New Central Bucks school board criticized for interim superintendent salary, alleged open meeting violations

The new Central Bucks school board fended off pushback from opponents during a meeting Thursday, as it defended itself against new legal claims that it had violated Pennsylvania’s open meetings law and criticism that it was overpaying for an acting superintendent.

Critics, including the Republican minority on the board, accused the new Democratic majority of rushing to implement its agenda and evading public scrutiny in the process. During last month’s meeting, votes added to the agenda that night rolled back the former board’s controversial bans on library book content, teacher advocacy, and transgender athletes, and moved to investigate the $700,000 payout to recently departed superintendent Abram Lucabaugh.

That Dec. 4 meeting is the subject of a lawsuit filed earlier this month, accusing Democrats of failing to provide adequate public notice for the votes.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of two residents by lawyer Chadwick Schnee, who has also represented parents opposed to masking during the COVID-19 pandemic, asks a Bucks County judge to find that the district violated the Sunshine Act and bar it from taking the actions voted on Dec. 4 — including its hiring of a new solicitor, David Conn, and the suspension of the former board’s appeal of a redistricting map.

The board approved those actions again Thursday. Meanwhile, Karen Smith, the board’s president, said Democrats amended the agenda the night of the meeting because the Republican lame-duck board, which remained in charge until Dec. 4, had refused to put the requested items on it.

“It was never our intention to hide these motions,” Smith said Thursday, noting that she spoke to reporters to publicize the board’s plans ahead of the Dec. 4 meeting. “It is also not our intention to waste time arguing about the issue. We have more important work to do.”

But arguments dominated much of Thursday’s meeting, as critics also took issue with the board’s decision to hire retired West Chester superintendent Jim Scanlon for a six-month term as acting superintendent.

Scanlon’s selection was announced last week, with the district announcing he would make $135,000 for the six-month stint. A staffing agreement approved Thursday, however, reflected a higher total cost — with a rate of $1,713.15 per day.

Scanlon will only be paid $1,350 of that rate, Smith said. The rest will go to Educational Staffing Services, the company employing Scanlon, with a small portion directed to the Bucks County Intermediate Unit, which is facilitating the staffing agreement, Smith said.

Due to Pennsylvania school code and rules surrounding the Public School Employee Retirement System, Central Bucks can’t hire Scanlon directly, Smith said. Instead, she said, ESS will be responsible for overhead and employment-related costs — like federal and state unemployment taxes, workers’ compensation, and liability insurance.

Smith noted that Central Bucks isn’t paying any health benefits for Scanlon, and that a typical employee costs the district 50% more than the employee’s salary.

Some members of the public questioned Scanlon’s pay. “It’s simple math,” said Christy Callaghan, arguing that annualizing Scanlon’s daily rate would result in a salary greater than $350,000 — compared to the $315,000 salary given to Abram Lucabaugh after he was awarded an $85,000 raise last summer.

People “criticized the board for wasteful spending” on Lucabaugh, Callaghan said. “Well, what are we doing now?”

Smith said Scanlon’s pay was a per diem rate — not providing for any vacation or time off, only accounting for full days he works. She said Scanlon and the board anticipate he will work 100 days over the next six months.

Democrats said the position — which had been filled by assistant superintendent Chuck Malone since Lucabaugh’s abrupt resignation following November’s election — was necessary at a time when the district is facing administrative challenges, including lawsuits and realigning grade levels.

But Republicans voted against the hire. One, Debra Cannon, said Scanlon’s expenses should be capped, and accused Smith of misrepresenting his cost. She also questioned whether Scanlon would be simultaneously working other jobs; Democrats said he wouldn’t — questions they said were resolved during the interview process, which Republicans did not participate in.

Cannon said she wasn’t available for the interviews — and said she was “astounded” by how rapidly Democrats had moved to make changes in December, a busy month in which the board typically has fewer meetings. Another Republican, Lisa Sciscio, accused Democrats of pressing “fast forward,” and questioned the necessity of hiring Scanlon.

“We are in fast forward right now, because a lot of actions of the previous board have left us in a situation where our administration needs answers,” Smith said.

As the board voted to approve the minutes from the Dec. 4 meeting, Republicans also objected. “You will be approving minutes of a false meeting,” Cannon said, referring to the Sunshine Act challenge.

Conn had advised the board it could amend the agenda the night of the meeting if it provided its rationale for doing so.

The lawsuit contends the board’s actions didn’t fall under allowable exceptions to the Sunshine Act, which generally requires the public be notified 24 hours before agencies take official action.

“None of the policies are de minimis in nature, as they all address important societal issues concerning the content of educational materials, library books, the alleged indoctrination of children and the athletic participation of transgender athletes,” the lawsuit said.

Conn said the lawsuit was “not a good government suit,” but is “seeking to assist the old board in their unbelievable obstructionist approach to the transition.”

Republicans also questioned the board’s approval of Conn at the December meeting, saying he was advising Democrats before his appointment, and that his selection occurred without minority members’ input; Democrats said Republicans were invited to put forward names of suggested solicitors, but did not.

While Cannon had suggested the board issue a request for proposals, Smith said, “we felt like we needed to move more quickly.”