Scranton policy committee proposes governance changes, consolidates special education and adds fair‑funding panel

Director Danielle Cheswick, chair of the Policy Committee, opened the meeting by summarizing proposed revisions to the district’s governance guidelines, saying the draft updates official listings and clarifies how directors should request agenda items. "The chair will work with the board secretary, board president on a suitable date and time for the meeting depending on the agenda items," Cheswick said as she walked members through the edits.

The revisions include consolidating special education into the education committee and adding a new Education Fair Funding Committee to evaluate funding disparities and propose solutions. A readout of the fair‑funding committee’s purpose emphasized that it would "evaluate current funding mechanisms, assessments, disparities in funding allocation among different school districts, and propose solutions to ensure that resources are distributed fairly and efficiently." The committee would also coordinate with local and state legislative bodies and advocacy groups, the draft said.

Board members debated committee composition and the process for proposing agenda items. One director proposed separating athletics out of operations into an athletics and extracurriculars committee so the director could serve as chair and pursue ideas related to stadiums and extracurricular programming; others warned that a separate athletics committee should consider facilities beyond a single stadium (auditoriums, gymnasiums) and the board should balance resources across arts and athletics.

The draft also revises how consensus decisions are recorded. Cheswick described a change that would ensure all nine board members are contacted or at least attempted to be reached when the president seeks consensus, and that the outcome would be recorded and emailed as documentation rather than relying on a simple five‑member majority.

Committee chair term language drew further discussion. The draft contains a clause that would make a chair ineligible for reappointment for one year after serving a one‑year term; several members questioned the wisdom of an automatic ineligibility period and proposed alternatives—such as a two‑year chair term or allowing the president discretion—to balance leadership development with operational continuity.

No final votes occurred; the committee agreed to carry the edits forward for a first read at the upcoming work session and to revisit language where members requested changes.