Montgomery Area School Board votes to proceed with legal complaint against Clinton Township
Trending
Before a room filled with concerned citizens, the Montgomery Area School Board voted to retroactively approve the filing of an appeal to the land use proposal denied by the Clinton Township Board of Supervisors as well as a complaint seeking damages from the township at a special meeting Tuesday night.
During public comments, board member Holly Wertz spoke out against a vote to proceed with the lawsuit.
"It makes absolutely no sense for one governing body to sue another governing body of where you want to build a school, let alone Clinton Township, which is not costing the school more money," Wertz said.
"The school’s decisions are being fiscally irresponsible with your tax dollars when it comes to the legal fees, engineering fees, architect and advertising fees, and just in general fund spendings," she continued adding that any members supporting the suit are also acting fiscally irresponsible with the tax dollars of the community.
Nearly 50 members of the community turned out for the meeting, a stark contrast to many of the board's meetings, which are typically sparsely attended.
Several in attendance spoke out against the decision to sue.
"If board members from Clinton Township approve the suit, are they not, in fact, suing themselves," asked resident Debbie Stein.
"I just want you to know that you’re not suing Clinton Township, you’re suing me as the taxpayer," offered Edna M Riddell.
"These are the faces of the people. It’s not a group or an organization. You’re suing citizens of our town," she said.
"It was the only method for the district to challenge the denial of the approval of the land development plan," district solicitor Thomas C. Marshall said, explaining the legal process at length.
The meeting was contentious with several residents speaking out of turn and shouting over Marshall, board members and other school board representatives, causing board president Paul Stryker Jr. to bang his gavel, calling for order multiple times.
"They’re requesting the court to enter a peremptory judgment approving its preliminary final land development plan and award damages in the amount of $137,000 for each month of delays. That’s like giving the court a blank check along with attorneys fees and costs," board member Roger McRae said in stating his opposition to the suit.
"I’m actually glad there’s a lot of people here," said board member Jon DeSantis, before going into a hefty explanation of how things had escalated to the point of litigation.
"If we had stuck with the timeline and schedule that we had originally proposed, starting as far back as 10 years ago, we would be moving into that building this August. We would then be able to take the surplus $1.5 million in debt bonds that will be paid off at that point and begin applying them to this part of the building up here so that it can be renovated," he explained.
"The only reason why we have to go to the court and say, ‘you need to make Clinton Township do what they’re legally obligated to do,’ is because there are a handful of people who have done nothing but cause delay for whatever reason. And there’s the same small group of people involved in all of those entities that are causing the delays," DeSantis said.
DeSantis stressed that while the cost of the project is expected to change very little from its original estimate, extra costs have been incurred due to the continued delays.
Pressed on a perceived vagueness of the board agendas, DeSantis pointed out that not only is the agenda available through the district’s website at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, but so are all agreements, contracts and other items to be voted on.
Though not a resident of the district, Scott T. Williams, solicitor for Clinton Township and the Montgomery Water Authority, was granted floor time by the board, as a representative of the residents.
While acknowledging Marshall was correct in his assertion that the suit was the only way to challenge the township’s denials, Williams questioned the wisdom of filing suit rather than fixing any deficiencies cited by the township in its denial.
"The township Planning Commission is the entity that reviews it and makes recommendations to the supervisors on what the supervisor should do. They have certain expertise in these types of things," Williams said.
"It seems to me that what you’re voting on is whether or not the supervisors should ignore the advice and recommendation of their own planning commission and simply approve your plan, because this board is exerting the threat of some kind of a legal challenge," he said, asking the board if they have taken the reasons for the denial into consideration in formulating their next moves.
"I think approving this authorization to file this suit is really going to result in more delays than curing the deficiencies that are in the plan itself," he urged.
The lack of an initial vote of approval was the subject of a motion to dismiss the suit heard before Lycoming County Judge Eric Linhardt Monday afternoon.
Representing the township, attorney Zachary DuGan, an associate of Williams, argued the board had failed to hold a public vote of approval prior to the filing, which he said was required under the state’s Sunshine Act.
The law requires agencies to deliberate and take official action in an open and public meeting, which the community must have advance notice of, as well as an opportunity to attend, participate and comment prior to official action being taken.
However, attorney Noah F. Roux, representing the district, stressed that the act also allows for such violations to be remedied by the holding of a public meeting at which the previously taken action is approved.
Roux further argued that the motion for dismissal was not filed within the 30-day window required, while also noting that while the school district itself is not designated as an agency under the Sunshine Act, the board is, but was not listed as a party within the motion.
Further, the mere filing of a complaint is not considered "an official act" for the purposes of the Sunshine Act, Roux stated, though DuGan stressed his position that the fees associated with the filing of the complaint would render it "an official act."
A dismissal would also push the district out of the appeals process, requiring the entire process to begin anew, Roux told Linhardt.
DuGan countered that the township responded within days of learning of the complaint in mid-December, stating that the township had no inkling such a complaint was in the works, though Roux maintained that the township had received a copy shortly after its filing.
By not holding a public hearing before taking action, the district was seeking to "shift the burden of responsibility," DuGan said.
"The township should not be punished for doing the district’s work for them," he told the judge.
Citing an impending trial date of Jan. 22, Linhardt stated he would work to quickly issue his ruling.
Bidding for the project was expected to begin at 1 p.m. on Wednesday and was open to the public.
Other actions taken at the meeting include the acceptance of the respective resignations of Kaelie Good as a fifth grade teacher, effective Feb. 4 2025 and Nathan Crawford as secondary chemistry/biology teacher, effective Feb. 14, 2025.
Asked by McRae to comment on the Monday school bus crash along Brouse Road in Clinton Township, superintendent Daphne Bowers said a bus driver momentarily looked down, causing them to leave the roadway and strike the pole.
"Thank goodness we had Clinton Township Fire Company and Todd Winder, who’s sitting here, because in this community, when we have an emergency, people show up and they care about each other," she said. "Thank God the kids were safe. The response of PP&L and the state police were quick, and we were able to get the students off the bus and onto another bus. The administration came back here to talk to all the parents by five o’clock."
The next school board meeting will be at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, Jan. 21.