Chester-Upland officials discuss settlement with Chester Community Charter School amid court stay questions

The Chester‑Upland School District’s receiver and solicitor discussed a request to enter a settlement agreement and release with Chester Community Charter School that the solicitor said would extend the charter for five years and could save the district “close to $100,000,000” over 10 years, the solicitor told the special meeting.

The issue drew questions from public commenter Jean Arnold, who said a court order she had was “stayed until further order of the court” and asked whether proceeding would violate that stay. “Our judge’s stay—whether we are violating the law today to proceed and these items here,” Arnold said, asking the district to explain the legal effect.

The solicitor responded that the document before the board is an agreement between the district and the charter school that, in the district’s view, the parties have the right to enter even while a related appeal is pending. “This agreement is designed to save the district potentially millions of dollars,” the solicitor said, and described the proposed extension as “an agreement in return for this close to $100,000,000 savings over 10 years.” The solicitor added that the extension would be conditioned on the charter school meeting statutory requirements and that the district could still deny renewal for academic, financial or safety deficiencies.

The solicitor acknowledged that the Pennsylvania Department of Education opposes the underlying order and had asked a judge to stay legal proceedings, and said that if the Commonwealth Court were to set aside the district’s prior action, “then no harm, no foul. This agreement would be set aside.”

The solicitor also told the meeting the underlying court order was originally entered Sept. 18, 2024, and described the settlement as an amendment to an agreement the district believes remains in effect. The solicitor described the matter as time sensitive because of budget implications.

During public comment another resident, Karen Maya of 904 Pusey Street, asked whether a nurse is required at each site of the 21st Century after‑school program. A meeting participant referred the question to the human resources director and responded that the district is not required to have a nurse at every after‑school site.

The transcript records approval of routine agenda items later in the meeting: education agenda items A‑1 and A‑2; personnel agenda item B‑1; and business agenda items C‑1 through C‑7. The transcript does not record a separate, explicit vote on the settlement agreement and release discussed in the solicitor’s remarks, and no motion, mover, seconder or vote tally for that specific settlement appears in the record provided.

The meeting adjourned after the listed agenda approvals.