At the March 19 meeting resident Robert Flanagan Bay pressed the board for clarification about changes to the district organizational chart, specifically why the PIMS (PIMS coordinator/supervisor) position is shown under the Technology Department rather than under the business office as it had been in earlier charts.

"When will it be corrected to view the chart as a whole on one page? The only change that I know was added ... the PIMS supervisor position ... formerly known as the PIMS coordinator position. What purpose does it serve to have the PIMS supervisor position under the technology department?" Flanagan Bay asked. He said PIMS is responsible for collecting district data that goes to the state and that the business manager historically handled that role in the district.

School leaders and a district staff speaker responded during the public exchange that PIMS is a technical, data-centered role and that an increasing number of districts place PIMS under technology because of the data and computing requirements; a staff speaker said PIMS is a relatively new position in some districts and that the Pennsylvania School Boards Association advises not embedding an organizational chart in policy because it changes frequently.

Online commenter John Jeffers raised three items: whether it is permissible for a board member to serve as a borough manager (he said he has not received clarification), why the RFP for a new solicitor was removed from the board agenda, and the district's reported fiscal swing from a $14 million surplus to a $9 million deficit, asking the board to explain how that change occurred.

Ending: Board members said the organizational-chart location could be clarified by the superintendent and that questions about executive-session votes and severance pay would be addressed in accordance with what can be disclosed from executive sessions and posted minutes.