Scranton board approves two central-office appointments after debate over process and contracts

The Scranton School District board approved two central-office appointments at a special meeting July 8, voting 6–3 to appoint Albert “Al” O'Donnell as assistant superintendent and to approve a contingent appointment for Patrick Laffey as assistant to the superintendent for operations and finance.

The votes followed an extended discussion about process and contract terms. Several board members said they received the contracts late — one on July 1 and the other on July 4 during the holiday week — and urged that personnel committee review and broader public transparency should have happened before a vote. Opponents also raised questions about salary levels and long-term financial commitments as the district continues a recovery plan that, at current projections discussed in the meeting, could show a negative balance by 2027 without additional revenue.

Board members who opposed the motions cited a mix of procedural and fiscal concerns. One director said the contracts use inconsistent titles (‘‘assistant to the superintendent’’ versus ‘‘assistant superintendent’’), questioned how objectives and evaluation standards in the contracts were developed and asked whether the agreements had been reviewed by the district’s recovery officer. The item prompted repeated requests that the personnel committee and solicitor be involved in any future decision-making.

Board solicitor John Freund, speaking by phone while the board adjusted audio, said he had worked closely with the superintendent and the board president in drafting the agreements. Freund explained that an assistant superintendent is a commissioned officer with statutory requirements, while ‘‘assistant to the superintendent’’ is primarily a title; the contracts were structured to allow an initial title and, contingent on obtaining a letter of eligibility, for the appointee to transition later to a commissioned assistant superintendent. Freund also described his drafting practice of having the superintendent perform the initial evaluation and present findings to the board for review.

Administrators and some directors defended the appointments as part of a broader plan the district has discussed for more than a year. Board supporters said both candidates are long-time district employees who have been vetted through interviews and would strengthen central administration. Central-office budget figures discussed at the meeting showed the assistant-superintendent positions were within amounts included in the 2024 preliminary budget, and the superintendent’s salary had been budgeted higher than the amount actually hired; the assistant-superintendent salary discussed at the meeting was $155,000 with benefits and a $250 monthly vehicle allowance. The superintendent’s office said restructuring one existing position and reassigning duties meant no additional staff would be requested as part of these hires.

Votes at a glance - Motion to appoint Albert O'Donnell as assistant superintendent: Passed 6–3 (Borthwick, Casey, Cheswick, Merkel, McCandrew, Holmes — yes; Fox, Gamartin, Yanni — no). - Motion to appoint Patrick Laffey as assistant to the superintendent for operations and finance (contingent on letter of eligibility): Passed 6–3 (same recorded yes and no votes).

Board members asked that the discussion about committee review, public advisors to committees and personnel procedures be added to a future agenda. The board president said staff would work with the personnel chair to schedule a personnel committee meeting to examine central-office structure, evaluation practices and how the district will align hires with its recovery plan.

The board president congratulated the two appointees and the meeting moved into brief new-business items before adjourning.