THE QUESTIONS THE BOARD ASKED — NOW ADMINISTRATION NEEDS TO ANSWER

Security. Staff departures. Spending. Searches. Contracts. And the questions that still deserve answers.

* By Lazaro L. Castellon | The Mifflin Report*** There is a bigger story developing inside the Governor Mifflin School District. It is not about one meeting, one employee, or one disagreement between a board member and administration. The bigger issue is oversight . Board members are asking questions about security, employees leaving, contracts, administrative decisions, student searches, and how taxpayer money is being spent. Those questions should not be treated as attacks. They are exactly what an elected school board should be asking — and they all lead to the same taxpayer question: Where are the answers? THE BOARD'S QUESTIONS SHOULD NOT DISAPPEAR At the September 21 meeting, Board Member Heather Bouchard questioned the proposed volunteer football coaching assignment involving High School Principal T.J. Miller. The concern was not simply whether a principal can coach. The bigger question was whether the district has enough safeguards to prevent a conflict of interest when a school administrator is also involved in athletics. Who supervises the principal while he coaches? Who handles complaints? Who ensures other students and athletes are treated fairly? Who ensures administrative duties do not take a back seat to coaching? These are legitimate oversight questions. The PIAA also places significant responsibility on the high school principal for interscholastic athletics, so the real issue is not whether anyone likes T.J. Miller — it is whether the structure protects students, the school, and the district. That is what the board should be examining. SECURITY: WHAT HAPPENED BETWEEN THE CONTRACTS — AND WHAT DID IT COST? Janemarie McKay raised another set of questions that deserve direct answers. She wanted to know about the district's private security contracts and what happened during the transition between providers. She had reportedly requested the prior contract nearly two weeks earlier. That raises a basic question: why did a board member have to keep asking for a contract involving school security? The September 14 agenda shows the district seeking approval of a Security Care protection-services agreement for athletic events. The September security agreement also listed unarmed security at $29.50 per hour per agent , with armed security at $49 per hour in the supporting materials. That timeline matters, because security should never be something that becomes clear only after something goes wrong. Taxpayers deserve more than a contract approval — they deserve to know what was actually delivered. Which means asking: Was there a period when the district did not have the expected private security coverage? What happened during that period, and who knew? When did administration know, and when did the board know? What security coverage was in place for major athletic events? Was the new company providing services before the contract was formally approved — and if so, under what authority, and who approved it? How many hours were purchased, how many guards were actually used, and how much was spent? Were there periods when the district believed coverage was necessary but did not have it? And after the concerns raised by parents and board members, what has changed? THE EMPLOYEES WHO ARE LEAVING — AND THE DATA NO ONE HAS PRODUCED McKay also asked for something basic: a comprehensive list of employees who have left the district. Not just names — positions, buildings, departure dates, and whether an exit interview was completed. That request matters even more when you look at the October 5 agenda. The district listed five resignations: Natalie Ames — Special Education Allison Clark — Librarian Sydney Gregory — Full-time Paraprofessional Jessica Pinkerton — Part-time Food Service Cailey Skipper — Part-time Paraprofessional At the same meeting, the district was also considering numerous new hires and replacements. That does not automatically mean there is a staffing crisis — people leave jobs for many reasons. But it does mean the board should know why people are leaving. That is the point of an exit interview. If the district says it values employee morale and retention, the board should be able to see the data: How many people left? How many were interviewed? How many were never contacted? What were the common complaints? Were there repeated concerns about management, workload, pay, morale, leadership, or working conditions? And most important: what did administration do with that information? THE HR SYSTEM: WHAT IS TAXPAYERS' MONEY BUYING — AND WHOSE WORK IS IT DOING? There is another financial piece that belongs inside this same accountability thread, and it deserves to be read next to the district's own staffing chart. The October 5 agenda asks the board to approve a Master Services Agreement with Red Rover Technologies for a Human Resources hiring and records-management system. The attached quote lists $33,500 annually for Hiring and Records plus a $6,000 one-time implementation fee , totaling $39,500 before any discount. The agenda says a vendor discount reduces the net cost to $33,500 . Those figures are not inherently contradictory: a $6,000 discount would reconcile them. But the attached pricing and billing pages still list the $6,000 implementation charge. Administration should identify the discount in the final agreement and explain the first-year and renewal costs before the board votes. Now here is the context that belongs beside that figure. The district already employs a full human resources department. According to the district's own website, that department is composed of Stephanie Seifrit, Director of Human Resources ; two HR generalists, Amie Knorr and Amy Payne ; and an HR secretary, Maggie Hurwitz . That is a four-person department led by a director-level administrator. Taxpayers deserve to see the district's approved HR salaries and total personnel costs alongside the proposed software expense. A third-party salary estimate or a number circulating in the community is not a substitute for the district's actual payroll records. What the vendor sells is also a matter of public record. Red Rover offers absence management, time tracking, hiring, professional-development management, and records , with published integrations that include Skyward ERP Red Rover . However, Governor Mifflin's attached quote specifically covers Hiring and Records . The vendor's Skyward description concerns time-off and substitute-pay records; it does not establish that this particular purchase includes those products or that it duplicates functions the district already buys. The board should ask which modules and integrations are actually included. None of that is an accusation about anyone's competence. It is a question about duplication — and it is exactly the kind of question a board spending taxpayer money should ask: If the district employs a director and two generalists in HR, what specifically is this software replacing , and what is it adding ? Does the district already pay for these functions through Skyward? Is this a replacement, an upgrade, or a second system layered on top of the first? Which duties currently handled by people will now be handled by software? Will any HR position change, be reduced, or be eliminated — or will the software be added on top of the existing staffing at full cost? Was any consideration given to what the same $33,500 a year would buy if it were spent on people rather than software? Who recommended this purchase — HR, administration, or the vendor — and what alternatives were evaluated? Then comes the question that matters most. If the district is buying a Hiring and Records system, what will it do to improve the exit-interview and turnover reporting the board has been asking for — and which of those functions are actually included in the contract? That is the real issue. Not whether software is useful. Whether the district can explain what new information and efficiencies the purchase will provide — and why a department it already funds has not yet provided the requested information. If the answers are good, the purchase can be defended on the record. If they are not, taxpayers are being asked to fund a workaround. AND THEN THERE ARE THE CHANGE ORDERS The same October 5 agenda includes construction change orders. One High School change order is $1,909.49 for drywall and metal-frame window pockets. Another is $1,194.06 for Axiom trim and a ceiling-height transition in the orchestra room. Together, those two total $3,103.55 . These amounts by themselves will not make or break a school district. But this is exactly why oversight matters — change orders add up. The district's own proposed Policy 704 says adequate maintenance is essential to fiscal responsibility and efficient management , and calls for an annual report to the board on projected maintenance needs that includes cost analysis. Against that standard, the board should be asking: Why was this work not included correctly in the original plans? Was it an unforeseen condition or a design issue — and could it have been identified earlier? How many change orders have occurred on the project, and what is the total dollar amount? These are not unreasonable questions. They are taxpayer questions — and the same logic that applies to a few thousand dollars in change orders applies to a $33,500 software contract and to a security agreement billed by the hour. NOW COMES THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH ISSUE This may be one of the most important policy issues currently sitting in front of the board. The October 5 packet contains the first reading of Policy 226 — Searches . The proposed policy says the district can search students, lockers, vehicles, electronic devices, purses, backpacks, clothing and other belongings without a warrant when there is reasonable suspicion that the item contains prohibited contraband, threatens school safety, or contains evidence of a violation. Let's be clear: a school does not have to sit on its hands when there is a legitimate safety concern. If administrators have reasonable suspicion that a student has a weapon, drugs, or other dangerous material, there must be a way to act. Student safety matters. But the words reasonable suspicion matter too. They should not become meaningless. The proposed policy itself says the scope of a search must be reasonable in relation to what officials suspect they will find and the reason for the search. That is where the board needs to slow down and ask: What exactly qualifies as reasonable suspicion? Is it based on specific facts — a report from another student, an observed object, a smell, a threat, a credible tip — or simply a feeling? There needs to be a clear standard. THE VEHICLE SEARCH LANGUAGE ALSO DESERVES ATTENTION The proposed policy says students receive parking privileges as a matter of privilege rather than right. It also permits routine checks of student vehicles and the use of drug/explosive detection dogs. But it then says interior vehicle inspections will be conducted when administration has reasonable suspicion that illegal or unauthorized material is inside, or that a school rule was violated. That raises an important question: what is a routine check, and what is an actual search of the inside of a vehicle? Those should not be blurred together. If the district wants to use dogs, metal detectors, or other security measures, the policy should explain exactly what happens when an alert occurs. What happens next? Who makes the decision? What level of suspicion is required? Is the search documented, and who reviews the documentation? What happens if nothing is found? These are worth answering before the policy is finalized. THE BIGGEST PROBLEM MAY BE THE REFUSAL LANGUAGE This is where I believe the board needs to take a very close look. The proposed policy says a student who fails to cooperate with a justified suspicion-based search may be presumed to possess the prohibited item being sought, and may face discipline. The marked-up proposal crosses out the older sentence saying a student refusing a search will be suspended and recommended for expulsion. Its replacement says the student will remain in school officials' custody until released to a parent/guardian or police officials. The proposal should therefore not be described as retaining that automatic suspension-and-expulsion language. The separate presumption-of-possession clause remains, and that deserves scrutiny. Because there is a major difference between "we have reasonable suspicion and are conducting a lawful search" and "you refused, therefore we will treat you as if you possessed the item." Those are not necessarily the same thing, and the district needs to explain the legal basis and due-process protections behind that language. Pennsylvania Department of Education guidance for Alternative Education for Disruptive Youth (AEDY) programs says student searches must comply with local, state and federal law, and recommends clear search policies covering purpose, scope, procedures, training, and handling of contraband. That guidance is specific to AEDY