Resident raises transparency concerns under Pennsylvania Sunshine Act over unpaid disclosure of administrator contracts

A resident spoke during public comment at the March 18 meeting, saying the district has not made the contract for Dr. Billings Jones publicly available before a scheduled vote and raising broader concerns about agenda attachments and access to board packet documents.

Ronnie Lutz of East Nottingham Township told the board that withholding contract details from the public was inconsistent with the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act (commonly referenced as Act 65) and read portions of the statute’s finding language about the public’s right to notice and to attend meetings where agency business is deliberated.

Lutz also said an email he had submitted for the agenda under "correspondence" was not attached to the agenda packet on the district website and that the public cannot see expanded agenda materials without printing the expanded agenda. He argued that lack of posted attachments hampers meaningful public comment and leaves the district open to legal challenge.

Board response: A board member acknowledged receipt of Lutz’s emails and said Superintendent Patterson had reached out to the district solicitor and that the district would follow up. A board official cited a guidance source—identified at the meeting as a practical guide to the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act—and read the guide’s explanation that the Sunshine Act requires public posting of meeting agendas but does not mandate that all board packet background materials be posted with the agenda.

Additional correspondence: At the end of the meeting, the board secretary noted two items of correspondence from Ronnie Lutz on file: one regarding executive orders and compliance and another regarding the agenda.

Ending: Board staff said they would get back to the commenter after consulting the solicitor and that staff would post material as required; the board noted the request and acknowledged follow‑up would occur.