Residents press North Penn SD on legal settlements, healthcare center costs and transparency
Summary
Two residents urged the North Penn SD board to explain large legal-settlement spending, questioned why the district accepted a second-highest offer for a property sale, and pressed for evidence that the district health care center is lowering taxpayer costs.
Two residents used the public-comment period at the North Penn SD work session to press the board for more transparency about large settlement payouts, a recent property sale and the district-run health care center.
Mister Patchell, speaking first, criticized meeting timing and urged the board to limit public-comment time and be more mindful of spending. "Stop spending money. Why don't you cut cost before you raise taxes?" he said, calling for "oversight on the spending" and urging the board to find ways to reduce expenditures rather than increase taxes.
Jason Lanier Lansdale followed with specific requests for documentation and accountability. Lansdale asked why the district accepted the second-highest bid on the movie-lot sale and said he had not seen other offers published in writing. "You can say why it was accepted, but really, put it in black and white," he said.
Lansdale also raised alarm about recurring legal-settlement expenditures appearing in board documents. Citing entries he read from the meeting materials, he said those listings included amounts of $642,000 and $193,000 with dates shown as November 2024 and November 20, 2025, and asked what the district was settling and who the vendors were. "That's a lot of money, and it really needs to be drilled down and figure out what's causing this," he said.
On healthcare costs, Lansdale questioned whether the district's health care center has produced the promised savings for taxpayers. "The whole idea ... was supposed to go down or be flat and has not," he said, asking for proof of return on investment and for the district to show how premiums or total taxpayer costs have decreased.
The board did not provide a detailed response to the settlement amounts or the property-offer question during public comment. The superintendent later referenced prior meetings and materials when moving into the superintendent's report, and staff offered a brief explanation of contracts versus student agreements during the subsequent agenda items. The district has not yet posted the specific offer comparisons or a detailed accounting of the settlements and healthcare‑center savings in the meeting record.
