Neshaminy board hears sharp questions on proposed responsible-contractor policy; members ask for more research

Board members and members of the public pressed the Neshaminy School District on a proposed Responsible Contractor policy — referred to in meeting materials as Policy 817 — during the board's public session, with several directors saying they do not yet have enough information to vote on the proposal.

"What district administration was involved in the policy?" asked Miss Walbeezer, who repeatedly requested details about which cabinet members and outside stakeholders were consulted and what research was conducted. Walbeezer pressed for records of change orders from recent projects and asked why the district's construction manager had not been asked for input.

Missus Halbach, who moved several consent motions earlier in the meeting, also spoke to the policy process and noted that the agenda language from an October motion said the district administration and solicitor would "conduct research, consult with stakeholders, and present a draft policy." Several board members said they could not confirm who in administration participated in that work.

Board members who sit on the policy committee told colleagues the policy had received a first reading at an earlier meeting and that some committee members believe it followed the district's usual procedures. "We vetted this," said one board member, while others called for additional review and for administration and the solicitor to provide fuller documentation before a second reading.

Public commenter Steven Peritano, who identified himself as Region 1 (Feasterville), urged the board to "have the conversation" openly and to consult professionals with construction experience, saying past projects had generated significant change orders and design issues. "If you want trade-union labor on your jobs, fantastic. Great. Have them. But remember, your first responsibility is children, students and taxpayers," Peritano said.

Several directors suggested tabling the policy for further review. The board president noted the item is not on the current meeting agenda for action and that it will appear on the March 19 policy committee agenda; one director said she would move to table the item at that time so the board can receive the requested information.

No vote was taken on Policy 817 during the meeting. Board members and commenters repeatedly emphasized the district's current budget pressures while debating whether to delay the policy or move forward, and several asked that the district's construction manager or other technical advisors be asked to provide perspective before the next policy committee meeting.

The board did not adopt or finalize Policy 817 at this session; members agreed to continue the conversation at the March 19 policy committee meeting and to try to assemble additional documentation and stakeholder feedback beforehand.