The Hess Power Shift: When Administrative Control Replaces Board Governance

The Governor Mifflin School Board voted to grant Superintendent Dr. Lisa Hess additional authority over facility-use decisions. Illustration: The Mifflin Report Opinion / Analysis When administrative control replaces board governance: the board just voted to hand Superintendent Dr. Lisa Hess more authority over public facilities. The question is why — and what the public lost in the process. Staff Commentary | The Mifflin Report Monday night's Governor Mifflin School Board meeting was not simply another discussion about who may use a school building. It exposed something much larger: a continuing shift of authority away from the elected school board and toward the administration of Superintendent Dr. Lisa Hess. And this time, the board did not merely discuss that shift. It voted for it. The board granted Dr. Hess additional authority over facility-use decisions, effectively moving an area of public-property governance further into administrative hands. That decision deserves serious scrutiny. Because the central question is no longer whether Dr. Hess wants more authority. The question is why the board continues to give it to her — and whether the board is allowing the superintendent to become the de facto decision-maker on matters that should remain subject to meaningful elected oversight. This Is About Dr. Hess's Leadership — Not Religion The controversy surrounding the use of district facilities has become entangled with discussion about a Muslim organization. That is a mistake. The identity or religion of the organization should have nothing to do with the governance question. If the organization were Christian, Jewish, Muslim, secular or civic, the standard should be identical. One policy. One process. One standard. The real issue is what happened when questions were raised about the facility-use process. Instead of simply strengthening transparency and reaffirming board oversight, the district moved in the opposite direction: more administrative authority. That decision fits into a larger pattern that deserves examination. The Pattern Is the Problem Critics of Dr. Hess's leadership have increasingly raised concerns about administrative control, board independence, transparency and the direction of the district. Monday night's vote provides another example worth examining. The superintendent is supposed to administer the policies adopted by the elected board. But when the board repeatedly delegates additional authority to the superintendent, the distinction between governance and administration begins to disappear. That is where the public should become concerned. This isn't about whether Dr. Hess is capable of performing administrative duties. It is about whether the elected directors are still exercising meaningful independent oversight — or whether they are increasingly accepting the administration's preferred solutions without sufficiently challenging the underlying problems. Pennsylvania Law Matters Pennsylvania law specifically addresses the use of school property. 24 P.S. § 7-775 provides that a school board may permit the use of school grounds and buildings for social, recreational and other proper purposes under rules and regulations adopted by the board of school directors . That does not mean a superintendent can never administer facility-use requests. In fact, Governor Mifflin's current administrative regulation says the Director of Operations is responsible for receiving and approving facility-use requests in accordance with board policy and administrative regulations. The district's public facility-use page likewise identifies Tim Ziegler, Director of Operations , as the contact for facility use and directs organizations through the district's FMX scheduling process. So Monday night's decision raises an important question: Why was additional authority being placed with the superintendent when the district's existing administrative structure already assigns facility-use responsibilities to the Director of Operations? That deserves a public explanation. Delegation Is Not the Same as Accountability There is nothing inherently improper about a school board delegating routine administrative responsibilities. The problem begins when delegation becomes so broad that the public can no longer clearly determine where administrative authority ends and elected governance begins. The board has now made a choice. It must own that choice. If Dr. Hess now possesses authority that previously required greater board involvement, taxpayers deserve to know precisely: Nine Basic Oversight Questions 1. What authority was transferred? 2. What limitations apply? 3. What decisions can Dr. Hess make without board approval? 4. Can she approve exceptions? 5. Can she waive fees? 6. Can she reject organizations? 7. Can she establish conditions for use? 8. What reporting will come back to the board? 9. What mechanism exists for the board to review or reverse an administrative decision? Those aren't attacks. Those are basic oversight questions. The Real Concern: Board Independence One of the most troubling developments under any superintendent is when school directors begin appearing less like independent governing officials and more like an extension of the administration. To be clear, it would be irresponsible to claim as fact that Dr. Hess literally “controls” or “manipulates” individual directors without evidence of specific conduct proving that allegation. But the public is entitled to examine whether a pattern of administrative influence exists. Who develops the proposals? Who frames the problem? Who presents the recommended solution? Who provides the information to the board? Who controls the administrative process? And how often does the board challenge the recommendation rather than simply approve it? Those questions matter because the person who controls the information and the proposed solution can exert enormous influence over the decision-maker without ever casting a vote. The directors cast the votes. But the administration often controls the machinery surrounding those votes. That is precisely why independent oversight matters. Dr. Hess Cannot Be Both the Problem-Solver and the Final Gatekeeper There is another fundamental governance concern. If an administrative process generates controversy, and the proposed solution is to give the same administration more authority over that process, taxpayers have a legitimate reason to question the arrangement. It creates a dangerous cycle: The Cycle of Expanding Administrative Power Administration identifies the problem ↓ Administration proposes the solution ↓ Board approves expanded administrative authority ↓ Administration