Keystone Central School District interviews two candidates for Region 9 seat; public commenter urges student-first board

Keystone Central School District held a special public meeting to interview two candidates for the Region 9 school board vacancy and heard a public commenter urge the board to select members with professional experience who will prioritize students' academic success.

An unidentified resident who addressed the board said the district faces "low test scores, declining population and an indecisive board," arguing that "an indecisive board can destroy this district," and urging trustees to "choose a path that reflects those values and move this district forward." The commenter said the district needs board members who put "students and their academic success" first.

The board then interviewed the two candidates in turn. Roger Cashier told the board he was most proud of his volunteer work with children, saying, "I volunteer a lot of my time, coaching new sports... I volunteer as a leader for 4‑H, robotics and esports programs." When asked about meeting attendance, Cashier said evening meetings were not a problem but 1 p.m. committee meetings often conflicted with work; he said he could attend virtually when needed. On academic performance, Cashier said trustees should evaluate whether curriculum is "the right curriculum for the kids" and focus on learning from students' perspectives.

Candidate Megan (her surname appears in the transcript both as "Hauser" and "Houser") described a career that includes a 2008 degree from Penn State and 13 years in human resources, including roles in employee experience and Title IX coordination. She said she would prioritize developing students for adult success and improving community engagement so the district's positive work is better shared. "I would say growing students and developing students to be successful in our society... and partnering with the community more," Megan said. She also described using mediation and data-driven approaches to address lagging test scores, saying the board should "figure out how we got to this place and then... establish that game plan" with staff, faculty, community and students.

Both candidates described practical approaches to budgeting: reviewing needs versus wants, revisiting contracts and vendors to find savings, and seeking data on return on investment. Cashier emphasized focusing on necessities before discretionary spending; Megan suggested regularly evaluating vendors and collecting data to measure whether expenditures produced the expected results.

Board members followed a prepared rotation of questions; candidates were given three minutes per answer and a 30‑second warning. No appointment or vote occurred at the meeting. The chair thanked both candidates and adjourned the session, noting the board would reconvene in a few minutes at the time listed on the agenda.

The meeting record shows procedural instructions and the card draw used to set interview order; public comment and the full candidate interviews were the primary substantive items discussed.