Several community members used the public‑comment period at the North Penn School District board meeting to press the district on school safety, staffing for student mental health and potential conflicts involving vendors and a sitting board member.

At the outset of public comment, a speaker identified as Lanier said he was "gonna kinda rain on the parade" and raised district violence‑rate figures for Pembroke and PennDale, saying those schools showed rates above county averages. Lanier also alleged an apparent financial relationship between board member Jonathan Casa and vendors the district has considered for school safety equipment, asking whether Casa recused himself from related decisions and whether the district was being "pushed into Evolve because his company gets money?" Lanier asked the board to disclose how much money Casa or his associated companies received from Evolve or Margolis Healy.

Other commenters pressed related concerns and alternatives. Don Gallagher said he "fully support[s] the idea of the school police being created" and urged districtwide deployment of the Evolve metal‑detection system if feasible. Dr. Durstein (a Lansdale resident) asked for greater transparency about recent state funding and how it will be allocated for personnel, specifically behavior analysts and social workers, noting that district staffing for those roles appeared limited. "Is there a way for us as community members to better understand that this money is going towards essential resources and essential personnel?" Dr. Durstein asked.

Board members and staff did not provide a detailed procurement‑ or personnel‑level response during the public‑comment period. District representatives suggested the finance committee or future committee meetings could review state funding implications for staffing and budgeting; the board did not announce immediate staffing changes or a procurement decision at the meeting.

Claims and follow up: Lanier’s allegation about a vendor relationship to a board member was raised publicly but not substantiated during the meeting; no documentary response or recusal record was provided on the record at the session. The board did not vote on any procurement or ethics matters during the meeting.

Next procedural steps noted at the meeting included an invitation to pursue committee review of budget and staffing questions and ongoing public discussion at future meetings.