Keystone Central board holds informational session on Act 93, administrators’ compensation plan

Keystone Central School District held a special public meeting Feb. 17 for an educational presentation on Act 93, the state statute that governs administrative compensation plans for school districts. The session was informational only; board officials confirmed they would not discuss specific employees or contracts.

The presenter, who identified himself as John Fryen, described Act 93 (referred to in the presentation as section 1164 of the school code) as a written compensation plan for administrators that differs fundamentally from a collective bargaining agreement. “Act 93 is ... a compensation plan for school administrators,” Fryen said, adding that the law was created as an alternative to bargaining and “often causes some confusion.”

Fryen told board members that Act 93 plans must be in writing and include a description of how administrative salaries and benefits are calculated. He emphasized that the statute excludes certain roles — such as district superintendents, assistant superintendents and business managers — and said eligible participants generally are principals, assistant principals and first‑level supervisors. He noted gray areas (for example, psychologists or confidential secretaries) and warned districts sometimes add employees who do not clearly fit the statutory definition.

The presenter contrasted Act 93’s “meet‑and‑discuss” requirement with collective bargaining. Under a CBA, employers and employees must bargain in good faith over wages and conditions, with timelines, grievance/arbitration and, sometimes, fact‑finding. Fryen said Act 93 requires only that the district meet and discuss a compensation plan and that, legally, a board may adopt a plan without the administrators’ agreement after good‑faith discussions. “It’s not a collective bargaining law,” he said.

Fryen also discussed enforcement: unlike CBAs — which typically use grievance procedures and arbitration — enforcing Act 93 obligations generally requires court action (mandamus). He cited Curley v. Board of School Directors and a separate Allentown case as examples where courts enforced the terms of in‑force plans. Using the Allentown example, he warned that one administrator’s mandamus action can require a district to honor an existing plan’s terms, even if a majority of the administrative group preferred a different successor plan.

Board members asked practical questions about the written‑request statutory trigger, the legal meaning of “good faith” discussions, whether an MOU or new plan is appropriate when administrators unanimously agree to changes, and whether a human resources director is the same as the statute’s “director of personnel.” Fryen said the written‑request requirement exists but is rarely enforced in practice; he offered to locate case law clarifying what courts have treated as good faith. He recommended drafting a new plan rather than relying on an MOU if the entire unit truly were unanimous. On titles, he said a human resources director would generally be treated the same as a director of personnel and thus be excluded from participation in the Act 93 group.

Superintendent Frank Redman asked whether a director at the district’s integrated career and technical center must be excluded; Fryen said that vocational‑technical directors are listed among excluded categories in the statute. Fryen also reminded the board that administrators are not permitted to strike and that the statute’s anti‑strike provisions apply differently to administrative employees than to bargaining units.

Elizabeth Kelly, the district’s HR/legal expert introduced near the session’s end, affirmed Fryen’s summaries and said the presentation was informative. The board concluded the meeting by thanking the presenters; members said the board would discuss next steps at a future meeting.

The meeting produced no votes or formal actions; it was an informational briefing to help the board understand statutory obligations, eligibility questions and litigation risks tied to Act 93 plans.