Elizabeth Forward board delays solicitor pick after residents demand transparency, votes to pursue RFP

The Elizabeth Forward School District board voted on Dec. 17 to delay choosing a new district solicitor and to pursue a request for proposals after several residents criticized the process as rushed and nontransparent.

Public commenters raised concerns before the board took action. Cindy Dugan asked the board under the Pennsylvania Right-to-Know Law and the Sunshine Act to release records supporting the district’s financial decisions, school-closure rationale and construction spending, including project plans, budgets, timelines and any use of emergency exceptions. Attorney and resident Ryan Hemminger urged the board not to rush a solicitor replacement, recommended an RFP and warned that parties in ongoing litigation would scrutinize every board decision.

Board members said the topic had been discussed in an executive session earlier in the evening, which they said involved legal matters that could not be disclosed in public. Several board members expressed support for replacing the current solicitor but asked for more time to review proposals and to consider an RFP. The board nominated two firms during the meeting but then moved to table the appointment until the January committee-of-the-whole meeting to allow additional review.

In a roll-call vote on the motion to table, eight board members voted in favor and the board president voted against; the motion passed. The board also moved to request an RFP for solicitor services and directed staff to bring options to the January meetings.

The decision to delay follows repeated calls from residents for a transparent selection process. Speakers at the meeting asked for comparative cost information and asked whether the selection could affect the district’s pending construction contracts or ongoing litigation. Hemminger said the district is “being watched” by opposing parties and urged the board to “vet them thoroughly and appropriately.”

The board said two firms had submitted proposals and had interviewed with members; board leadership said those firms were reputable and that members had just received the proposals shortly before the special meeting. Board members who opposed deciding the same night said they wanted time to digest the proposals, check for potential conflicts tied to ongoing litigation, and consider issuing a broader RFP.

Next steps: the solicitor appointment will be reconsidered at the January committee-of-the-whole meeting, and the district has been asked to circulate an RFP and provide comparative fee and conflict information to the board and the public prior to any final vote.