Holly Manzone

For Holly Manzone, the decision to resign from the school board was about making a statement and it reflected frustration over her inability to get straight answers to nagging questions.

She said she met a brick wall trying to resolve one specific issue.

“I have tried for two-and-a-half years to correct this in the system. I feel [the board and the administration] forced me to do it this way,” she said.

Manzone said she specifically wants to know the following: What happened between the time the Unionville-Chadds Ford School District superintendent wrote to an out of district family saying their children could not attend district schools, to a letter a month later when he wrote to them saying the kids could go to school if they slept at another property the family owned within the district?

“How did we get from ‘you’re not residents’ to accepting residency?” she said rhetorically. “I was elected to represent the residents of the district. I couldn’t do that without information.”

She said she never received an answer, even after conducting her own surveillance of the family in question.

According to state law, children are considered to be residents of the school district in which they live with a parent or guardian, but Manzone said this is not the case in this matter.

She laid out a timeline of events, in papers presented to school board members during the special meeting held to vote on her resignation. She said she first became aware of the situation in the spring of 2011 and did speak with Superintendent John Sanville about the matter.

According to Manzone, the district hired a firm in September 2011 to investigate and it was determined a month later that the family lived outside the district.

She continued her timeline saying that the district’s solicitor, in early 2012, asked for an update. The firm conducted 14 more surveillances and came up with the same conclusion — that the family lived elsewhere.

In May of 2012, she said, Sanville wrote to the family informing them that they were not district residents, could not send the children to district schools and would have to pay tuition for the time the kids had attended U-CF schools.

During a June 2012 meeting, the family said a previous superintendent had told them that they only had to show tax records as proof of residency. Later that month, according to Manzone, Sanville sent another letter to the family affirming their non-resident status, but explained how to contest that ruling in a formal hearing.

In mid July, she continued, the family asked to know specific requirements for residency and that, later in the month, Sanville again wrote to the family and again asserted that they lived outside the district.

In August 2012, the family met with Sanville and two staff members and said they agreed to “follow the rules.” Later that month the family enrolled the children in the district.

According to Manzone’s documentation, Sanville sent another letter to memorialize the discussion of that August meeting: “the district’s position is that, if the children are sleeping at the [in-district property] the majority of the time — at least four days per week — then they will be considered residents of the Unionville-Chadds Ford School District,” and that the matter of tuition would be put aside.

Also in August, Manzone said, Sanville sent out a “Fabulous Friday Memo” that said the matter was closed.

Manzone said that was the last she heard of the matter, but became suspicious when she would drive by the in-district property and saw no evidence of it being used as a residence.

She then decided to conduct her own surveillance in August of 2013. She said that on Aug. 26, she watched the out of district residence and “followed the family driving to UCFSD schools and dropping off children.”

Manzone said she tried to do the same thing the following day, but this time the she was seen and the father tailgated her. She drove to a nearby state police barracks and the father approached her. She said she questioned his residency in the Unionville district and that he replied, ‘You don’t know my situation — I have a deal with John Sanville.”

On Sept. 2, Sanville e-mailed board members saying there was no deal and asked for an executive session that would address, at least in part, Manzone’s actions, she said.

According to state code 24 P.S. §13-1301, 13-1302, “Every school age child is entitled to attend the public schools of the child’s district of residence, which is the school district where the child’s parent(s) or legal guardian resides…When parents reside in different school districts due to separation, divorce, or other reason, the child may attend school in the district of the parent with whom the child lives for a majority of the time…”

Manzone continues to question the family’s residency, wants to know what transpired that led to the acceptance letter and that she has been held in disregard by board members since her contact with the father.

She said she’s repeatedly asked for three surveillance reports, but that she has been stonewalled and excluded from decisions.

An executive session was held to discuss her “inappropriate actions,” but that the board took no action against her, she said, and that requests to see surveillance reports were denied. She added that some board members did not want her — or other board members — to see the documents she was requesting.

Accordingly, her papers said, she was told that “the consensus, while not unanimous,” of the board was that she should not be allowed to see the documents.

Manzone resigned from the board on Oct. 21, one month before the end of her four-year term. She said the residency issue along with other improprieties such as misuse of executive session led to her leaving. Her formal letter of resignation can be found at the bottom of a story found here.

To read the board’s reaction to Manzone’s resignation, go here.

Charging a host of improprieties by the Unionville-Chadds Ford School Board, Director Holly Manzone, whose term on the board was to end in November, unexpectedly resigned her position during the board’s Oct. 21 meeting. She read a brief statement, handed in a resignation letter and left the Unionville Elementary School auditorium where the meeting was taking place.

She began her speech by saying that while members of a school board are elected locally, they are “actually agents of the state legislature and are charged with acting in the best interest of all pupils and all citizens.”

Then the tone changed.

“The ability of the school board to govern effectively relies on communication,” she said. “Our board has eliminated most committee meetings and much of the discussion prior to votes takes place in private conversations among board members. Information is not shared with the public or among all members of this board. Without adequate information, I cannot perform the job that I was elected to do. I therefore resign from the school board effective immediately.”

Manzone spoke briefly with reporters in the hallway outside the auditorium saying she had made the decision to resign only a week earlier.

She said she’s enjoyed serving on the board, but “These are issues I think we’ve all known about. It’s pretty much outlined in this letter. I hate to hurt the students or anybody else. I don’t mean harm for anyone, but I had to make a statement.”

The letter she referred to is her official letter of resignation, which is published at the end of this article.

In the letter, Manzone, who was a representative from Region B, alleges the board frowns upon dissent, that meetings are orchestrated and that topics for executive sessions are engineered so that the board appears to comply with the law while violating its spirit.

She also said community members who raise issues are often considered to be problems, that access to important data is withheld and that some information is not shared equally.

Reaction from other board members was of surprise and denial.

Vic Dupuis said Manzone decided to “make a grand exit,” while Jeff Hellrung said Manzone’s allegations were simply not so.

“The board is extremely conscientious about honoring right to know,” Hellrung said, and it’s been “scrupulously careful” to avoid violations. He said that the board makes sure that there are never more than four members attending even a PTO meeting.

In a word, he said, he was “flabbergasted” by the accusation and that for the board to work, members “have to work as a team even if your idea doesn’t prevail.”

Kathy Do said she was disappointed, but hoped that Manzone would still have a positive legacy.

Do agreed with Hellrung, saying she has not seen any behind closed door activity.

Board President Eileen Bushelow said she was as surprised as everyone else. The board will officially accept the resignation during the November meeting, she said.

Manzone’s letter

October 21, 2013

To: Members of the Board of School Directors, UCFSD
John Sanville, Superintendent, UCFSD
Bob Cochran, Secretary, Board of School Directors, UCFSD

It is with regret that I hereby resign from the Board of School Directors of the Unionville-Chadds Ford school district, effective immediately.

As a member of the School Board, I have viewed my role as representing the interests of the constituents who elected me as well as the students of our district. I do not think School Board members should simply rubber-stamp the decisions of the School Administration, but rather should critically examine our district’s policies, practices, and results to identify issues and potential improvements. While I believe UCFSD is an excellent school district, there is clearly room for improvement. In my view, the best way to effect that improvement is to have open and honest discussion, based on facts and data that are unfiltered by administrators or others who wish to influence outcomes of decisions, audits, and performance reviews.

Over the past several months, this kind of discussion has become increasingly difficult and I no longer believe it is possible for me to discharge my duties responsibly and effectively. The administration and Board have become more concerned with looking good than with confronting real issues that need to be addressed. In particular:

• Open discussion is frowned upon and dissent is squelched at both the public and executive session meetings.

• Meetings, especially public meetings, are often orchestrated, with many “premeetings” and phone calls behind the scenes to prevent genuine public discussion of contentious issues and avoid any embarrassment to the administration or the Board, i.e., “no dirty laundry.”

• Executive sessions are over-used. If there is a way to characterize a topic so that it can be discussed privately in executive session, it is. Engineering topics in this way may allow the district to comply with the letter of the Sunshine Law, but it surely violates its spirit.

• Community members raising issues are often themselves considered the problem. Energy is expended complaining about these individuals rather than focusing on improvement.

• Access to underlying data and original documents is withheld, even if it is not confidential. “Confidentiality” is used as an excuse to withhold access to broad categories of data, without foundation.

• Information is shared unequally, with not all Board members receiving the same background for deliberations. Also, private “votes” are held without canvassing all members.

We have become a model of poor governance. I share the feelings of some Penn State Board members quoted in the Freeh report: issues are filtered, Board members are shown only “rainbows” and not “rusty nails,” and meetings are scripted, with decisions “baked.” I can no longer continue to participate on the Board on this basis without violating my principles and disturbing my conscience. I cannot allow my continued presence on the Board to connote agreement with these practices.

The final straw for me has been a recent situation in which the district administration failed to adequately investigate and pursue a clear violation of our residency requirements, confirmed by investigative reports. Rather than aggressively defend the interests of the district and our taxpayers, the administration dragged their feet for more than two years and ultimately struck a “deal” with the parties—without discussing their actions or the terms of the “deal” with the Board. The Board learned of the deal and its

terms only a year after it was struck. The “deal” includes forgoing back tuition payments for the period of non-residency and a pledge not to question district residency in the future. When I asked for the reports underlying this course of action, I was told I could not see them. While this particular instance may be a “done deal,” the refusal to examine it means there is no hope of improvement or change in the future. It is not possible for me to represent the interests of our citizens under these conditions.

It has been my privilege to serve our district for the past four years. I hope that by calling attention to the practices and behaviors outlined above, UCFSD can make the changes in governance that are badly needed to realize the full potential of our students and educators and to become an example of good citizenship for our children.

Sincerely yours,
Holly Manzone
School Director
UCFSD Region B