Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Act 93 Administration Contract topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Keystone Central board rejects proposed five-year Act 93 agreement after heated debate
Summary
The Keystone Central School District board declined to approve a proposed five-year Act 93 administratorsagreement after public comment and a lengthy board debate about timing, transparency and health-benefit costs. The motion to adopt the contract failed on a roll call vote.
The Keystone Central School District Board of Directors voted down a proposed Act 93 administrators' agreement after extended debate and public comment at its Oct. 9 voting meeting.
Board member Tracy (role: board member) moved to amend and approve a five-year Act 93 agreement that would have set 3% annual raises, increased employee contributions for health care from 3.99% to 7.99%, and shortened the post-retirement benefits vesting period for future hires. The motion failed on a roll-call vote after several board members objected to the timing and terms.
The contract drew sustained criticism from board members who said the five-year term should be decided by a newly seated board and that the district had not provided adequate education to some board members about Act 93 procedures. Board member Mister Scab argued that "this decision needs [to be] held for the new board next year to decide," and Doctor Baldino urged waiting for new membership on the board so replacements can weigh in.
Administrators and supporters framed the measure as a tool to retain staff amid rising health insurance costs and long-term financial pressures. Board member Tracy said the change would yield savings over time, including reduced post-retirement exposure, and noted the district had seen unusually high medical claims in 2024 that drove insurance costs higher. "We had 21 employee members hit the $100,000 [stop-loss] limit," Tracy said during discussion, explaining why benefit changes were included as part of the financial package.
Public commenters also addressed the timing of the contract discussion. Danielle Laval told the board she objected to a perceived rush to act before newly elected board members are sworn in: "The act 93 contract doesn't expire until June. Why are you rushing to vote on it right now?" Ryan Shields, an area parent, asked: "What is the reason that you were voting on this early?" Both speakers urged greater transparency and more time for community engagement.
Board members who supported the contract warned that failing to approve it risked losing administrators. One supporter said administrators "carry probably the biggest amount of responsibility of any employees in this school district," and urged consideration of retention and operational continuity.
After discussion the board took a roll-call vote on the proposed Act 93 agreement; the motion failed. The district also held an executive session during the meeting to discuss personnel matters. The board did not adopt the five-year Act 93 contract at this meeting.
Looking ahead, several board members urged additional public education on Act 93 procedures and a later meeting with new board membership before reconsidering long-term administrator compensation and benefits.
