Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Civil Rights Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Delaware Valley board declines to add resolution seeking release from OCR agreement after legal warnings
Summary
Board member Jack Fisher asked to add resolutions seeking withdrawal from an Office for Civil Rights (OCR) agreement. After extended debate and legal advice that unilateral withdrawal could expose the district to litigation and conflict with Boyertown precedent, the amendment failed on a 4–5 roll-call vote.
The Delaware Valley School District board rejected a motion to amend the agenda to add resolutions seeking release from an Office for Civil Rights (OCR) agreement, after a lengthy debate about legal risk and precedent.
Jack Fisher moved to add his resolutions so the board could vote on formally withdrawing from the OCR agreement. Fisher argued the OCR ‘‘is not law’’ and that changing federal executive priorities justified reconsidering the district’s obligations. He urged colleagues to put the question to a vote rather than defer to outside actions.
Multiple board members replied that unilateral withdrawal could expose the district to lawsuits or violate precedents. One member warned the board had already sent letters and may have ‘‘handed them their case on a silver platter,’’ noting prior correspondence with federal offices. Board attorney Nick advised caution, saying there is a mechanism to seek release through the Office for Civil Rights and that case law such as Boyertown represents binding precedent in this jurisdiction. Nick recommended the board ‘‘sit tight’’ and follow formal procedures and pending court developments, including a West Virginia athletics case pending at the U.S. Supreme Court.
The board voted on the amendment in a roll call: Christine Agron — No; Jessica Decker — No; Brian Fels — Yes; Jack Fisher — Yes; Pam (as listed in roll call) — No; Felicia Sheehan — No; Dorit/Doris Smith — Yes; Rosemary Walsh — No; Carl (Will/Well) — Yes. The tally was 4 yes, 5 no; the motion failed.
The attorney repeatedly cautioned that removing an OCR agreement remains legally fraught and could invite lawsuits from both sides (families or civil-rights groups). Several directors said they would prefer to await court decisions (including Fairfax County litigation and the nationwide developments noted by legal counsel) or to pursue formal channels such as declaratory actions if the board chose to litigate. One director asked staff to follow up with outside counsel experienced with OCR matters for updated guidance before further board action.
The board did not adopt any policy changes at the meeting; the failure of the amendment left the underlying resolutions off the agenda. The superintendent and legal counsel told the board they will pursue informal follow-up with OCR contacts and gather additional legal analysis ahead of possible future action.
