Perkiomen Valley board and administration debate who decides new positions as policy 301 is revised

Perkiomen Valley School District officials and board members on the policy committee debated how definitive the district’s personnel policy should be when administration recommends creating new positions, and agreed to return Policy 301 for further edits alongside Policy 311.

At a policy meeting called to order for February 10, Superintendent Dr. Russell and administrator Mr. Moran presented draft revisions to Policy 301, which would add explicit criteria the administration should consider when recommending a new position. Dr. Russell and Mr. Moran said the proposed list is intended to “articulate the information that is typical that we provide to the board,” including a clear job description detailing duties, a title aligned to certification requirements, placement in the organizational chart and supporting rationale.

Board members raised concerns that listing these criteria in policy could be read as a checklist that would bind future recommendations. “My concern about getting so definitive in policy is this is actually our policy to you,” said board member Mr. Sailor, adding that the language could create expectations that the administration must “check each of these boxes.” Several board members suggested softer wording that would describe the criteria as information administrators “will consider” or “typically provide” rather than mandatory requirements.

The committee also revisited Policy 302 (employment of the superintendent and assistant superintendent). The draft language makes clear that if an assistant superintendent is desired, “an assistant superintendent shall be appointed by a majority vote of all members of the board upon nomination of the superintendent.” Several members said earlier drafts had been misread as creating a mandatory assistant superintendent; the committee clarified the intent: the provision applies only if the district chooses to fill that position.

Members discussed Policy 311 (reduction of staff) in relation to 301. Some trustees warned that if the board reserves “final determination as to the number and kind of positions,” that authority logically includes the ability to remove positions and thus should be aligned with existing reduction-of-staff procedures. Committee members agreed and asked administration to bring Policy 301 and Policy 311 to the committee next month “so they complement one another.”

No formal vote on the substantive wording was taken; the committee directed administration to reword Policy 301 to stress that the listed items are typical considerations and to return both policies together for further review.

The committee’s discussion ranged across concerns about board oversight, superintendent discretion, and the practicalities of staffing in response to enrollment changes. Mr. Sailor and others asked that language avoid unintentionally creating a rigid “checklist” that would hamper administrative flexibility. Dr. Russell and Mr. Moran said the district currently provides justifications when proposing new positions and that the revision is meant to make that typical practice explicit in policy, not to alter decision-making authority.

The committee scheduled the two policies for joint review at its next meeting in March.