settings; it is not a determination that Governor Mifflin's proposed general-school policy is lawful or unlawful. So I would put these questions to the administration and the solicitor: Does this refusal provision create a presumption of guilt — and if it does, is that appropriate? Can a student be disciplined for refusing a search without independent evidence that the student possessed prohibited material? What happens if the suspicion turns out to be wrong? What appeal rights does the student have? What documentation is required? What limits and safeguards apply to the remaining presumption-of-possession clause and the custody provision? METAL DETECTORS NEED RULES TOO The proposed policy says security-screening metal detectors may be used on an as-needed basis when requested by administrators. That sounds simple. It is not. The public deserves to know: When can administrators activate them? Can they be used randomly? Can every student be screened? Can visitors? What happens when a detector alarms — who performs the follow-up search, and is reasonable suspicion required afterward? How are medical devices handled? Are searches documented, and who reviews those records? If the district is going to increase security, the rules need to be clear before the searches begin. Safety and constitutional rights are not enemies. The district has to protect both. THE QUESTIONS ARE CONNECTED This is what gets lost when each issue is looked at separately. Security. Employee turnover. HR records. Contracts. Change orders. Student searches. Administrative oversight. They may look like different subjects, but they all come back to one thing: Who is watching the people who are running the system? The administration runs the day-to-day operation. The school board is supposed to provide oversight. That means board members should question contracts. They should question spending. They should question policies, staffing, security — anything that could affect students or taxpayers. That is not micromanaging. That is oversight. THE QUESTIONS ADMINISTRATION SHOULD BE ANSWERING NOW Security What exactly happened during the transition between security providers? Was there ever a gap in coverage? Who knew about the gap? When did the superintendent know? When did the board know? Was the new security company working before its contract was formally approved? If so, who authorized it? How much was paid? Employees How many employees have left the district over the last several years? How many were offered exit interviews? How many actually completed them? How many resigned without being contacted by HR? What were the most common reasons employees gave for leaving? What has administration done with that information? HR Department & Spending Why does the district need the Red Rover system? What will the $33,500 annual cost provide? What will the $6,000 implementation fee cover? Where is the vendor discount documented in the final agreement, and what are the actual first-year and renewal costs? Which HR functions will the software perform, and which of those are currently performed by district employees? Does the district already pay for these functions through Skyward or another existing system? Is Red Rover replacing an existing system, or is it being added on top of one? Will any HR position be changed, reduced, or eliminated? If the department is not changing, what specifically is being added for the money? What measurable improvements will taxpayers see? Will the system track exit interviews, resignations, vacancies, and turnover? Will board members receive reports directly from the system? Who recommended the purchase, and what alternatives were considered? Construction How many change orders have been approved on the current project? What is their total cost? Which changes resulted from design errors? Which resulted from unforeseen conditions? Could any of these costs have been avoided? Student Searches What specifically qualifies as reasonable suspicion? Who makes that determination? Is every search documented? Who reviews those reports? What happens when a search finds nothing? With the automatic suspension-and-expulsion sentence crossed out, what disciplinary consequences may follow refusal under the remaining provisions? Can a student be presumed to possess contraband simply because the student refused? What due-process protections apply? How will vehicle searches be handled? How will metal-detector searches be handled? What happens when a metal detector alarms? What role will police play? When does a school search become a criminal investigation? WHY THE BOARD'S QUESTIONS MATTER In my opinion, the most important part of this story is not whether every criticism made by a board member is correct. The important part is whether administration can answer the questions. That is what public accountability looks like. Heather Bouchard asked questions about oversight. Janemarie McKay asked questions about security contracts and employee departures. A former employee raised questions about the district's exit-interview process. Mr. Baker raised questions about security, communication, and how information reaches parents and the public. And now the board is considering a search policy that gives administrators significant authority to conduct warrantless searches when reasonable suspicion exists — while also being asked to fund a Hiring and Records system whose reporting capabilities and relationship to the board's information requests deserve explanation. Those powers may be necessary for school safety. But power requires clear rules. Money requires oversight. And administration requires accountability. The Governor Mifflin community should not have to choose between safety and constitutional protections. It should not have to choose between efficient administration and transparency. And taxpayers should not have to choose between trusting the district and asking questions. The board was elected to ask those questions. Now administration needs to answer them — clearly, publicly, and with enough detail that parents, employees, and taxpayers can understand them. Because "trust us" is not an answer. The questions are already on the table. Now let's see the answers. * — Lazaro L. Castellon | The Mifflin Report*** Sources October 5, 2026 agenda and supporting documents September 14, 2026 agenda and security documents September 21, 2026 agenda and volunteer-coaching list Governor Mifflin HR staff directory Red Rover product descriptions Pennsylvania Department of Education AEDY guidelines Public Meeting Agenda: October 5, 2026 at 7:00 PM - Work/General Purposes Meeting - Meetings