposed policy would have required directors to notify the superintendent and building administrator before visiting schools and wait for acknowledgment. It would have limited unescorted director visits to 10 per week district-wide, with no single visit exceeding half a school day. Directors also would have needed to complete child abuse and criminal background clearances to visit without an administrative escort.

Following the vote, Lehighton parent Autumn Abelovsky asked whether board members now have unrestricted access to schools.

“Am I correct in understanding that without having a policy in place, any school board member has access to go to any school right now as they wish?” she asked.

One response indicated access would be coordinated through the superintendent. But resident Ryan Bowman challenged that interpretation, arguing Pennsylvania law grants directors broader authority as fiduciaries of the school district.

“The law says that any of these directors as a fiduciary for this school district can walk into any building at any given time,” he said. “The word shall is mandatory. That is what is used in there. You have unfettered access to this school district at any given time. Classrooms are a different story. Student confidentiality is a different story.”

Bowman called restrictions on director building access “absolutely preposterous” and suggested any such policy would not withstand legal challenge.

“I would encourage that if that policy was passed, that the school district directors challenge that in a court of law, because that would never hold,” he said. “That is absurd to even put that on the table.”

But another speaker expressed support for formal procedures.

“I am not opposed to school directors having access to the schools. I believe it is your job to do it,” Abelovsky said. She noted concerns about terminology in the policy and argued it would provide an “extra bit of protection on the school board member and the students.”

“Without it, there is no policing of what could happen or what will happen,” she added.

During discussion, Frey cited another district’s experience. Frey said she contacted an administrative assistant at Upper Perkiomen School District, who reported that district no longer allows board members free access to school buildings.

“They had stopped doing that because it was interfering with students and interfering with teachers, and also it brought up several security issues,” she said.

The rejected policy would have required directors to enter through main entrances and display district-issued identification badges. It outlined areas directors could not access, including student nursing suites, cafeteria kitchens and meetings between students and counselors or special education staff. Directors would have been prohibited from bringing guests, conducting investigations of staff or student misconduct, or intervening in ongoing discipline issues.

The policy stated its purpose was to enable the board to “observe matters under their jurisdiction including district activities, educational programs, property conditions or operations to enable them to make better informed decisions when the need arises.”

Under the proposed policy, intentional failure to comply would have resulted in a written warning for a first offense, with further measures including possible temporary or permanent suspension of visiting privileges for continued non-compliance.