August 13, 2014

Despite a report from the Chester County Intermediate Unit saying that the Unionville-Chadds Ford School District administration did everything right in handling a residency issue, questions remain.

While some questions —along with a weak investigative procedure — relate to the current school administration, one question relates to a former school superintendent.

But, according to the Intermediate Unit’s Executive Director Joe O’Brien, “There’s no bad guy here.”

At issue is whether or not there was some sort of deal made between the current superintendent and a family from Londonderry Township whose children have been attending district schools since 2004 when Jack Kenney was the superintendent of schools.

At the time, a Londonderry Township couple that owns a business property in the U-CF district sought to enroll their children in the district schools.

According to O’Brien, the family was told that all they needed to do was show a drivers’ license, a tax bill and a utility bill connected to the district and they would be considered residents. The family provided that information.

“In my opinion, that was a flaw in the policy,” O’Brien said. “That was the deal made at the time when I don’t think anybody cared.”

He added that the district’s solicitor was not consulted and would not have given that advice.

Current Superintendent John Sanville inherited the situation when he took over from Sharon Parker in 2011. On learning of the residency concerns, Sanville initiated an investigation, with the school board retaining a private investigation company, CFR, to do the job.

The investigation established the family was living in Londonderry Township, not in the Unionville-Chadds Ford district. Sanville told the family in May, June and again in July of 2012 that their children could not attend district schools.

According to O’Brien, the children were actually dis-enrolled for a brief period of time.

In August of 2012, Sanville told the family the kids could attend U-CF schools if they slept in the business property four nights per week.

In an interview, Sanville said he didn’t change his mind.

“I didn’t change my mind. I set more stringent requirements,” he said.

When questioned about “sleeping” at the in-district property versus actually living there, Sanville said he saw no difference.

It was suggested that it’s possible the kids could be going to the actual residence in Londonderry after school to play with friends, do home work and eat dinner there before being driven to the in-district property just before bedtime.

“They do live there,” Sanville said. “I’ll let the IU report stand on its merits.”

Yet, there has been no full verification that they actually live in district.

The report says that in March, April and May of 2013, Sanville and Business Manager Bob Cochran did drive-byes and saw a vehicle registered to the family parked at the in-district property, but there was no mention of any human activity going on there. There was no mention of people being observed, no mention of lights or televisions being on, just that a car was parked there. A surveillance of the Londonderry Township property by private investigators was inconclusive, the report said.

Nor was there any indication that neighbors of the in-district business property were questioned about people living at that property.

O’Brien said this second investigation was weak, that Sanville should not be doing the investigations.

“One of my recommendations was the board needs to clean up its processes and procedures,” he said.

State law says students must actually live in the district in which they go to school, but O’Brien said districts have some latitude based on a precedent set in a Cumberland Valley residency case from 2000.

It was Sanville who referred the family to the Cumberland Valley case.

O’Brien said Sanville did the right thing by telling the family the kids couldn’t attend district schools, but acknowledged that the crux of the issue is “When did the ‘no’ become a ‘yes.’”

He could not comment on a separate document he hadn’t seen, a memorandum from the school district solicitor that mentions a June 1, 2012 meeting between the parents and Sanville. That memorandum characterizes the meeting as “confrontational.”

It was in that meeting when one of the parents said they spend more time in the Londonderry home than in the district property.

In an Aug. 1, 2012 meeting, Sanville reminded the family that they were not district residents.

O’Brien said the family asked a direct question that day: What do we have to do to establish residency?

Sanville’s response, O’Brien said, was that the kids had to live at the district property four nights per week. He even gave the family a copy of the Cumberland Valley decision, according to O’Brien.

“The family said they would do that,” he said.

“I can’t find a villain,” O’Brien added. “The family asked a question [in 2004] and they got an answer, a lenient answer. Later somebody checks and it doesn’t seem right, but nobody knew the arraignment,” he said.

According to O’Brien’s report, the board has two ways to approach queries about establishing residency. It can be transparent and helpful by laying out the various ways, or it can be tough and take the attitude that the burden of proof is solely on the family based on the information the family provides with no help from the district. The board must periodically review the procedure whenever it reviews district policies, O’Brien added.

O’Brien said he is confident that board is now doing the right things with the right policies.

School may be out for the summer, but that doesn’t mean there’s no work going on.

According to Rick Hostetler, the supervisor of Buildings and Ground for the Unionville-Chadds Ford School District, the summer of 2014 has been one of the busiest summers he can recall.

In addition to trying to learn why heavy rains drown out the acoustics in the Unionville High School auditorium, Hostetler’s department went to work fixing two significant leaks in the high school and one at Hillendale Elementary School, as well as repairing the cafeteria floor at the high school.

It was reported earlier in the year that there was a great deal of discoloration of the cafeteria floor. Hostetler said during the Aug. 11 school board work session that moisture was found to be seeping up from beneath the floor. The areas of seepage were along butt joints in the concrete. Vapor barriers were in place, he said, but the moisture came in anyway.

The new flooring cost more than $100,000. Hostetler said the district would cover 75 percent of the cost, with the remainder being shared by the architect and the contractor.

When asked if the repair would hold, Hostetler said, “I’d be amazed if the problem came back.”

Fixing the acoustic problem in the auditorium remains a head-scratcher. Even the architect is uncertain why rain ruins the sound during performances.

Maryann Marotta, of MM Architects, said the auditorium was designed to create a live and resonant space using hard and soft surfaces. The roof is metal, but there are other materials layered into it.

She called the space “a live box” and, so far, has no idea why the acoustics are ruined when it rains. She added that possible solutions would disrupt the intended liveliness of the space.

Marotta added that she’s used the same design for other auditoriums, but Unionville is the only one experiencing the problem.

Jason Throne, the vocal music director, said the problem seems to be coming from the space over the stage.

Music Department Chairman Scott Litzenberg said the situation could become a bigger problem if the school or district tries to bring in outside performers. Unless and until the acoustics are fixed, people won’t want to perform there.