Avon Grove SD board discusses revising public‑participation policy (903); administrators to draft updates after feedback

Board members on Tuesday discussed proposed revisions to Avon Grove School District Policy 903, the district’s public‑participation policy, and related procedures for public comment.

Why it matters: Public‑comment procedures shape how community members raise concerns and how the board and administration respond. Board members weighed competing priorities: correcting misinformation quickly for the public record versus preserving the public‑comment period as a time for citizens to be heard without immediate board‑level back-and-forth.

Discussion highlights

Responding during public comment: Several board members said they would like flexibility to respond when a factual correction is immediately available, while others urged caution. Board members suggested a designated person — typically the superintendent or board president — should be empowered to acknowledge or correct factual errors to avoid multiple board members engaging in back-and‑forth during the comment period. One board member said, “I really don't think we should be responding during the public comment. I think we need to wait till after.” Another said a brief acknowledgment followed by a request to follow up after the meeting can be effective.

Superintendent’s report timing: Board members discussed moving the superintendent’s report to after a second public‑comment period so the superintendent could address questions raised during public comment. Options included creating a separate agenda slot for superintendent responses or keeping the current order and using administrative rules to allow timely follow-up.

Script read before comments and the comment card: Board members criticized the current public‑comment script as legalistic and difficult to read aloud. They discussed placing the more technical, solicitor‑approved language on the back of a revised comment card while reading a clearer, shorter statement at meetings. Board members generally supported adding a clear checkbox on the comment card to allow speakers to request follow‑up (email or phone). Some members said the card should be available online so attendees can submit information ahead of a meeting.

Role of the solicitor and next steps: Board members repeatedly said they will rely on the district solicitor to ensure any revisions comply with statute and required procedures. Administrators and the solicitor have already begun coordinating on draft language. The administrative team said it will prepare a first‑read draft of Policy 903 and possibly Policy 006 (hearing of citizens) and return it for first reading at the Oct. 7 operations committee meeting. Administrators also plan to draft an administrative rule to operationalize any procedural changes and to produce a revised comment card for board review.

Public comments tied to policy review: During the public‑comment portion of the meeting, citizens raised topics that overlapped with the policy discussion. Franklin Township resident Bob Wiedemuller urged a stronger student‑device policy, citing research he said supports banning phones in classrooms. A community member, Jackie Smiro, urged faster action on student safety, citing recent incidents and concerns about student mental health. Another speaker, Alyssa Norman, said she appreciated improvements in board responsiveness but asked for clearer guidance on how emails to the board are routed and who provides follow‑up.

What was decided: No policy language was adopted at the meeting. The board directed administrators and the solicitor to prepare a draft of Policy 903 (and, if needed, Policy 006) and a revised comment card for first reading at the Oct. 7 operations committee meeting.