Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance Foia topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Legal counsel briefs Chester County board on duties, FOIA and board–superintendent roles
Summary
Attorneys Ashley Story and Dylan Crossland reviewed statutory board duties, the board–superintendent relationship, FOIA limits on deliberation and public participation policies, and offered scenario-based guidance on ethics, recusal and communications.
Attorneys Ashley Story and Dylan Crossland gave the Chester County Board of School Trustees a training session on board members’ statutory duties and responsibilities, the division of authority with the superintendent, and public‑records (FOIA) and meeting‑conduct rules.
The attorneys reviewed statutory responsibilities (citing an authorizing provision shown in the training materials as 59‑19‑90) and explained how those duties translate into policy sections the board has adopted (the district’s B-section policies). They told the board that its primary functions include policy formulation and adoption, hiring and evaluating the superintendent, budget oversight, and controlling district properties. The presenters emphasized that the board acts as a body; individual members have no more authority than any other member and must generally channel requests for information or personnel matters through the superintendent or the chair.
On FOIA and communications the attorneys warned board members about a common risk: serial one-to-one or small‑group communications that, when they include a quorum of members, can constitute an unadvertised meeting under FOIA. They advised board members not to “reply all” on email threads that include a quorum, to avoid creating an electronic trail that could be disclosable, and to funnel personnel or student complaints through the superintendent so members do not inadvertently disqualify themselves from quasi‑judicial hearings. They also discussed social media and public posts, stressing the difference between a board member’s individual speech and official board communications and recommending coordination with the chair and superintendent on public messaging in emergencies.
The attorneys used practical hypotheticals: for example, a board chair receiving factual details about a pending student expulsion should stop the conversation and decline further detail to avoid becoming a de facto investigator or witness; board members who observe law-enforcement responses at schools should coordinate messaging with the superintendent and the designated spokesperson rather than posting live updates. Counsel suggested routinely sharing written responses from staff to all board members so information is evenly distributed, but cautioned that intermember replies that develop into deliberation could create an illegal meeting under FOIA.
Board members raised several operational questions during the session, including how the board should receive FOIA notifications from staff. Several trustees said they prefer staff to screen routine requests and notify the board only when a request involves records the board has not previously seen or when a request is likely to generate media attention. Counsel agreed that practice is reasonable but noted it should be handled consistently and with attention to disclosure deadlines and FOIA obligations.
The attorneys also urged the board to stay current with policy review, to use administrative rules for procedural detail where appropriate, and to conduct regular evaluations — of the superintendent, and of the board itself — to maintain clear roles and expectations. The session concluded with an acknowledgment from counsel that these matters are routine but legally significant, and with an offer to return for deeper training on FOIA or other topics.
No binding legal opinions were issued in open session; counsel provided training and illustrative guidance only.
