Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Students' protest over ICE prompts passionate public comment at Pennsbury board meeting
Summary
A Feb. 19 public-comment period focused on a student-organized anti-ICE protest that was moved indoors after online threats; students and parents clashed in testimony, with speakers calling for accountability for threatening posts and others criticizing the protest as disruptive to instructional time.
Public comment at the Pennsbury School District's Feb. 19 meeting focused heavily on a student-organized anti-ICE protest held last week and the community response after social-media posts and threats emerged.
Michael Stimley, a senior at Pennsbury High School, told the board he attended the student-organized protest and raised concerns that online posts targeting the students included "inappropriate and violent comments" that prompted safety measures. "By moving the protest indoors and surrounding us with police officers...did not make me feel like my voice was safe and hurt," Stimley said, and he urged the board to hold adults who posted threats accountable.
Other public speakers expressed sharply different views. Andrew Dell said he was critical of the protest because it disrupted instructional time and questioned whether the district's code of conduct was enforced uniformly. Alan Barth and other speakers asked for alternative forums such as informational assemblies and asserted administrators had prioritized activism over instruction.
Several attendees both defended and criticized the district's approach. Nastasha Raseley, a Falls Township parent and community leader, praised the students for "thoughtful civic engagement" and thanked administration for prioritizing student safety when threats arose. Jennifer Metzger and others asked the board to address alleged social-media misconduct by a staff member (identified in public comment as "Harry") and requested consistent policy enforcement.
Speakers also raised facility and budget concerns tied to the new high-school project; at least one commenter alleged a lack of transparency around projected project costs. Board members did not engage with speakers during the public-comment period by design but noted the comments would be taken under advisement for possible future action.
The board's public-comment slot lasted nearly the full allotted time; the evening proceeded to the consent agenda and other business following public remarks.