controls the revised process At some point, the board has to step back and ask: Who is actually supervising whom? The superintendent works for the board. The board does not work for the superintendent. That distinction should never become blurred. Governor Mifflin Already Has a Facility-Use System This is particularly important because Governor Mifflin already has established infrastructure for facility use. The district publicly identifies Policy 707 — Use of School Facilities within its property policies. The district also operates an online FMX facility-use request system requiring applicants to submit information, insurance documentation and, where applicable, nonprofit documentation before a request can proceed. And the district's administrative regulation establishes priorities for different categories of users. So again, the question becomes unavoidable: Why was expanding the superintendent's authority necessary? If the existing system worked, why change it? If it did not work, what failed? And if something failed, who was responsible for correcting it? The public deserves answers — not another layer of administrative authority. Transparency Should Have Increased — Not Decreased If Monday night's controversy exposed a weakness in the facility-use process, the obvious response should have been greater transparency. What Transparency Would Look Like Publish the requests . Publish the approvals . Publish the fees . Publish the waivers . Publish the applicable policy . Publish the decision-maker . Give taxpayers the ability to see how their public buildings are being used. Instead, the district's response appears to have moved toward greater administrative discretion . That is exactly backwards. Pennsylvania's Sunshine Act establishes requirements concerning public notice and agendas for matters of agency business that will be or may be the subject of deliberation or official action. Not every routine administrative decision must appear before the board — that distinction is important. But when the board itself is changing the allocation of authority, the public has every reason to demand clarity about what was changed and why. The Board Has to Stop Confusing Trust With Oversight There is nothing wrong with trusting a superintendent. But trust is not a substitute for oversight. A superintendent should not need to be protected from questions. A school board should not be afraid to challenge its administration. And taxpayers should not be portrayed as unreasonable simply because they want to understand how decisions affecting public property are being made. Good governance is not: “Trust the superintendent.” Good governance is: “Here is the policy. Here is the authority. Here is the record. Here is who made the decision. Here is how you can hold them accountable.” That is transparency. The Directors Need to Remember Who They Work For The most uncomfortable question coming out of Monday night's vote is not what Dr. Hess gained. It is what the school directors gave away. Every time the board delegates authority, it should ask whether it is making government more efficient — or making itself less relevant. Every time the administration proposes a new structure, directors should independently examine the proposal rather than automatically accepting the administration's framing. And every time taxpayers raise questions, the response should be transparency, not defensiveness. Because the elected directors — not the superintendent — are ultimately responsible for the governance decisions they approve. Dr. Hess did not vote to give herself this authority. The board voted to give it to her. But that does not end the accountability question. It begins it. The Bigger Issue Is the Direction of the District Facility use is only one piece of the larger picture. The deeper concern is whether Governor Mifflin is experiencing a broader concentration of administrative power while elected oversight becomes increasingly reactive. If that pattern continues, the board risks becoming something very different from what taxpayers elected it to be. Instead of governing the district, directors could gradually become an approval body for decisions developed elsewhere. That is not how representative government is supposed to function. A superintendent should administer. A school board should govern. And taxpayers should be able to see both doing their jobs. Dr. Hess and the Board Should Answer the Public The public does not need another argument about personalities. It needs documentation. It needs policies. It needs minutes. It needs the exact language of Monday night's motion. It needs to know what authority was delegated and what safeguards remain. And it needs to know whether this vote represents an isolated administrative adjustment — or another step in a broader transfer of power from elected governance to the superintendent's office. Because if the latter is true, taxpayers should not discover it five years from now. They should recognize it while it is happening. The Bottom Line Dr. Hess is responsible for administering the district. The school board is responsible for governing it. The directors have now chosen to give Dr. Hess greater authority. That means they also have a responsibility to make sure that authority is clearly defined, publicly accountable and subject to meaningful oversight. The public should not accept “trust us” as a substitute for transparency. And the board should not confuse administrative efficiency with good governance. Because when an unelected administrator steadily gains authority while elected officials increasingly defer to the administration, the question eventually becomes unavoidable: Who is really governing Governor Mifflin School District? That is the question Dr. Hess and the school board now need to answer. Sources: Pennsylvania Public School Code, 24 P.S. § 7-775 • Governor Mifflin Administrative Regulation 707-AR-0 • Governor Mifflin Policy 707 — district policies page • Governor Mifflin facility-use information • Pennsylvania Sunshine Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 709 The Mifflin Report Opinion & Analysis is commentary based on publicly available district policies, administrative regulations and Pennsylvania law. Assertions concerning administrative influence are presented as matters for public scrutiny and analysis, not as proven facts about individual motives. The precise scope of Monday night's delegation should be determined from the adopted motion, meeting minutes and any amended policy or regulation. The Mifflin Report is an independent community resource and is not affiliated with the Governor Mifflin School District. The district is invited to respond, and any response will be published in full.