Saucon Valley board majority issues statement on teacher reassignments as parents and teachers seek policy roll‑back

A majority of the Saucon Valley School District Board of Directors read a statement at the public meeting saying the administration’s reassignment plan was developed under board‑directed priorities and that the board found "no evidence of foul play or retaliatory moves," while parents, teachers and union leaders asked the board to restore oversight language that was removed from personnel policies.

The statement, read by Board member Donald Carpenter, opened the discussion: "This statement represents a majority of the board, but not the unanimous approval of the board." Carpenter said the administration built the plan around goals set by the board and budget constraints, and that the board would push for better communication and processes in the future.

Why it matters: parents, community members and the Saucon Valley Education Association (SVEA) said policy changes last year weakened board oversight of consequential personnel moves and that the public has not been given clear numbers or rationale for the reassignments.

Jay Christian Tattoo, a Hellertown resident who spoke during public comment, urged the board to restore removed language in Board Policies 03/2009 and 04/2009 so the board again reviews transfers that involve building changes or moves requiring different certification. "I believe that restoring policies 03/2009 and 04/2009 would do that," Tattoo said.

Several speakers asked for clarity about how many teachers were affected. Morgan Flack Detweiler, a resident and former teacher, pressed the board for detail: "Are there 22 teachers in total that may be moved? Or is that number solely the educators being moved from building to building?" Detweiler said community accounts put the number much higher than the 22 mentioned by district administration.

Arthy, identified at the meeting as president of the Saucon Valley Education Association, said union leaders have offered a collaborative path forward but also noted limits on union leaders’ roles in specific personnel decisions: "It is not appropriate for me or the other executive leaders to sit at a table and say we should be moving Dave Lloyd to a different position. That is not our role. It is the purview of administration to make those changes." Arthy said the union has offered to work with administrators, board members and other stakeholders this fall to "backward map" staffing needs for multi‑year planning.

Several board members signaled interest in revisiting the policy changes. Board member Mr. Brune said the policy revisions had been handled too quickly and that the board should consider restoring oversight language. Board member Vivian Demko publicly stated she voted no on Carpenter’s statement.

What the board said it will do: Carpenter and other board members said they will work on developing better timelines and communication so the board and community have chance to review proposed staffing plans before implementation. Carpenter said the board may authorize additional payroll funding in future years if a majority decides that reduced reassignments are worth the cost, but said such choices would depend on the makeup and priorities of future boards.

Open questions and clarifications: callers and speakers asked for a public roll call on who formally supported Carpenter’s statement; Jennifer Munson McCarthy explicitly requested a roll call so the record shows which members endorsed the statement. The meeting record shows a majority statement was read, but not a formal, recorded vote adopting it as board action.

Community impact and next steps: residents asked for transparent counts of affected staff, the criteria used to make reassignments, the role of any teacher input that was offered and refused, and plans to support teachers who change grades or subjects. Board members and union leadership proposed meetings this fall to develop a shared, multi‑year staffing plan.

Ending: No formal policy reversal or new vote occurred at the meeting; several members said the policy language that was removed will be revisited. Community members indicated they will continue to press for clearer numbers and for a public record of which board members supported the majority statement.