Board tables superintendent contract vote as public raises questions about $9 million budget shortfall and raises

The William Penn School District Board of Directors on March 24 postponed a vote on a proposed employment contract for Superintendent Dr. Eric B. Coats as community members and union leaders demanded answers about an estimated $9 million shortfall tied to special‑education personal care assistant (PCA) invoices and questioned recent administrator raises.

Board President Boykins announced the motion would be tabled “because we are waiting for information from a third party entity. So we want to ensure that the information that we are providing to the public is accurate. So we are tabling this motion at this time.” The draft contract presented to the board specified a start date of May 18, 2025, a three‑year term through May 17, 2028, and an initial annual salary of $230,000 with further increases beginning July 2026; the board postponed action while it awaits outside review.

Why it matters: speakers at the meeting tied the contract discussion to a recently disclosed district deficit that community members and staff say has led to cuts in services and staffing, late buses, canceled vendors and anxiety among teachers and families. The William Penn Education Association urged the board to hold “proper accountability for these actions, not rewards,” saying teachers and aides are being asked to do more with less after the district discovered the budget shortfall.

Public comment, union statement and requests for investigation

Several residents and union representatives used the board’s public‑comment period to demand an explanation and urged the board not to renew the superintendent’s contract. Andrea Fink, president of the William Penn Education Association, told the board, “We do not have all the facts, and the board needs to ensure there is proper accountability for these actions, not rewards.”

Lansdowne resident Joe Martino asked the board directly, “I wanna understand when did the board know?” and pressed whether the board had been informed before district administrators placed pay increases on the agenda. Michael Markiewicz of Lansdowne asked the board to open a criminal investigation if the district could not produce satisfactory explanations for irregular payments: “I would request that a criminal investigation be conducted, unless better answers are provided.”

Union and parent accounts at the meeting described operational failures they link to the shortfall: educators cited cuts to academic interventionists, changes to health‑care provisions reported to staff, and reductions in student supports. A parent speaker and multiple commenters said the financial decisions have had direct effects on students’ daily experience, including availability of late buses and building maintenance.

District response, staffing and audit work

Superintendent Dr. Eric B. Coats, appearing remotely, said he has been taking steps to address the fiscal issues since learning of them and that prior business‑office staff had responsibility for the financial reports that informed budgeting. He said the district performed an annual audit that did not find evidence of theft and that consultants who reviewed the books did not recommend a forensic audit. Coats pointed to recent grant work he said brought state and federal dollars to the district and credited efforts that expanded technology access and supported capital projects. “I have been taking notes all night long,” he said, declining to comment further while an out‑of‑state family matter kept him from attending in person.

Board action and next steps

The board formally tabled the superintendent employment contract motion while it awaits information from a third party. Board members announced a budget advisory meeting for April 17 to provide more detailed financial transparency and invited residents to the meeting. The board also acknowledged that a former business manager and an assistant business manager had resigned earlier in the budget review process; the board said interim steps were taken to secure outside financial review.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to approve superintendent employment contract for Dr. Eric B. Coats (three‑year term beginning 05/18/2025; initial salary specified at $230,000; further increases beginning July 2026): Motion tabled pending third‑party information (outcome: tabled). - Motion to approve agenda for March 24, 2025 business meeting: approved (outcome: approved). - Motion to approve February 24, 2025 business‑meeting minutes: approved (outcome: approved). - Motion to approve minutes from the March 6 policy meeting and committee minutes (03/18/2025): approved (outcome: approved). - Education committee motions (release and settlement; state and out‑of‑state field trips for Pennwood High School, Walnut Tree Elementary and Aldan Elementary): approved (outcome: approved). - Budget and finance motions (list of bills; Delaware County Intermediate Unit general operating and special education budgets; tax settlement; Delaware County Technical Schools budget): approved (outcome: approved). - Policy committee motions (first readings and second readings of listed policy amendments): approved (outcome: approved). - Reappointment of Delaware County Community College trustees (six‑year terms): approved (outcome: approved).

What was not decided: The board did not vote to renew or extend the superintendent’s contract at the March 24 meeting. Several speakers demanded forensic accounting or criminal investigation of alleged overpayments; district leaders said outside auditors did not recommend forensic review and that the annual audit showed no evidence of theft. Members of the public asked specifically who placed raises on the agenda and when the board was notified; those questions remain under review.

Community reaction and next steps

Residents, parents and the union said the decision to table the contract was necessary but not sufficient. The WPEA asked the board to pursue accountability measures and to apply any future compensation changes consistently to district staff. The board scheduled the budget advisory meeting for April 17 and indicated the district would provide updates at committee meetings. Several public commenters said they will continue to press for transparency, attend budget and personnel committee meetings and consider electoral options if they are dissatisfied with the board’s response.

Ending

The vote to table gives the board time to review third‑party material and to respond at subsequent committee and public meetings. The board invited stakeholders to the budget advisory meeting on April 17 and said more detailed financial reports would be provided in upcoming sessions.