After months of discussion, the East Penn School Board unanimously approved revisions to its agenda policy, including the addition of standing “new business” and “old business” sections and new requirements for communication when requests to place items on the agenda are denied.

Solicitor Marc Fisher said the changes establish formal definitions for “new business” and “old business,” which were not included in the existing policy. The revisions also require communication between administration and board members when requests to place items on the agenda are declined.

According to Fisher, a board member who requests an agenda item and is denied must receive a response and an explanation. He said the language approved by the board is substantially similar to versions previously presented for consideration.

The issue drew significant discussion after Director Dr. Christine Price raised concerns about how one of her agenda requests was handled earlier this year.

Price said she submitted a request April 12 to place an item on a future agenda and shared it with Superintendent Dr. Kristen Campbell, School Board President Shonta Ford, the board vice president and the board secretary. According to Price, Campbell responded the following day but did not address the request.

Price said she was later instructed during a meeting to submit the request via email. After doing so April 16, she received confirmation from the former board secretary that the item would be included on the April 22 agenda. However, Price said she was later informed the item would not be added because too many presentations were scheduled that evening.

The item ultimately appeared on the May 11 agenda. Price said she was never provided an explanation for the delay.

Fisher said the revised policy is intended to address situations like that by requiring communication between the requester and administration.

Price said she would like the policy to explicitly require follow-up communication with the requesting board member. Fisher responded that board policy already requires board members to be informed in advance, providing an opportunity for a quicker response from administration.

Ford later issued a public apology to Price.

“I apologize publicly. I was not cognizant of your situation,” Ford said. “The attempt here is to close the gaps and loopholes, and this should help with the experience you had. I am trying to listen to what people are saying and asking for while recognizing that I am not a party of one. We have had robust dialogue about this topic. To get everyone on the board to come to an agreement is not easy. It got prickly at times, but this is how it is supposed to work. I thank you for being so candid.”

Director Tim Kelly questioned whether the revised guidelines provide any recourse for board members whose requests are denied.

Kelly suggested adding an additional step that would allow a board member to continue pursuing a request after it is rejected. Fisher said the proposed guidelines do not include an appeals process.

When Kelly asked what options a board member would have if a request is denied, another board member responded, “We’re to ignore it.”

Fisher clarified that Ford stated during a previous meeting she had never denied a board member’s request to place an item on the agenda.

Kelly also questioned language stating agenda items may be included “if appropriate,” arguing the phrase appears to give discretion to the board president and superintendent. Fisher said requests would be addressed through dialogue between the superintendent and the requesting board member, but he reiterated that there is no formal appeal process. He described the communication requirement as one of the most significant changes to the policy.

Director Dr. Rita Perez also raised concerns about the phrase “if appropriate” and asked who determines whether a request qualifies.

Fisher said that determination would be made through discussions between the board member and superintendent.

Perez later focused on language requiring board members to be notified “in advance” if a requested item will not be included on an agenda.

“What does the timeline mean for ‘in advance?’ Is it three minutes before the agenda is available or is it once the agenda is set?” Perez asked.

Fisher replied that either scenario could technically meet the requirement under the current language.

Perez said board members should be notified as soon as a decision has been made.

“This should be done in timely fashion and not at the last minute,” she said.

Fisher noted that policy requires agenda requests to be submitted at least seven days before a meeting because agendas are generally finalized the Thursday before a Monday board meeting.

Perez then asked Campbell whether providing notice to board members before the agenda is finalized would create a hardship.

Campbell questioned whether an email sent the night before a meeting asking whether an item would be discussed constitutes a formal request. She said that if a request is submitted the week before a meeting, the requester will receive a response and explanation.

Director Gabrielle Klotz said she has never had an agenda request ignored during her years on the board. Noting the amount of time already spent discussing the issue, Klotz urged members to conclude the debate.

Perez said her primary goal was to provide directors with clear guidance regarding how agenda items can be submitted and considered. She thanked Fisher for creating more detailed procedures and said the revisions would improve transparency.