Kevin Ferrara

Lock Haven

It is essential for news agencies, especially those covering local communities, to report information with fairness and balance. Laura Jameson from The Express published an article regarding my interview for the Keystone Central School District Region 4 vacancy, and I considered her article to be well written and fair.

However, her article on the board’s Jan. 15 deadlocked vote omitted a crucial fact that I had presented to the board, the issue of past practice or “precedent” concerning the acceptance of applicants for vacant board seats.

I’m not opposed to having a pool of candidates for a board vacancy, in fact I encourage such. What I am opposed to is the board changing the process to accept applicants who failed to meet the posted deadlines. The board didn’t make modifications last November when having time to table a vote due to only one candidate being left for consideration, instead, they hastily voted to accept that single candidate. Here is the link to the board’s Nov. 6 Special Meeting that validates my assertions: https://youtu.be/B5jebrKKyNw?si=jyn-O-Xrjgl1ay9E

The district does not tolerate tardiness from its students; therefore, it should maintain the same standard for applicants seeking a position on the board.

Below is my statement to the board regarding how they changed the process to accommodate certain individuals who failed to meet the deadline:

“I’d like to discuss something former board president Roger Elling passionately spoke about here during last weeks’ work session, that being precedent regarding vacancies on the board. Elling sat here and stated that in past practice when a vacancy in Region 3 occurred, the board allowed an individual to be added to the list of candidates. However, what Elling failed to state was, under his former leadership, when a vacancy occurred in Region 3 this past October, he, nor the board, refused to entertain additional candidates.

When former board member Polly Donahay resigned, creating a vacancy in Region 3, two applicants submitted their interest to the board. Those individuals were subsequently interviewed and the board met on November 6th to vote on which candidate would be appointed. However, prior to the vote, Elling informed the board that one of the applicants had to be disqualified because they did not reside in the district, thereby leaving only one applicant. With a sense of urgency, current board members William Baldino made a motion to accept the lone applicant, and Chris Scaff seconded the motion. Elling asked for discussion to which there was none and the motion was put to a vote. The board unanimously voted to appoint the lone applicant, current board member Manuel Rodriguez.

During last Thursday’s work session, and tonight current board members Scaff and Baldino claimed the board has difficulty in finding candidates for vacant board positions; and as such, the board should allow the two individuals who admittedly submitted their interests after the published deadline, to be considered. Yet, just a few months ago, both individuals made no such claim when the board was left with only one applicant for Region 3. Former board member Jeff Johnston made no such claim either, yet today, he is spearheading personal social media attacks against me because I was the only applicant that submitted my interest on time. With the Region 4 vacancy notice having been published a total of four times in the newspaper and on the district’s website, it’s ironic that Johnston was just appointed to be an auditor for Pine Creek Township despite no public notice of the vacancy. How did Johnston know about that vacancy if no notice was given?

Referring to Elling’s claim about precedent, he, and in fact, the entire board set precedent in November when they collectively chose not to entertain a search for additional applicants, rather voting to appoint the only one that remained. With such a clear precedent, it is reasonable to ask, why now, am I, the only applicant who met the application deadline and who was voted by a majority of the board to be interviewed, challenged so much. Why is it that, despite similarities to a vacancy in November, the current vacancy was discussed so differently? I ask the board to consider, why such a difference in procedure with respect to the manner in how applicants are to be considered? Was it because it’s Kevin Ferrara who is the lone applicant for Region IV?

Bending the rules or moving the goal line to accept and interview late applicants, simply because a remaining applicant is disliked, creates a clear appearance of favoritism and bias. Is this the message the board, entrusted with representing all students, truly wants to convey? Delaying an appointment impacts the district’s stakeholders who are entitled to a representative prepared to dedicate themselves to service and self-sacrifice on their behalf.”