Parents and residents urge Millersburg Area SD board to reject day treatment program on school grounds

Two residents used the public-comment period to press the Millersburg Area School District board to reject a proposed day treatment program that would operate on district property.

Mr. Luis, a resident who addressed the board first, said the program — described in board materials as "completely separate" — is not separate if it will use school grounds, existing staff and district insurance. "Are these two employees that are already with the school going to leave and go work for this completely separate entity? Or are they going to get paid by taxpayer money or get two paychecks?" he asked, saying those details were "not specified." He added: "If there's an inherent need for this program in this community, it can stand on its own merit, on its own private property. Why does it have to be Millersburg that takes on this burden?"

William Wolfon, a parent of a fourth-grader at Harrisburg, told the board he was focused on safety. Citing a slide in the presentation and answers in a Q&A packet, Wolfon said proposed protocols such as locked doors, wanding and bathroom chaperones underscored the risk of placing the program on school grounds. "There is simply no calculus where this is acceptable," he said, adding he would urge the board to vote no if a final decision comes before them.

Nut graf: Both commenters requested clearer limits on who the program would accept and how it would be staffed and funded. They urged the board to require an off-site location or, at minimum, transparent criteria about student profiles, law-enforcement interactions and whether district employees would be shifted away from existing students.

Board response and next steps: The board president acknowledged the comments and said the district would work to provide answers to the questions raised and to distribute that information as it has in the past. A board member asked whether the item could be added to a future agenda to allow fuller discussion of community concerns and timing; the president said the board would talk about the best path forward to do that this year. The president also noted the board had met in executive session earlier for legal and human-resources matters.

What is not specified: Public speakers repeatedly noted that the transcript and the Q&A materials did not detail whether staff assigned to the program would be paid by the district or the separate entity, how much interaction program students have had with law enforcement, or the exact profiles of students who would be accepted. The board did not make a final decision during the meeting.

The meeting moved toward adjournment after the president's report; the board said it would follow up with written answers and consider scheduling the topic for future discussion.