Special Board Meeting - July 9, 2007
Minutes
BETHLEHEM AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT
BOARD OF SCHOOL DIRECTORS
SPECIAL MEETING
JULY 9, 2007
SPECIAL MEETING
A Special Meeting of the Board of School Directors of the Bethlehem Area School District was held
on Monday, July 9, 2007, beginning at 6:07 p.m. in the Dining Room at the Education Center, 1516
Sycamore Street, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Director Koch chaired the meeting in absence of
President Haytmanek who was called away and the vice-president who usually takes over had another
meeting involving the Vocational-Technical School.
MEMBERS PRESENT
The Board Secretary called the roll:
Members present: Directors Amato, Cann, Craig, Dexter, Heske, Koch, and Leeson - 7. Members
absent: Directors Rowe and Haytmanek - 2.
OTHERS PRESENT
Others present: Dr. Joseph A. Lewis, Superintendent of Schools; Stanley J. Majewski, Jr., Board
Secretary; administrators, members of the press, and other interested citizens and staff members.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
At this point in the meeting, the Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
SILENT MEDITATION
Director Koch requested that the audience observe a moment of silent meditation.
COURTESY OF THE FLOOR TO VISITORS
Director Koch offered courtesy of the floor to visitors. Speakers are asked to come to the
podium, stating their name and address. Public comment in the first session is limited to 30
minutes. Speakers are limited to three minutes each. The board requests that, when possible, all
individuals supporting a like position on a topic select a speaker to present their views to avoid
repetition. If that is not possible, all are welcome to speak. As per school board policy,
generally, speakers are limited to taxpayers, residents, or employees of this school district. At
the conclusion of the regular school board meeting, another block of time will be allocated for
public comment. At that time, the same rules will apply. It is asked that speakers observe
proper decorum, without personal attacks towards a specific individual or individuals. It is not
the custom for the board to enter into a dialogue at these meetings about concerns. However, the
board does listen with care to issues raised. Speakers will receive responses, in some form, by
the administration. The following person addressed the Board of School Directors:
1. Stephen Antalics, 737 Ridge Street, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania Mr. Antalics stated he has very
serious problems with the press release dated May 21, 2007. He said he met a parent of a
Nitschmann student and this person said they were very concerned with his feelings but could
not have discussion because of a secrecy agreement. He checked with a number of legal people
who were concerned with the validity of the parent's statement. He also checked with a
reliable source at the district attorney's office regarding people who report to a grand jury
under secrecy. After they testify they are free to speak on their own as a citizen because it
is a first amendment right.
Mr. Antalics said the Acerra situation picks up two issues; the criminal aspect of the drugs which
is addressed in the press release but also there is a comment made at the Nitschmann meeting
saying to find out what broke down. He said the press release does not get into what broke
down. He asked if the people who are not administrators speaking on the drug issue being
prevented from speaking to the press or anybody else because of the constraints of a secrecy
agreement. Why deprive them of their first amendment rights?
Dr. Lewis responded that he does not know of anyone who was instructed not to speak unless they
are being advised by their own counsel. He said that when he went through the interview
process, he was not told by anyone that there was a secrecy agreement.
Mr. Antalics said was also concerned and he checked with two individuals who spoke with Attorneys
Conrad and Goff and were required or asked to sign a secrecy agreement. He asked, "Who is
that protecting?" He said they were told that they couldn't discuss the matter with anybody
else because they signed the secrecy agreement.
Dr. Lewis replied that he thinks they signed a document relative to confidentiality. It was his
understanding that it was about the questions that were asked so as not to "color" anyone
else's responses. He frankly thinks people are free to personally speak about any issues, but
would of course be subject to the same exposure challenged by Mr. Acerra or someone else, had
their remarks been taken as a violation of privacy rights, HIPAA or some other area. He
cannot speak for President Haytmanek and does not know what transpired with counsel and can
only speak to his own interview and signing of an agreement. He said he understood it was
because in the process of the investigation, the investigators did not want the questions
getting out or conversation occurring regarding the questions. Dr. Lewis said that he did not
know of any restriction or gag order and have not issued any.
Mr. Antalics stated that confidentiality in executive session is implied in the press release
statement
Dr. Lewis asked, "Was this press release from the district?
Mr. Antalics replied, "It was the press release from the district." He said it doesn't really
address the basic problem of what broke down and the two issues; the drug issue and the people
who spoke as private citizens who were concerned about the inability of administration to
respond to their complaints. He said the individuals were very upset but could not discuss
with him because of a confidentiality agreement which was specifically spelled out by the
attorneys. It affects our first amendment rights regarding freedom of speech.
Director Koch stated that because of "freedom of speech" she has allowed him extra time to speak
and to please conclude his commentary.
Mr. Antalics again asked if the private citizens, who reported to the two attorneys, are free to
speak to the press if they choose.
Dr. Lewis replied that he can only speak for his office and they were not involved in that aspect.
He said the question would be better directed to President Haytmanek and to Attorney Conrad
because they drafted the document.
Mr. Antalics responded that someone is ducking the issue which is simple.
Dr. Lewis answered that he is not ducking any issue stating that he told him his opinion that
people are free to say what they wish at their own expense once the investigation is over.
Mr. Antalics said that the people were told they can't under the agreement.
Dr. Lewis replied that he was not told that during his interview.
Mr. Antalics asked how he can get an official answer.
Dr. Lewis replied that when President Haytmanek is back we will ask him to directly respond.
Mr. Antalics agreed to his suggestion and thanked Dr. Lewis.
Director Koch asked if there were any other individuals interested in speaking and nobody came
forward.
PRESIDENT'S COMMUNICATIONS/UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There was no communication from the president considering he was not present this evening.
Director Dexter wanted to state for the record that it was her understanding that Dr. Lewis and
his staff will be working on a merit pay system for administrative staff. She wanted to be
certain that it is documented in the minutes so that there is no confusion for next year. She
asked Dr. Lewis when the board would expect to see the information and would it be well in advance
of the July deadline.
Dr. Lewis replied that it is completed and they will probably have it for the next executive
session. There is an agreement in principle with the Instructional Meet and Discuss group that
requires formal approval by the school directors.
Director Koch compiled information regarding the community service program and distributed it
stating that she spoke to Dr. Lewis who wanted to know what her intention was regarding the
committee. She said it was not her intention to get rid of community service. She said to the
best of her knowledge they have never officially examined community service in the past 13 years
and haven't defined what community service was for the district. Director Koch said that if it
exists somewhere then she hasn't seen it and she doesn't know if the board has ever received it.
She said that Dr. Lewis agreed that a rubric is needed detailing acceptable and unacceptable
student activities and that was also never described in writing. The other subject that perhaps
should be revisited is the standards for independent projects. The ones for the large
organizations are working well and there have been no problems as far as she knows but
occasionally there are problems with the independent projects. The student goes to one place
where volunteers often haven't been used before and then there are occasional problems. She also
suggested having a totally neutral person running the committee and had at least one person
recommended.
Dr. Lewis commented that he was able to confirm that Mr. William Scheirer has agreed to chair the
committee. Dr. Lewis said he invited him to chair after speaking with Director Koch who provided
some questions:
- Is he connected with Musikfest or the Celtic Festival? He is not in any way.
- Does he have a strong opinion regarding this particular issue? He does not.
- Does he believe in community service as a requirement? He replied that he has no strong feelings
on that but it appears to be working.
Dr. Lewis stated he had also spoken with Mrs. Diane Seip, Director of Community Service. She has
agreed to serve as a teacher representative.
Dr. Lewis said that what he would like to do is support exactly what the board would like to do
with this committee. A meeting has been scheduled with Mr. Scheirer and Dr. Dean Donaher, who has
agreed to be the district liaison or co-chairperson and he also has no strong opinion on this
issue.
Director Koch said she will not be present at the next meeting and had some concern that it fell
under curriculum so she wanted to get her thoughts on paper. She said that she chose 17 as the
number of people representing the organizations in order to have a good representation of the
community. She thought the way they should be chosen is by taking a list of all community service
organizations that are used for the students and organize them by the ones most popularly used.
Invite the top 17 and if they cannot attend, then ask the next one on the list. She thought it
would be good to have the entire list so that as board members, they could review it and also look
at some of the independent projects, to see what the students are actually doing. She also said
the number chosen should be an odd number because they should be the voters, in addition to the
superintendent, four board members and four administrators. The members of the press should
definitely be invited along with community members who should be given unlimited time for
commentary. She said they did it for the Tax Study Committee where as much time as necessary was
given for opinions. She asked if there were any questions about the written material she had
distributed.
Director Heske thought the board should address having a celebration or giving recognition for the
upcoming 1,000,000 hours of community service given by the students.
Director Koch agreed, saying it was a good idea.
Dr. Lewis replied that the information has been given to Deborah Campanella for tallying. He
agreed that recognition should be given and will coordinate it.
Director Koch asked Dr. Lewis if her recommendation to compile a listing of the community service
organizations can proceed.
Dr. Lewis responded that if the board is in agreement with the basic parameters and perhaps invite
some parents and community members to sit as voting members if she is in agreement.
Director Koch replied that she approves as long as there is an equal number on each side. She
wouldn't want to see all the voting members coming from "Friends of Musikfest."
Dr. Lewis agreed and commented that he doesn't think the debate is about Musikfest.
Director Koch agreed but she could see something like that happening unless limits are set for
balance.
Dr. Lewis said it his understanding that the goals are to define community service, create a
rubric that would judge whether agencies are providing activities which meet that standard but the
one that is missing is abuses of the system and what to do to stem those.
Director Koch replied that is why she listed independent projects because to the best of her
knowledge, when people tell her about abuses, they usually fall into that independent project
category. She rarely heard anything regarding the larger organizations, because they have a
system in place and it works well.
Dr. Lewis said three and four could be combined. He asked the board if there are any feelings
relative to the proposal from Director Koch. He can speak with Mr. Scheirer and Dr. Donaher and
get them started.
Director Leeson commented that she thought Director Koch did a great job in putting together a
plan with some real concrete ideas.
Dr. Lewis asked if any board members present would be interested in serving on the committee.
Director Cann stated she would be happy to be part of it.
Director Koch reiterated her concern about having balance on the committee. She said most people
think she is opposed to the students being at Musikfest in certain areas or activities where
alcohol is being served. She emphasized that she is not an enemy of Musikfest.
Director Craig said he works at Musikfest and could not serve on the committee. He commented that
having parents and community people on the committee is great but he cautioned about deliberately
selecting individuals who are in favor or are opposed to community service or Musikfest. His
concern was the possibility of opening up old wounds.
Director Koch said she was talking about the committee that is going to vote should be as balanced
as possible. The opportunity will be there for as many as 500 people who are in favor of allowing
students to volunteer at Musikfest to come and talk as much as they want.
Director Craig stated that he is not sure how looking at the position someone has on Musikfest
will affect their opinion, if the goal is to look at some of the abuses that have taken place,
which is one of the primary concerns.
Director Koch replied that it would affect the setting up of the rubric.
Dr. Lewis commented that if there is large enough group representation, it w take care of itself.
He said if anyone else from the board is interested in serving on the committee to contact him.
Regarding the timeline, he said Mr. Scheirer will probably have to establish that and that he is
not aversed to any time. He added that any member of the board is welcome as with the Tax Study
Commission.
Director Koch continued that there were only a certain number who could vote but the other board
members were welcome to come and serve.
Director Cann asked Director Koch if there is a timeline regarding when it would be done.
Director Koch replied no and that she would leave it up to the board and administration to work
out.
Dr. Lewis stated he thought it has been agreed to start as soon as we can.
Director Koch said she thought it would be easier to get people together in September rather than
August but it all depends when everyone can get together.
SUPERINTENDENT'S REPORT
Dr. Lewis announced that half of the report was given during unfinished business. The other half
is simply that he and Mr. Majewski finalized a piece this afternoon regarding a benefactor to
underwrite the cost of the greenhouse at Broughal but cannot announce it until the agreement is
reviewed by the solicitor. He said he was very excited about it and will compose an appropriate
release with the press and others at the time the details are finalized. At this time they have a
handshake agreement. The good news is that as many of those specialty areas that can be cost out
to philanthropy and benefactors the less of a cost it will be to the taxpayers which is their
goal.
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
Director Leeson had a question regarding the confidential agreement discussion earlier with Mr.
Antalics. She commented that she heard that as well from someone who said they felt that by
signing the confidential agreement they could not speak. She said she doesn't know if that was a
misunderstanding or not. Director Leeson wondered if they could obtain a ruling on this from
White-Williams as to exactly what that meant so that people will understand.
Director Koch emphasized the information would not just be for the board members but to inform the
people who were involved in the matter so they won't feel as if they are required to stay quiet.
MOTION TO INCLUDE BOARD MEMBERS IN ADMINISTRATIVE INTERVIEW PROCESS
Director Leeson also asked to make a motion to include board members as part of the interviewing
process for administrators. She is aware that this is a process that they would like to discuss
and finalize.
Director Dexter seconded the motion.
Director Koch asked if there was any discussion on the matter before the vote.
Director Amato said that he felt Mr. Gross's idea was very good and questioned if that will be
what the vote is on.
Director Leeson stated she is proposing that the board become part of the interview process and
then the fine details can be discussed as to exactly how they are a part of it. She said she
agreed with Director Amato in that those ideas were fine.
Director Koch said she thought there were so many different ideas that she wouldn't feel
comfortable voting until she has a better idea of what she is voting on. At this point it is far
too general of a concept.
Director Leeson replied that if Director Koch would like her to refine it, then she would move
that the board members become part of the interview process as described by Mr. Gross, where they
will sit silently as observers during the first stage of the interview process.
Director Koch inquired about the number of board members that would be present.
Director Leeson responded that there would be two to three.
Director Koch replied that she would want a definite number of members rather than two or three
but would want one or the other.
Director Leeson said then she would state there would be three board members present during the
interview.
Director Heske stated that in view of the gravity and significance of the question he feels the
entire board of nine should vote on the decision.
Director Koch asked if his suggestion is to table the proposal.
Director Heske replied to get some more information like she has and have a specific proposal.
Director Leeson said there is a motion and a second so she believes they vote on it tonight.
MOTION TO TABLE ADMINISTRATIVE INTERVIEW PROCESS
Director Heske said he is raising a motion to table until more information is obtained.
Director Craig seconded the motion.
Dr. Lewis commented that he is aware that the motion is not discussable and they have to vote on
it but he would like if Mr. Gross, himself and others to have a chance to discuss details on
something like this as opposed to throwing out "x" amount of board members and so forth. He felt
that tabling is an idea that he endorses.
Director Koch asked if they would be able discuss that at the Human Resources Committee Meeting.
Director Craig said that it doesn't really accomplish anything this evening because there are
still only seven board members present and nine board members were desired for the vote.
ROLL CALL - TABLE ADMINISTRATIVE INTERVIEW PROCESS
Director Koch called for a vote on Director Heske's motion to table the administrative interview
process proposal. The question was called and roll call was as follows: Yea, Directors Craig,
Heske and Koch - 3. Nay, Directors Amato, Cann, Dexter and Leeson - 4. Motion failed 3 - 4
Director Koch announced that they are voting on this tonight.
Dr. Lewis asked if they should further discuss the motion.
Director Craig said he would be voting no on the motion because his opinion is that it borders on
being involved in areas where they really should not be involved with "at that point." He thought
that eventually they do have an obvious role in the process, but, he does not believe that as
board members they belong in that situation and he will be voting "no."
Director Koch said she would also be voting "no", not because she doesn't agree with the general
concept but she would like to have a much better idea of exactly something like this would work.
Dr. Lewis added that three board members is going to be incredibly difficult to schedule. The
interviews take place during the day and presently they have trouble filling the hearings with two
members. He thinks that it would really stem the process. He suggested consideration of two
board members.
MOTION TO AMEND MOTION FROM THREE TO TWO BOARD MEMBERS
Director Leeson replied that she would amend the motion to two board members at Dr. Lewis'
request.
Director Dexter seconded the motion.
Mr. Majewski requested clarification regarding the motion stating that it appears that they want
board members involved in the interview process and asked if it included all interviews throughout
the district for every position.
Director Leeson replied, "No, it would be interviews of administrators only and it would be two
board members observing at the level one interviews."
Director Koch asked if there were any comments.
Director Dexter commented that she liked the idea and she thought they should have board members
on the committees that were interviewing for administrative positions at Freedom High School. She
did research the issue, including a telephone call to the PSBA, and learned that most school
boards do have some form of participation by board members in the selection of administrators.
The form of participation varies widely from one district to another. Board members can be
active, controlling or silent but most boards did have some participation. She said she feels
much more comfortable with having our board represented. Director Dexter said it was her
understanding that it would not be the same two board members sitting in for all administrative
interviews rather all board members would be involved in the selection process and would be
randomly selected.
Director Craig remarked that he thought it should be up to the individual board members to
determine whether they want to participate.
Director Koch said that as with the expulsion hearings, there are times when only one person is
available to sit in and if that is the case, then one member should be allowed to be present.
Dr. Lewis asked if the motion could be amended again to be one or two members.
Director Leeson replied no; she wants to stay with two members.
Dr. Lewis said then we cannot conduct with less than two members.
Director Koch asked if they can't have an interview unless they can get two people.
Director Leeson stated she thinks they are thinking in terms of expulsions where there might be
100 in a year whereas there are only a handful of administrative interviews throughout a year.
Director Koch added that there are a large number of people who are also involved and coordination
of interview dates and availability may be administratively challenging.
Director Leeson said there are only maybe three or four administrators that they hire in a year so
it's not as if there are so many interviews and she thought it was very reasonable. She said she
is going to stay with two board members.
Director Amato stated that if the majority of the board feels as if that is what we want then we
better be available.
Director Cann said she agreed with Director Craig in that the level one interview is not the place
for involvement of board members. She wanted to clarify that they are not discussing involvement
of board members rather simply placing board members in a position which will inform them for the
appropriate level of participation.
Director Craig replied that he understands that and he will still take the position that board
members in the interview room with 13 or 14 committee members, over half of which are employees of
the district, are going to stifle some conversation and discussion. He said he has been around
long enough and involved in these types of activities and that's what you are going to have. If
that is the way the board decides to vote, then that is the way it shall be and he will support
it.
ROLL CALL RE: MOTION TO INVOLVE TWO BOARD MEMBERS IN ADMINISTRATIVE INTERVIEW PROCESS
Director Koch called for a vote on the question. Roll call was as follows: Yea, Directors Amato,
Cann, Dexter and Leeson - 4. Nay, Directors Craig, Heske and Koch - 3. Motion carried 4 - 3.
COURTESY OF THE FLOOR TO VISITORS
Director Koch offered courtesy of the floor to visitors. No one wished to address the Board of
School Directors.
ADJOURNMENT
Directors Amato and Craig moved to adjourn the meeting which carried by voice vote. The meeting
adjourned at 7:41 p.m.
Attest,
Stanley J. Majewski, Jr.
Board Secretary
:dw