OVERHAUL OF POLICY 109.1

Pine-Richland's original library resource policy served the district well in 2023-24 when 14 book titles were challenged. The board has spent more than 16 hours of public meeting time (and paid hours of legal counsel) on this and landed PR in the news repeatedly — all to “fix” a problem that didn't exist in the first place.

The policy passed in a 5-4 vote at the Monday, March 17, 2025 and went into effect immediately. Voted in favor: Christina Brussalis, Lisa Hillman, Leslie Miller, Phil Morrissette, Mike Wiethorn.  Opposed: Ashley Fortier, Amy Terchick, Joe Cassidy, Marc Casciani.

THE OVERHAUL
Lack of Transparency, Limited Dialogue, and Questionable Practices

The school board has —rightly— faced intense scrutiny over its handling of revisions to Policy 109.1, which governs library book selection and review. Board member Christina Brussalis, leading the policy discussions as Academic Achievement Chair, worked outside of the public eye to overhaul the policy with fellow board member (and attorney) Mike Weithorn. Brussalis disregarded the board’s agreed-upon review process and has continued to exclude key stakeholders and ignore input from fellow board members and librarians.

Opaque Process and Governance Concerns

Community members and minority board members have expressed frustration over:

• Lack of transparency: Brussalis refused to disclose which board member helped draft the policy or what sources were used.

• Exclusion of voices: Librarians and community members were sidelined throughout the process. Ashley Fortier, who was supposed to be part of the initial policy review group, was ignored. Amy Terchick, requested to be part of the group but was excluded.

• Manipulation of meeting procedures: At Academic Achievement meetings where the board went through the policy paragraph by paragraph, Brussalis used the rarely invoked "seriatim" version of Robert’s Rules of Order to restrict discussion and limit speaking time for board members. She interrupted speakers, talked over dissenting voices, and enforced strict time limits while inconsistently applying the rules in her favor.

Concerns About the Policy Changes

The proposed policy closely mirrors Central Bucks School District's controversial book policy, which led to book bans and a costly lawsuit. The key changes include:

• Elimination of the community/staff review committee, which had successfully reviewed challenged books in the past.

• Allowance for board members to vote on whether to remove books without having to read them first — a move that their own solicitor called "tenuous."

• Lengthy and restrictive book review process, which will delay the addition of new materials — particularly problematic for those related to current events.

• Broad and vague criteria for book removal, including undefined terms like "educationally unsuitable" and "community standards."

• Preference for older, "classical" works over modern literature, raising concerns about the disproportionate removal of books by minority authors.

• Ambiguous restrictions on "implied sex," leaving unclear how materials on topics like pregnancy, relationships, or sexual identity will be handled.

• Reliance on parent-approved interlibrary loans (ILL) to provide "access" to books now permitted in or removed from school libraries — a process that can take 2-8 weeks or more and that will also require PR libraries to loan our books out across the state. For more information on ILL, see the recap of the Feb. 10, 2025 meeting.

Board’s Dismissal of Expert and Public Input

Throughout the policy discussions, administrators, librarians, and community members consistently provided detailed feedback, expressing concerns about the policy’s impact on education and student access to literature. However, the majority of the board repeatedly:

• Ignored librarians' recommendations, despite receiving over 20 pages of expert input. 

• Refused to define key policy terms before voting on them.

• Declined to require board members to read books before deciding on their removal, raising legal and ethical concerns.

Additionally, Brussalis and her allies attempted to schedule meetings at inconvenient times—such as during Thanksgiving break and immediately after winter break—seemingly to limit public participation. When the public did attend, comments were frequently pushed late into the night, leading many to leave before having a chance to speak.

Disregard for Student Voices

Perhaps the most troubling instance of board overreach came when students, waiting for hours to speak, were repeatedly denied the opportunity, despite having midterms the following day. At three separate points in the meeting, board member Ashley Fortier made motions asking the board to pause and hear from students. The board majority refused each time. It was only after a direct plea from the superintendent at around the five-hour mark that the two remaining students were finally able to speak and leave to go home and study.

Ongoing Issues and Unanswered Questions

The controversy surrounding Policy 109.1 has raised broader concerns about governance, transparency, and accountability. Board members pushing the policy changes have largely remained silent about their motivations, refusing to answer direct questions or respond to librarians’ and administrators’ concerns about implementation. Meanwhile, Pine-Richland’s experts in education and literature continued to warn of the policy’s negative consequences for students, staff, and the broader community.

As this issue continues, and the policy goes through final readings and votes, the question remains: Will the board prioritize transparency, expert input, and student needs, or will it continue to push through restrictive policies with minimal oversight?