The September 21 Vote: What Is the Governor Mifflin School Board Actually Being Asked to Approve?

Nearly $6 million in bills, nine directors voting, and a construction entry that needs its math explained. A critical, plain-language preview with three charts showing where the money goes.

By Lazaro L. Castellon — The Mifflin Report COMMENTARY · September 21 meeting preview Promotional graphic supplied to The Mifflin Report. The Governor Mifflin School Board is scheduled to meet on Monday, September 21, 2026, at 7 p.m. Before directors start voting, residents deserve a plain answer to a basic question: What, exactly, are you asking us to pay for—and what have you checked? The agenda covers nearly $6 million in bills already paid, personnel changes, coursework requests, substitute staffing, construction changes and more. Much of that business sits inside seven grouped approval motions, often called omnibus motions. In plain English, that means several separate decisions can pass with one vote. Grouping routine business can save time. But efficiency is not a substitute for scrutiny. Directors should be able to explain the items they approve, not simply point residents to a packet of documents. Nearly $6 million—and the order of the meeting matters The monthly approval motion includes $5,967,625.31 in bills paid , along with meeting minutes and the treasurer’s report. That wording matters: this is approval of bills identified as already paid, not a proposal for $5.97 million in brand-new spending. On the posted agenda, monthly approvals come before the public-comment section. If the board follows that order, residents using that comment period will speak after the financial approval. The agenda can change; this is the published sequence, not a report of what has happened. Why not give residents a clear opportunity to ask about those bills before the vote? Publishing a list is useful. Explaining significant or unusual payments before approving them is better. Nine directors, nine votes—and a lot of decisions The board has nine elected directors, each with a vote . The seven grouped motions below describe how agenda items are bundled—not the number of board members voting. The seven grouped motions cover Monthly Board Approvals, Human Resources, Curriculum and Instruction, Student Services, Operations, Policy, and Facilities Use. These are not seven small decisions. The Human Resources package alone covers staffing, mentors, substitute services, student teaching, retirements, resignations, termination requests, employment, status changes, leave, volunteer coaches and coursework. The board should identify which items are routine and which deserve their own explanation—or a separate vote. Residents should not need to untangle an entire personnel package to understand one consequential decision. T.J. Miller’s dual role deserves a clear explanation The fall volunteer-coach list names Elias Marrero, John Woytko, TJ Miller and Todd Deiuliis under high school football. The September 14 meeting minutes identify TJ Miller as the high school principal. Pennsylvania High School Principals: PIAA Responsibilities As a first-year head principal, T.J. Miller carries responsibilities that extend beyond academics and beyond any one team. Under the Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association’s rules, the principal is directly responsible to PIAA for the school’s interscholastic athletic relations across its athletic program. Article X, Section 1 of the 2026–27 PIAA Constitution states: “The Principal of each school, in all matters pertaining to the interscholastic athletic relations of the Principal’s school, is responsible to PIAA.” It also makes clear that delegating powers does not relieve the principal of responsibility for the school’s violations of PIAA rules. Section 2 lists duties that include: Controlling the school’s interscholastic athletic relations and sanctioning its contests. Certifying student-athlete eligibility in writing. Providing reasonable protection for officials and visitors at home contests. Ensuring written contest contracts, arranging appropriate PIAA-registered officials, and having the principal or an authorized representative accompany teams to contests. These duties do not, by themselves, prohibit a principal from volunteering with a team. But they make the oversight question more important: How will Miller balance his first-year principal responsibilities with football volunteering while maintaining clear, impartial oversight across the school’s athletic program? The board should ask the district to explain the division of duties, the safeguards, and the accountability that remains with the principal. Source: PIAA 2026–27 Constitution, Article X, Sections 1–2, printed page 7 (PDF page 10). That is a fair reason to ask how the district separates the two roles. Who supervises the volunteer work? Does it take place outside his regular workday? Who handles an athletic complaint that could involve someone he works alongside on the football staff? Has the district reviewed its policies and explained the safeguards to the board? A concern has been raised publicly that Miller's son is a quarterback on the same football team. The report does not confirm that, and this article does not treat it as established fact. If it is accurate — and the district should say plainly whether it is — then a reasonable question follows: what safeguards are in place to prevent even the appearance of preferential treatment or a conflict of interest? To be clear, no one is accusing Miller of wrongdoing here. There is no documented finding of misconduct, and nothing in the meeting report suggests one. The point is narrower and more practical. The volunteer listing does not establish a stipend, favoritism, a policy violation or a legal conflict of interest. But directors do not need proof of misconduct to ask for a sound oversight arrangement. They need to do that before a problem develops. If a district policy addresses administrators’ extracurricular roles, show it to the public. If no policy does, explain the standard the district is using. Coursework: ask what the district is paying and why The coursework request sheet lists a total of $27,088 . It includes GMIS Principal Cory Crider’s Gannon University courses with tuition amounts of $595 and $1,785 . The sheet distinguishes tuition from reimbursement and marks some courses “no reimbursement.” Its listed total should not be casually described as $27,088 in new district payments without reconciling those entries. Directors should ask for the amount the district will actually reimburse and the contractual basis for it. Training can help students. The question is not whether employees should keep learning. It is whether the district can explain what it is funding, why it matters and how that learning will improve the work happening in classrooms. Kelly Services: the hourly difference is worth understanding The Kelly Services rate sheet lists a custodian pay rate of $12.75 an hour and a district bill rate of $16.96 an hour . The same rates appear for paraprofessionals. The listed multiplier is 