Perkiomen Valley board holds updates to employee conduct, outside-activity and speech policies; asks for clearer definitions

The Perkiomen Valley School District Board of School Directors on May 20 reviewed multiple proposed updates to personnel policies — including conduct and disciplinary procedures, outside activities, and employee freedom of speech — and asked staff to return with clearer definitions and solicitor guidance before advancing the changes.

The board's policy presenter, identified in the meeting as Mister Moran, outlined edits to Policy 317 (conduct/disciplinary procedures) to align language with PSBA guidance and to underscore that disciplinary action should follow a determination whether employee conduct has a direct nexus to or interferes with school operations. Moran also highlighted updated references to the Pennsylvania Department of Education’s revised Code of Professional Practice and Conduct for Educators.

Board members pressed for clearer, district‑level guidance for staff. “I thought that could be defined for all employees just, more clearly upfront so they so everybody understands what that means in our training,” said Mister Saylor, a board member, asking specifically for examples of what would constitute a ‘‘direct nexus.’’ Moran agreed to add examples to the staff handbook and consider an annual review with staff.

The board also reviewed proposed language for Policy 319 on outside activities. Discussion centered on how the district should treat employees who operate private businesses and whether classroom signage, shirts or other displays would be considered promotion or solicitation. The solicitor in the meeting, Mister Keenan, said promotion and solicitation are broad terms and could cover similar behavior; board members asked staff to draft clearer definitions for terms such as “promote,” “solicit” and “advertise,” and to consider acceptable exceptions such as modest or incidental references.

Policy 320 (freedom of speech by employees) prompted the sharpest debate. Moran said the district was recommending PSBA’s updated policy text, which recognizes employee free‑speech rights while noting speech that “may impact efficiency or constitute a reasonable likelihood of disruption” can be subject to review. Several board members worried the language was broad enough to chill protected speech. “This new restriction … somebody could be brought into review or told to take their own speech if their speech impairs discipline by superiors or harmony among coworkers,” said one board member, who later warned the draft could implicate constitutional concerns. Moran proposed returning the draft with specific examples and solicitor input to clarify what kinds of speech would be actionable.

Board members agreed to hold policies 319, 320 and the related item (listed in the agenda as 3.21) for revision. For other routine personnel policies on gifts, personnel files, compensation determination, overtime and professional development, the committee moved them forward unchanged or noted no recommended edits at this time. On professional development (Policy 333), Moran said the topic interacts with collective bargaining and noted staff would raise related ideas in next year’s negotiations to address requests for more collaboration time.

The board asked staff to (1) insert clearer definitions of ‘‘direct nexus’’ and ‘‘promote/solicit/advertise’’ into policy or handbooks; (2) confirm links and easy access to the Code of Professional Practice and Conduct for Educators on the district HR or policy web pages; and (3) provide specific examples for the solicitor to review before the next committee meeting.

Board President Miss White and Superintendent Doctor Russell both participated in the discussion; no formal votes on these specific policy revisions were taken because several items were held for redraft.

The board is expected to receive revised policy language, including solicitor annotations and sample scenarios, at a future meeting before any first or second reading votes.