Keystone Central board fails to appoint Kevin Farrar, agrees to reopen Region 4 vacancy and consider late applications

The Keystone Central School District Board of Directors debated and ultimately failed to appoint Kevin Farrar to the Region 4 vacancy during its Jan. 15 voting meeting, then voted to reopen the search and set a short application window before potential court involvement.

Board leadership presented a motion to appoint Kevin Farrar to the Region 4 seat; after extended discussion about whether late applicants should be heard and whether a policy clarification about late applications (policy 004) could be added at the voting meeting, the roll call produced a 3–3 tie and the appointment motion failed. The board then approved a separate motion to continue the search and set a timeline intended to conclude interviews and a vote before the 30‑day statutory period elapsed.

The debate centered on two competing concerns: some trustees and citizens urged that the board open the application period to include two candidates who applied after the published deadline, saying holiday timing and publication practices had reduced visibility; opponents said changing the policy or reopening consideration would set a precedent and should go through the policy committee. Trustee Chris (speaker identified in the transcript) and several community members argued the public should see all applicants; one trustee warned that allowing repeated late entries would create inconsistency in future vacancies.

Applicant Kevin Ferrara, who addressed the board during the hearing‑of‑visitors, said the board’s treatment of this vacancy contrasted with past practice and suggested the decision reflected favoritism. "Bending the rules or moving the goal line to accept and interview late applicants simply because the remaining applicant is disliked," he said in his prepared remarks, calling for the board to explain the difference in handling between recent vacancies.

Former board member Roger Elling raised a legal and procedural concern, citing the Pennsylvania Public School Code and the Sunshine Act in a public comment and arguing that taking binding action before the hearing of visitors undermines meaningful public participation. Solicitor David Lindsey confirmed the statutory 30‑day window for board appointments: after a vacancy notice, the board has 30 days to appoint before constituents may petition the court of common pleas; otherwise the board is free to set its own timeline. Lindsey told the board that the law imposes no specific advertising timeline and that the board may choose whatever application period it deems appropriate as long as it finishes before the petition window closes.

After the failed appointment vote, the board voted to "continue searching for an appropriate candidate" for Region 4 and directed administration to reopen and advertise the vacancy with a proposed application window (discussed examples included Jan. 21–30) so interviews and a vote can conclude before the end of the month. Superintendent Redmond and staff agreed to publish notices in the local paper and on the district website and to prepare for a special meeting if needed.

What happened (votes and next steps) - Appointment of Kevin Farrar: motion failed on a 3‑3 roll call (yes: Miss Lynch, Mr. Miller, Ms. Bohart; no: Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Scaff, Dr. Baldino). The board did not appoint a new Region 4 member. - Motion to continue the search and reopen the application period: passed (5 yes, 1 no). The solicitor advised completing interviews and a vote within the 30‑day window to avoid a court petition.

The board asked administration to advertise the vacancy, set a short application window, and, if necessary, schedule a special meeting to interview candidates and vote. The board also agreed to solicit input through the policy committee on clarifying language for policy 004 governing late applications.

A timeline: staff said notices will appear in the Lock Haven Express and on the District website; administration proposed an application window that would close by Jan. 30 to keep the selection within the statutory period. The board characterized the policy language proposed on the agenda as "an editorial clarifier" rather than a wholesale policy rewrite, but several trustees said any substantive change should first move through the policy committee for first and second reads.

The board’s next procedural steps are to advertise the vacancy, accept applications in the reopened window, hold candidate interviews, and aim to vote on an appointment before the statutory window allows constituents to petition the court.