1.330, or a 33% markup on the pay rate before rounding. What the worker is paid vs. what the district is billed Custodian example · dollars per hour Worker pay rate — $12.75 District bill rate — $16.96 Bars begin at $0; full width represents $20.00. The rounded difference is $4.21 per hour. It is not a measure of Kelly’s profit; the rate difference may cover employment costs and services. Source: district agenda and supporting document. A markup alone does not prove the contract is a bad deal. Directors should still ask what the difference pays for, how often vacancies are filled, what additional fees can apply and how this arrangement compares with other staffing options. “We need substitutes” is not a complete explanation of the price. Seven change orders: $15,699.80 in listed balances The Operations agenda lists seven change-order amounts to be paid from the Construction Fund. Together, the listed amounts come to $15,699.80 . That is a sum of these seven entries—not the full cost of the projects, and not an amount to add automatically to the monthly bills. The seven listed change-order amounts Dollars requested from the Construction Fund · agenda items 16.2–16.8 99178 · Gym locker-room lintels — $667.88 99179 · Plumbing and rain-leader rework — $3,138.64 99180 · Band-room acoustic panels — $942.38 99181 · Uniform-storage mural wall — $2,045.51 99182 · Window pocket — $2,061.57 99183 · Music-suite floor: listed balance — $4,482.46 99184 · STEAM-room pendant lights — $2,361.36 Bars begin at $0; full width represents $5,000.00. The 99183 bar uses the agenda’s stated $4,482.46 balance, which needs reconciliation with the figures discussed below. Source: district agenda and supporting document. All seven descriptions request ratification. The pendant-light item is also labeled “New,” but its description still asks for ratification. That is different from saying six are ratifications and the seventh is simply a new approval. Directors should explain what has already been authorized or completed, who made that decision and why formal board action is being requested now. A vote to ratify should not leave residents guessing about when the underlying commitment was made. One entry needs its arithmetic explained The music-suite floor entry states a total cost of $44,146.57 , an existing allowance of $40,000 , and a change-order balance of $4,482.46 . Subtracting the allowance from the stated total gives $4,146.57 —not $4,482.46. The difference is $335.89 . There may be an adjustment in the supporting paperwork or a typo in the agenda. The posted description does not reconcile on its face. The board should get the correct figures on the record before approving the item. Asking for numbers that add up is basic oversight, not an accusation. For each change order, the other questions are just as practical: Why was the work needed? Was it foreseeable? Who checked the price? What does it do to the final project cost and schedule? The gym-floor repair has a district share, too The agenda describes a $92,360 accepted insurance claim for GMIS gym-floor repairs after a February water leak. It lists $82,645 to be covered by Utica after depreciation and $9,715 to be funded through the district’s Operating Budget. Who pays for the gym-floor repair? Funding amounts listed in agenda item 16.1 Utica insurance — $82,645.00 District Operating Budget — $9,715.00 Bars begin at $0; full width represents $92,360.00. The two amounts total $92,360: approximately 89.5% insurance and 10.5% district funding. This repair is separate from the seven change-order entries above. Source: district agenda and supporting document. Insurance is covering most of the listed amount, but the district’s share is still public money. Directors should explain whether this resolves the repair, whether there are any remaining costs and what has been done to reduce the risk of another leak. Academic performance should not get lost in the paperwork The September 14 minutes record Miller’s presentation on 2025–26 Keystone exam results. They also record public commenter Zak Baker’s criticism of academic performance and his call to focus on improvement. Those minutes do not provide enough numerical detail to build a responsible proficiency chart. This article will not turn a commenter’s concerns into official district statistics. But residents deserve those statistics in a form they can understand: current proficiency, comparisons with prior years and specific improvement targets. Growth matters. So does whether students are mastering the material. What will the district change, and when should families expect to see results? Families’ track concerns deserve a documented response The September 14 minutes identify Marcella Sweigart, Jason Sweigart, Melissa Sweigart, Lance Orndorf and Kristin Orndorf as speakers raising concerns about a track coach. The minutes say they described seven months as too long to wait for a resolution and called for a safe environment for female athletes. Those are the speakers’ concerns as recorded in the minutes—not investigative findings. The record does not, by itself, establish misconduct or a Title IX violation. The board should still be asking how complaints are being handled, what protections are in place and how families will be kept informed. Student and personnel privacy can limit public detail. It does not eliminate the need for a clear process or meaningful follow-through. Before voting, ask for answers—not just assurances The administration makes recommendations. Elected directors are responsible for reviewing them. They should not be embarrassed to ask a question, request documentation or seek a separate vote when an item needs more attention. On spending: What is new, what has already been paid and what is being ratified? On contracts: What does the price include, and what could cost extra? On personnel: What policies and safeguards apply to overlapping roles? On construction: Do the numbers reconcile, and who authorized the changes? On students: What measurable improvement and follow-through can families expect? A long agenda is not a reason to ask fewer questions. It is a reason to be better prepared. If an answer is missing, directors should say so and consider whether the item is ready for a vote. Residents should be able to understand what a vote means before it happens—not piece it together afterward. That is the standard the September 21 meeting should meet. The Mifflin Report will be watching. Editor’s note: This is commentary prepared before the September 21, 2026 meeting. It reports no vote outcomes. Figures and agenda wording were checked against the posted agenda and linked documents available September 19; the district may update its materials. Charts show the stated figures, with the change-order discrepancy identified above. Separate amounts are not combined into a supposed total meeting cost. Sources September 21, 2026 voting-meeting agenda Fall 2026 volunteer coaches September 21 coursework requests Kelly Services 2026–27 agreement and rates September 14 meeting minutes submitted for approval Music-suite floor change-order supporting document