Solicitor, outside attorney and public callers push back on social media claims about court petition and board vacancy

Bristol Township School Board Solicitor David (Solicitor) and private attorney Bryce McGuigan told the board and members of the public that the court petition filed last fall to fill a vacant board seat did not involve the district as a sued party and did not consume taxpayer funds.

The matter surfaced during the board's regular February meeting after the solicitor delivered a detailed report on the executive session and the court proceedings that followed the August resignation of a board member. "I cannot emphasize this enough, that the district did not expend public funds to participate in the petition litigation," the solicitor said, summarizing what he described as inaccuracies circulating on social media and local channels.

The issue matters because the board had operated with eight members after the resignation, and the board could not agree on a replacement within the 30-day window set out under Pennsylvania practice, prompting competing petitions to Bucks County court. Judge Finley ultimately directed that a successor be named; the court's order resulted in the appointment of Stacy Gerlach to finish the term that expires in December, the solicitor said.

In his remarks, the solicitor described the two petitions and said the district merely was named in docket entries to identify the affected school district and that his office did not file pleadings or appear at the hearing. "No names were mentioned in that letter," he said of a December letter his office sent the court asking for a decision before the reorganization meeting. "Notably, we emphasized that the district was not a party to the action." He warned that continued false claims about district funds being used to "defend" the petitions risked generating unnecessary additional litigation and expense.

Bryce McGuigan, the attorney who filed one of the petitions, told the board he was privately retained and said, "Bristol Township School District has never paid a single dollar of my legal fees." McGuigan said his petition was aimed at ensuring the board had a full complement of members to carry out district business and that the petition did not name the district as a defendant in any substantive way. "I did not sue anybody," he said.

Public commenters framed the dispute differently: several residents criticized four board members by name for delays and for what the speakers described as poor understanding of the appointment process. One resident, identified in public comments as Miss Murphy, said voters acted because board members had not and urged the board to "take care of business." Another board member, who spoke during debate, pushed back that the group of four had requested a transparent interview process and that they were not refusing to appoint a Democrat solely on partisan grounds.

Board members and staff repeatedly emphasized that the immediate dispute is closed now that the court has acted. During the meeting several members said they want a clearer internal policy for future vacancy appointments; at least one direction emerged from the floor to draft language for a board policy and give it to the district's administration ("get it written. Give it to Mr. Nitti," a board member said), an action the board said it would pursue.

The solicitor and the outside attorney both urged residents to consult the public docket and the petition documents if they wanted to verify the sequence of events. The solicitor warned that continuing false or misleading public statements could lead to further legal and fiscal consequences.

The board proceeded with other agenda items after the discussion and received routine reports on facilities, curriculum, and finance.

The item closes with the court's appointment and members' statements that the district will pursue a policy to clarify the appointment process and to avoid future stalemates that result in court involvement.