Power, Payments, and Policy 707: The Governance Questions Facing Monday Night's Board Vote

Proposed Policy 707 revisions go to a second reading at Governor Mifflin's August 17, 2026 voting meeting. Illustration: The Mifflin Report Investigation / Analysis A policy rewrite that hands the superintendent open-ended power. $97,658 to one vendor with almost no line items. And a voting rule that doesn't exist in state law. By Lazaro Castellon | The Mifflin Report A growing paper trail inside the Governor Mifflin School District raises significant concerns about financial transparency, administrative authority, facility-use procedures — and whether elected School Directors can still exercise the oversight state law demands of them. This report pulls together district financial records, Pennsylvania statutory law, and the proposed revisions to Policy 707 (Use of School Facilities) , which face a second reading at Monday night's August 17, 2026 voting meeting . Source: Governor Mifflin School District — Public Meeting Agenda: August 17, 2026 at 7:00 PM – Voting Meeting Four Core Governance Findings 1. Statutory vs. administrative authority. Policy 707 revisions would grant Superintendent Dr. Lisa Hess independent approval power over an undefined category of “other activities” — authority state law vests solely in the elected Board (24 P.S. § 7-775). 2. Financial transparency deficits. Between July 9 and July 30, 2026, the district paid $97,658.10 to Alvernia University — $94,660.20 of it labeled only “Multiple Invoices.” 3. Procedural consistency & equity. Questions about enforcement of the 30-day facility-use deadline and local-priority rules expose the district to viewpoint-neutrality challenges. 4. Distorted voting standards. The Board was reportedly told unanimous approval was legally required to post the proposed budget for public review. The Public School Code says no such thing. Part I: Who Actually Controls School Facilities? Under Section 775 of the Pennsylvania Public School Code (24 P.S. § 7-775) , authority over district property is spelled out: “The board of school directors of any district may permit the use of its school grounds and buildings for social, recreation, and other proper purposes, under such rules and regulations as the board may adopt…” The statute does not hand facility-use decision-making to the administration. Staff execute day-to-day operations — but the substantive right to grant facility access and set the governing rules rests with the elected Board . How the Law Assigns Authority (24 P.S. § 7-775) Pennsylvania Public School Code § 7-775 ↓ Board of School Directors — holds statutory authority over facility use ↓ Policy-making authority (Board) • Establishes rules & criteria • Approves activity categories • Maintains ultimate oversight Delegated administration (Staff) • Processes applications • Coordinates scheduling • Manages operational logistics Policy 707 had its first reading on July 20, 2026 . The central issue is one inserted clause under permitted facility uses: “Other activities, as approved by the Superintendent.” Granting broad approval power over unlisted activities shifts decision-making from an administrative function into an unchecked exercise of discretionary policy-making — one that bypasses public Board review entirely. Before Monday's vote, Directors should be asking: Criteria: What objective, published standards will the Superintendent apply to approve or deny an “other activity”? Deadline waivers: Does the language authorize unilateral waiver of the 30-day application deadline? Bypassing oversight: Can activities the elected Board never evaluated be approved anyway? Accountability: If an approval triggers legal or community challenges, where does statutory liability land? Part II: $97,658 to One Vendor — and Almost No Detail A review of the district's General Fund Check Listing (July 9 – August 5, 2026) shows three payments to a single higher-education vendor: Payments to Alvernia University — July 2026 Check Date Description Amount #23751 Jul 9 “Multiple Invoices” $52,399.80 #23805 Jul 24 Balance — MP Mural $2,997.90 #23826 Jul 30 “Multiple Invoices” $42,260.40 Total (July 2026) $97,658.10 How Much of It Was Itemized? Labeled only “Multiple Invoices” $94,660.20 (96.9%) Itemized (MP Mural balance) $2,997.90 (3.1%) Other disbursements on the very same check listing routinely spell out purchase orders, software licenses, tuition line items, and equipment models. Grouping nearly $95,000 under a generic label prevents the public — and elected Directors — from verifying what was purchased, which budget lines it hit, and whether contracts or competitive bidding backed it up. Part III: Facility Access and Equal Protection Questions surrounding facility access — including a recent matter involving a Muslim religious organization — raise both administrative and constitutional concerns. Under Good News Club v. Milford Central School , 533 U.S. 98 (2001), when a public school opens its facilities to the community, it creates a limited public forum. The First Amendment then requires neutral, viewpoint-independent criteria for all applicants and consistent enforcement of the rules — deadlines, fees, and priority classifications alike. The Audit Questions the District Should Be Able to Answer 30-day advance request: Was the deadline followed? If waived, under what written authorization? Community priority: Were local civic and youth groups displaced or bypassed for outside applicants? Fees: Were facility, custodial, and utility fees fully calculated and collected per the Policy 707 schedule? Superintendent discretion: Did any approval rest on the discretionary “other activities” authority? Part IV: The Unanimity Claim That Isn't in the Law District administration reportedly told the Board that unanimous approval was legally required to post the proposed budget for public review. Section 508 of the Public School Code (24 P.S. § 5-508) lists the actions requiring specific vote thresholds — fixing the budget, appointing teachers, purchasing land, levying taxes — and unanimity is not among them. Telling Directors that one “no” vote halts the process carries real consequences: Suppression of dissent — Directors may feel forced to vote yes under a false premise. Diluted oversight — the legal record of where Directors actually stand gets distorted. Impaired accountability — the public can't see true voting alignments on spending and taxes. Part V: What the District Should Release Before Any Vote Five Disclosure Demands 1. Itemized invoices, contracts, and purchase orders for the $97,658.10 paid to Alvernia University. 2. Redacted facility-use approvals, fee receipts, and application timelines proving uniform enforcement of the 30-day rule. 3. A formal legal opinion on whether the “other activities” delegation complies with 24 P.S. § 7-775. 4. A written citation of the exact Code provisions governing majority vs. supermajority votes on budget actions. 5. Current administrative salary structures, fringe benefits, and Act 93 agreements. Conclusion: The Vote Should Be No Elected School Directors are bound by statute to oversee district operations, approve expenditures, and set facility-use policy. Delegating open-ended decision-making power to the administration — with no criteria, no limits, and no safeguards — compromises that duty. Administration exists to implement Board policy — not to replace Board authority. Because the proposed revisions to Policy 707 improperly transfer substantive authority away from the elected Board, lack explicit limiting standards, and leave critical transparency questions unanswered, the Board should reject the proposal on second reading and send it back for complete revision — ensuring any delegation remains strictly administrative, fully transparent, and compliant with Pennsylvania law. Source: Governor Mifflin School District — Public Meeting Agenda: August 17, 2026 at 7:00 PM – Voting Meeting The Mifflin Report is an independent community resource and is not affiliated with the Governor Mifflin School District. This analysis is based on public records, published agendas, and Pennsylvania statute. The district is invited to respond, and any response will be published in full.