Ringgold director claims vote for superintendent’s salary hike violates Pa. Sunshine Act

A motion to give Ringgold School District’s superintendent a raise was amended Wednesday night before it narrowly passed after one board member raised questions on the transparency of the move.

Last night’s regular voting meeting started about 40 minutes late as directors met in executive session to discuss personnel matters.

The meeting moved quickly along with unanimous items voted through committee reports, until compensation and salary increases came up for discussion.

Two of the items pertaining to annual salary increases for individual contracted employees and Act 93 administrators for the 2025-26 school year were put up for a vote under the same motion, which stated that the increases for the subsequent roles be approved based upon “evaluations and as discussed in executive session.”

The amount of the salary increases weren’t included on the agenda, but no directors or members of the audience offered comment or questions.

The next motion involved Superintendent Randall Skrinjorich, his recent evaluation and a proposed increase to his compensation.

Skrinjorich was officially hired as superintendent in 2020 after serving for nine months in the role in an interim capacity.

His five-year contract be – gan Dec. 1, 2020 with a starting salary of $160,000 and was set to expire Nov. 30 of this year.

However, in December, directors unanimously agreed to extend his contract by five years starting Dec. 1 through Nov. 30, 2030. According to the Pennsylvania Department of Education, Skrinjorich currently earns a salary of $191,746.

The motion to accept his evaluation and increase his compensation did not include specifics, which board Director Steve Toprani took issue with.

“This is to both accept the evaluation and to award (a) compensation adjustment that isn’t specified in the agenda?” Toprani asked. “Is that correct?” “Correct that the amount is not specified in the agenda, that is correct,” President Maureen Ott replied.

“Is there a reason?” Toprani asked. “Not to my knowledge,”

she said.

Toprani wanted to know why the motion referenced “as discussed in executive session.”

“The reason I say that is because this board governs in the light,” he said. “You set up a camera every meeting, you discuss broadcasting the meetings, so why does it say in our agenda ‘as discussed in executive session?'” “Because it was discussed in executive session,” Ott said. “You wish to have it known?” “Well, yes, I think when we vote to approve compensation adjustments that we should state with specific – ity what those adjustments are,” Toprani said. Board solicitor Carl Beard said the agenda could be amended to be more specif ic.

“You didn’t instruct her to leave it off of the agenda right?” Toprani asked.

“No,” Beard said. Ott explained that she wasn’t sure what informa – tion is confidential and what is not, which is why the agenda read as it did.

“Why would it be con – fidential?” Toprani asked. “They are public salaries, they are never confidential.” “Alright, I just wanted to clarify,” she said. “It’s 4.4%.”

The issue, Toprani said, wasn’t with the increase but how the board is handling its business.

” …I have no problem with awarding, or voting up or down,” Toprani said. “I have real concerns about the manner in which we govern ourselves. Keeping import –

ant issues like this outside, with public discourse, pub – lic disclosure, public dis cussion, can I not raise the point of order here tonight on what we just voted on? The public would have no idea.” Ott said the 4.4% increase proposed for the superin tendent is the same amount teachers received in their contract.

“I understand that, but the public is not aware of what was awarded in the teach – er’s contract,” he said. “The public is not aware because it was not posted on the agenda. This is a Sunshine Act violation and I am going to go on the record and say it. There is liability involved with this. Read the Sunshine Act, Maureen.

“…this is not privileged, it’s not to be kept from pub – lic view. Period. Ever. Yet we are dong it.” Toprani said he would have raised the issue no matter who it concerned. “No offense to you, Randy, if this was not you I would raise the same issue about anyone else. I’m not going to vote for something that says ‘as discussed in exec – utive session. Period. Not ever.” Ott said she did not write the motion and did not ap- preciate Toprani being accu – satory toward her. “To blame this motion on me and how it is written is not valid,” she said. “Well what I am stating is this, when Carol Flament was our board president, you took her to task meet – ing after meeting about how items came on the agenda. You accused her of setting the agenda. You either set the agenda or you don’t. You either review the agen da, or you don’t. You either discuss the agenda with our solicitor before the meeting

or you don’t, and you didn’t or you wouldn’t have to confirm with him while he is sitting there to know this is a violation of the Sunshine Act.” “It’s not a violation,” she said and then looked to Beard for clarification. “Of course it is,” Toprani replied.

The Sunshine Act allows public bodies to hold exec – utive sessions (closed meet – ings) for discussing person –

nel matters, including those related to the “employment,

appointment, termination of employment, terms and conditions of employment” of specific individuals. This can include discuss – ing salaries, however, all votes must be done in a pub – lic forum.

While the Sunshine Act ensures the public can ob – serve the decision-making process, the Right-to-Know Law mandates the disclo – sure of the outcome – in –

cluding salaries.

While a detailed discus – sion about individual sala – ries may occur in executive session (as allowed by the Sunshine Act), the final de – cision involving the salary, as well as the salary itself as a public record, must be disclosed under the Rightto-Know Law because gov –

ernment records are public records, including an indi – vidual public employee’s salary and years of service and applies to state and local agencies, including school districts, townships and oth –

er municipalities.

Beard suggested that once

the amount is stated, any potential Sunshine Act vio – lation would be “cured” but Toprani remained concerned about the lack of transparen –

cy in the original motion.

“Still, this is not a prop –

er way to govern,” Toprani said. “To reference back – room deals, and that is what this is. Executive session is a backroom deal.” Second Vice President Gail Glaneman amended the mo –

tion to include the proposed percentage of the raise be – fore a vote was taken.

In a 5-4 vote, all three motions concerning salary increases passed with Ott, Glaneman, Carol Flament, Sherrie Garry and Paul Mountain voting to approve the salary increases and First Vice President Jason Briscoe, Sarah Fine, Toprani and Heather Wilhelm voting no.

The 4.4% increase, based on Skrinjorich’s current salary, would amount to a $8,436 raise bringing his annually salary to $200,182.

Without further discus –

sion, the board unanimously approved other finance re – lated items including a para –

professional compensation plan, director of transpor – tation support services rate, compensation for subs and stipends for personnel.

“The reason I say that is because this board governs in the light. You set up a camera every meeting, you discuss broadcasting meetings, so why does it say in our agenda, ‘as discussed in executive session?”

STEVE TOPRANI

RINGGOLD SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER