Public commenters press board on agenda removals, solicitor role and blurred organizational chart
February 15, 2025 | Woodland Hills SD, School Districts, Pennsylvania
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Two members of the public used the Feb. 12 agenda-setting meeting’s public comment period to raise governance and transparency concerns with the Woodland Hills School District board.
Why it matters: Public commenters asked the board to explain why an agenda item related to the solicitor’s removal was removed and raised questions about clarity in the district’s organizational chart and personnel placement—subjects that touch on board transparency and personnel governance.
John Jeffers, identified during the meeting as an in-person speaker, asked how and by whose authority the agenda item removing the district solicitor had been removed. "How and by whose authority does something get removed from the agenda that was just placed on it for tonight?" Jeffers asked from the podium, urging greater transparency in agenda-setting.
Board members responded that agenda-setting is coordinated between the superintendent and board president and that the item was removed because it had not been placed correctly and there were executive-session matters related to the topic. The board noted that the majority of the board can also dictate agenda items.
Another in-person commenter, identified in the transcript as Robert Clannigan Bay, pressed the board about an organizational chart he said remained blurred following a December 2024 presentation. He focused on the PIMS (Pupil Information Management System) position, asserting the PIMS coordinator role historically reported to the business manager but was shown on the new chart as moved under technology after a title change. "I still don't know the justification for moving the PIM supervisor position from under the business manager to the technology department," he said.
Board members answered that executive-session items had been discussed with legal counsel as needed; they also said the organizational-chart materials had been corrected where appropriate. The transcript records the public questions and board replies but does not show a formal board action on the substantive issues during the Feb. 12 meeting.
Ending: Commenters asked the board to restore transparent processes for agenda decisions and to clarify organizational chart changes; staff said they would respond through the appropriate administrative processes.
Why it matters: Public commenters asked the board to explain why an agenda item related to the solicitor’s removal was removed and raised questions about clarity in the district’s organizational chart and personnel placement—subjects that touch on board transparency and personnel governance.
John Jeffers, identified during the meeting as an in-person speaker, asked how and by whose authority the agenda item removing the district solicitor had been removed. "How and by whose authority does something get removed from the agenda that was just placed on it for tonight?" Jeffers asked from the podium, urging greater transparency in agenda-setting.
Board members responded that agenda-setting is coordinated between the superintendent and board president and that the item was removed because it had not been placed correctly and there were executive-session matters related to the topic. The board noted that the majority of the board can also dictate agenda items.
Another in-person commenter, identified in the transcript as Robert Clannigan Bay, pressed the board about an organizational chart he said remained blurred following a December 2024 presentation. He focused on the PIMS (Pupil Information Management System) position, asserting the PIMS coordinator role historically reported to the business manager but was shown on the new chart as moved under technology after a title change. "I still don't know the justification for moving the PIM supervisor position from under the business manager to the technology department," he said.
Board members answered that executive-session items had been discussed with legal counsel as needed; they also said the organizational-chart materials had been corrected where appropriate. The transcript records the public questions and board replies but does not show a formal board action on the substantive issues during the Feb. 12 meeting.
Ending: Commenters asked the board to restore transparent processes for agenda decisions and to clarify organizational chart changes; staff said they would respond through the appropriate administrative processes.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting