Parents press board on charter gag order; Sunshine Act complaint prompts delay on policy changes

Public comment at the May 6 Scranton School Board meeting featured expressions of support for district staff and two items that prompted board action.

Parent Matthew Barrett opened public comment by urging the board to give the superintendent authority to carry out her recommendations and praised Scranton students and staff for achievements despite limited state funding, saying in part, "Let her do her job." That comment was followed by a series of speakers who celebrated student activities and school staff during appreciation weeks.

During public comment, Jaden Volchoff of Clarks Summit asked the board to investigate Howard Gardner Charter School, alleging he had been placed under a gag order and excluded from communication with school staff. Volchoff said he filed an educator‑misconduct complaint and that the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights had been notified. He asked the board for immediate help and an official inquiry; the board acknowledged the request but did not take immediate remedial action during the meeting.

Later in the meeting, audience member Jamie Walsh raised a Sunshine Act objection and said the public had not been given adequate access to the redline edits for proposed changes to policy 903 (public comment in board meetings) and related policy items (G3, G4, G5). Walsh cited the Marshall v. Amuso case and argued the public needed the proposed text to comment meaningfully. After solicitor and board discussion about whether the redlines were visible on BoardDocs and whether case law required additional public posting, the board voted 7–1 to pull agenda items G3, G4 and G5 from action to allow the administration to post the edits publicly and return with clearer access for commenters.

What's next: Administration and the solicitor will make the policy edits visible to the public on BoardDocs or via attachments, and the pulled items will be placed on the next appropriate agenda for reconsideration. The board did not adjudicate the charter‑school allegations during the meeting but acknowledged the parent's request for assistance.