Lehighton Area School District’s board of directors voted 5-4 Monday to advance a proposed governance policy that would streamline how individual board members communicate with the district’s solicitor.

Under the policy, requests to contact the solicitor would need to be “authorized by board action or the board president/vice-president in accordance with board bylaws.”

A motion to table the proposal failed 5-4. The board then approved Policy 010 on first reading by the same margin.

Voting in favor were Alex Matika, Tim Tkach, Lori Frey, William Howland and Heather Neff. Opposed were Jeremy Glaush, Joy Beers, Dave Bradley and Denise Hartley.

The proposed policy, titled “Governance Policy on Board Member Communications and Information Requests,” would make the superintendent the “sole point of contact for board member inquiries, requests for information or documents, and operational communications.”

Individual board members would be prohibited from directly contacting administrators, employees, vendors or the district solicitor regarding district operations.

Under the policy, board members “are not authorized to directly contact, direct, or make requests of district administrators, employees, or vendors, including the district solicitor’s office or other legal counsel, regarding district operations, records, services, or decision-making.” All such requests must be submitted in writing to the superintendent and copied to the board president and vice president.

Cost control

Board President Alex Matika said the proposal is intended to organize communication and control costs.

“Essentially, it streamlines communication for directors who are requesting information from administrators through the superintendent and streamlines requests to the solicitor through either the president or vice president,” Matika said. “In the absence of approval through them, it would require a full majority vote of the board.”

He said the policy is not intended to exclude anyone.

“The intent of this policy is simply to funnel communications in an efficient and cost-effective manner, without changing current practice and without shutting out any board members,” Matika said.

Questions were raised about where the language originated. Matika said the district’s solicitor at Fox Rothschild LLP provided the draft and that it was based on a policy used by the Whitehall-Coplay School District.

Board member David Bradley said the proposal could prevent minority members from obtaining legal information.

“In the event of a split board — 5 to 4 — the majority would have the ability to block the minority from getting information from the solicitor,” Bradley said. “Each individual director has access to the solicitor. They work for the board as a whole, but they also work for the individual directors.”

Bradley cited a state court ruling on board members’ responsibilities.

“The Pennsylvania State Supreme Court said that every individual director has an affirmative duty to be fully informed,” Bradley said. “If you’re restricting access to the solicitor, you’re restricting that ability.”

Appeal process

The policy outlines an appeal process in which a board member whose request is denied may ask the board president or vice president to place the matter on a future agenda. The full board may then, by majority vote, direct the superintendent to produce documents, subject to legal constraints.

It also includes provisions stating that no request will be granted if, “in the reasonable professional judgment of the Superintendent or designee,” it could violate student or employee due process rights or disclose protected information, including attorney-client privileged communications or records protected under federal student privacy law.

Violations of the policy could result in “informal counseling, written admonition, censure, removal from committee or liaison assignments, or referral to appropriate authorities,” according to the draft.

During public comment, residents questioned the limitations on solicitor access.

“I do not understand why we have a school board that does not have a solicitor present at meetings,” Autumn Abelovsky said. “Every member of the school board should have the right to contact the solicitor. If you’re making decisions, you need to do so in an educated manner.”

Another resident criticized the structure of the proposal.

“I think Policy 010 puts the cart before the horse,” Roy James said. “Information gathering is the first part. The motion comes second. With this policy in place, the motion comes first and the information is put second.”

Board member Jeremy Glaush moved to table the policy to allow additional discussion.

“I would like to table this and bring it back at the next workshop so we can discuss it fully and possibly come up with changes that make it acceptable to everyone,” Glaush said.

The motion failed, and the board approved the policy on first reading. Matika said additional discussion can occur before a final vote.

“Passing this on first reading does not preclude further discussion,” he said. “The intent is to streamline communication in an efficient and cost-effective way.”

The policy will return to the board for a second reading and potential final adoption at a future meeting.