Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents push district on middle school cost estimates and reported DOJ inquiry; board offers limited responses
Summary
Several residents used public comment to criticize the district’s public materials about middle school cost estimates and to raise concerns about a reported federal Department of Justice inquiry. The board acknowledged the comments, offered process and scheduling notes, and said some policy reviews will be continued for additional readings.
Multiple community members raised pointed concerns about district transparency, construction cost estimates for the middle school project and an apparent federal inquiry during the public comment period of the Oct. 21 Unionville-Chadds Ford School District board meeting.
Mark Stuckey of Chadds Ford Township opened public comment by saying the district and board are “squandering their opportunity to change course and improve how the district operates,” and that the district’s frequently asked questions on the middle school project “continue to be full of misinformation.” He said the district’s website advertises a $42 annual tax increase figure that he described as “spurious,” and argued the district has “only run a $260,000,000 case,” not the lower $190 million scenario shown online. “By continuing to use this number, the district perpetuates an untruth and sets a credibility trap for itself,” Stuckey said.
Stuckey also said he had seen a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice that he said is investigating the district for “conspiracy against rights” and possibly other offenses, and asked whether the district would acknowledge and cooperate with the inquiry and who is paying related legal fees. “Conspiracy against rights is a felony,” he said. “How much is being spent? Since the solicitor appears to have been implicated, who is representing the district?”
Board members responded that the district may be limited in what it can say about ongoing investigations but that administrators would meet with individual residents offline. Dr. Baratta said he had exchanged emails with Stuckey earlier in the year and offered to speak with him further; Mr. Schartz confirmed some policies (including the district’s gift policy, policy 3.22) are being moved through the board process with additional readings.
Other public commenters raised related policy concerns. Martin Sullivan flagged agenda omissions (he said Rachel Lomas was left off a hiring list) and urged the board to cite state law when revising the gift policy; he referenced Pennsylvania statutes during his remarks. Hannah Galentino Homer defended the district’s COVID policy as having protected medically vulnerable community members, and urged caution about a private religious instruction group called Lifewise Academy. Lisa Chismeyer, a retired lawyer, urged the board to examine potential conflicts related to legal representation if the district solicitor or other counsel were implicated in any inquiry.
Board members thanked the speakers and said several items raised at public comment will be addressed in future work sessions or by staff follow-up. The district did not make a public statement acknowledging a Department of Justice investigation during the meeting.
Speakers urged the board to take corrective action on public materials and to be transparent about legal costs and representation. Board members offered to meet privately with commenters and confirmed that some policy items will return for additional readings.
