MILL HALL — The Keystone Central School District struck down an “early bird” Act 93 agreement renewal in a 3-5 vote following lengthy, and often heated, discussion on the matter this week.

The board previously discussed the agreement — which encompasses administrators who do not qualify for a collective bargaining agreement — at its work session last week. The current contract does not expire until June 30, 2026.

Last week, board members questioned why the contract was being considered for renewal months before it was to expire. That point was repeated on Thursday night.

Board Member Chris Scaff said the move would tie the hands of a new board, which will be formed following the November General Elections. Three board seats will be opened, with incumbents Roger Elling, Tracy Smith and Butch Knauff not seeking to retain them. The fourth seat which is on the ballot is held by Board Member Elisabeth Lynch, who is looking to retain her seat.

During discussions, Board Member Polly Donahay, whose term is not set to expire until 2027, also announced she will be submitting her resignation — citing an inability to devote her time fully to the board due to family issues as her reason. If her resignation is approved, the board will need to fill her seat as well.

“They should have a say,” Scaff said of prospective new board members. “Like I said last week, doing this contract at this date… is not only tying any new board members’ hand that could be elected and brought onto the board, it’s trying the hands of everybody here already.”

Scaff further cited similar instances he and newer board members Dr. Bill Baldino and Tom Cannon faced prior to coming onto the board in 2023.

He said the previous board approved the $20 million bond agreement for Liberty Curtin Elementary’s construction days before they were sworn in and also hired a new superintendent.

“Our voice was taken away from us for the last two years,” he said.

Scaff reiterated his points last week that, per the Pennsylvania Principals Association, discussions about Act 93 agreements nearing their expiration date should begin in January or February of that year.

“Why can’t it wait until the new board is here, learns about Act 93, gets the chance to meet the administration so we can make a good, unified group decisions,” he said. “Because we all know everybody in here knows this board is not unified and never has been.”

Baldino said he wasn’t sure the requirements for the Act 93 agreement were followed as closely as is required. He further agreed with Scaff’s statements about the timing of the contract renewal.

“There’s no need to do this now. Presumably we’re going to have now, with what Polly is saying, four new members instead of three,” he said. “I think this is a mistake to be here.”

Baldino urged everyone on the board to vote the agreement down so it can be worked on by the new board.

Some board members spoke in favor of approving the contract now.

Tracy Smith acknowledged the public’s questions and said she understood where they stood. She referenced her first year on the school board eight years ago, when the district was facing a $10 million deficit and had a bare bones administration.

“There was no up-to-date curriculum, all the policies were outdated and not a fit for our district and there was no clear facilities plan or list of improvements,” Smith said. “The lack of leadership and staffing through the administration hindered the district’s process and contributed to the deterioration of many of our buildings.”

Smith acknowledged the number of administrators would need to be reduced to assist with the district’s budget. She pointed to language in the agreement which said the administration would decrease its staff by about six in the next five years through natural attrition, moving positions from Act 93 to support staff.

She further said she was in favor of the agreement due to the current climate of the school board and what a future board may look like.

“What the board is going to be is going to be detrimental to our administration. We are going to, I fear, if my predictions are correct, going to lose a lot of administrators.”

She said she wanted to support the current administration and offer them an incentive to stay and “to work with the board even though it’s going to be adversarial.”

“To stay here with our students and continue to make progress for our students that has been made in the last eight years,” she said.

Board Member Jeff Johnston agreed with Smith’s comments. He noted, as a former administrator himself, he understands the difficulties that can come with the job.

“I know that all of you sitting out there, all of you think the administration is grossly overpaid, worthless and that we don’t need them. And nothing could be further from the truth,” Johnston said. “Because they carry probably the biggest amount of responsibility of any employee in this school district.”

He cited that administrators — like principals — are tasked with keeping children safe and making decisions throughout the day.

“They’re also the ones that over the last two years have had to experience the condescending comments, the accusations” from board members, he said.

He noted these aren’t just principal but non instructional staff that work for building maintenance and IT and other departments.

“Whenever something happens it’s on them,” he said.

Johnston further said he felt the incoming board will “maybe throw them a bone if they feel like it” and told current administrators to get their resumes ready.

Board Member Tom Cannon, who was not in favor of the contract, said he felt Johnston’s comments were inappropriate.

“I think it’s very inappropriate to make accusations about people that we don’t even know who they are yet,” he said of prospective board members. “I don’t know how that’s fair by making the statement that these people should get their resumes going. It tells me that’s sabotage of the board right now. I think that’s very inappropriate.”

Scaff said he took offense to Johnston’s comments.

“You’re putting all the blame on us (other board members) when John Q Public has all kinds of issues with the way things have gone the last few years,” he said.

Scaff said he fully intends to work with the principals on a new agreement.

“I think they’re a great bunch of guys,” he said, noting his issue is in regards to the timing of the agreement being brought to the board.

“(It) is unprofessional, it’s unethical and if you’re going to talk about the board the way you just did, maybe you should resign also,” he said.

Johnston did not offer a comment in response.

Closing out the board’s discussion was President Roger Elling, who said he wanted to take time to respond to public statements made by members of the board prior to the meeting.

He said he felt the public needed to know what exactly happened regarding the Act 93 Agreement.

He listed dates for meetings regarding Act 93 as the following:

— April 3, 2025: Act 93 members met and unanimously agreed to request a meeting and discuss about Act 93.

— April 17, 2025: The Personnel Committee met and Superintendent Dr. Francis Redmon shared with board members Act 93 wanted to begin discussions in June.

— June 15, 2025: Act 93 leaders met with Redmon, Assistant Superintendent Dr. Randy Zangara and Justin Evey to formally request a personnel committee meeting.

— July 29, 2025: The Personnel Committee meeting took place.

— Aug. 7, 2025: The Personnel Committee held an executive session regarding Act 93 that became an informational meeting due to a lack of quorum.

— Sept. 11, 2025: An official executive meeting was held with five board members and Act 93 leaders.

— Oct. 2, 2025: An executive meeting was scheduled to review the final contract but was turned into an informational session due to a lack of quorum. He noted Baldino, Scaff and Lynch were not present or left early during several of the meetings.

“It is important to understand that contract discussions, like Act 93, are always held in executive session. Not during public meetings. That’s the standard practice across Pennsylvania and is designed to allow for open discussion and negotiation without violating personnel confidentiality,” Elling said.

Elling highlighted some changes in the agreement that included a 3 percent salary increase each year; reduction of retirement benefits for new hires from eight years to five; and an increase in employee healthcare contribution from 3.99 percent to 7.99 percent.

He noted the increase of employee contribution to healthcare would see a savings of about $93,881 over five years and the reduction in retirement benefits would see the district save an estimated $3.3 million over time.

“My vote and actions have always been based upon that. Responsibility. Not politics. Not pressure. Not personal agendas. I want to do what’s best for this district,” Elling said. “Leadership means making difficult decisions with the long-term health of the district in mind. This agreement is one of those decisions. Responsible, balanced and good for our future.”

With the presented agreement not accepted by the board, it will have to reconsider it at a future date, prior to the expiration on June 30, 2026.