Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Board Governance Legal topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board rejects motion to add Jack Fisher’s resolutions amid active court cases and binding OCR agreement

5843956 · September 19, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The school board voted 2–6 to decline adding two resolutions proposed by Jack Fisher to the meeting agenda, citing ongoing court cases and a binding Office for Civil Rights (OCR) agreement; legal counsel argued federal case law controls Title IX compliance.

The Delaware Valley School District Board of Education voted in a roll-call ballot to decline adding two resolutions proposed by board member Jack Fisher to the agenda, citing active litigation and a binding agreement with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR).

During discussion, several board members said recent court cases — including litigation reaching higher federal courts — made it premature to adopt the resolutions. One board member said the board had already discussed the matter publicly and preferred to “wait and discuss and vote on this again when some of those cases have made it through the courts and there have been some rulings.”

Legal counsel advised the board that federal case law controlling Title IX interpretations is the governing authority for the district’s compliance position. Counsel said that while executive-branch orders exist, “the federal case law is the strong law that will control,” and noted that the district operates under a binding OCR agreement that it cannot “deliberately relinquish.”

The board proceeded to a roll-call vote to add Jack Fisher’s resolutions to the evening’s approvals. The results recorded on the record were: Christine Agron — No; Mandy Colville — No; Jessica Decker — No; Brian Bells — Yes; Jack Fisher — Yes; Anne Lutte — No; Felicia Sheehan — No; Rosemary Walsh — No. The motion failed, 2–6.

Board participants characterized the action as withholding agenda inclusion pending court rulings and further legal review; no policy change occurred during the meeting.