The Saucon Valley School Board approved a four‑year extension of Superintendent Jamie Vlasity’s contract after extended public comment that split the community and board.

Supporters argued the superintendent had advanced district priorities; opponents called for delay, additional review and an external audit before a long‑term contract was locked in. Several students and longtime residents urged the board to postpone action so newly elected members could participate.

During public comment, student Bodie Spencer told the board, “We deserve transparency. We deserve measurable progress,” and urged the board not to rush a decision. Donald Flores, a high‑school junior, called for “an external audit of Saucon Valley School District” and said he was calling for the superintendent’s resignation if concerns were not addressed.

The board’s solicitor, Attorney Fitzgerald, explained the legal framework for superintendent contracts in Pennsylvania: “They can be between a window of 3 to 5 years,” and outlined the proposed four‑year term (2026–2030), the initial base compensation (reported in discussion as $205,000 beginning in 2026–27) and a fourth‑year “options window” that would allow negotiation of a new contract or separation — or, if not resolved, an additional year could be added under the contract language presented.

The contract also includes buyout language consistent with the school code: when two or more years remain the statutory cap is roughly one year’s compensation, the solicitor said. Board members also discussed an embedded merit component and salary adjustments tied to the Act 1 index.

After debate over whether the notice for the agenda item had been valid and repeated calls to table the item so new members could weigh in, the board took a roll‑call vote. The transcript records the following per‑member votes: Dr. Paxai — Yes; John Conte — Yes; Don Carpenter — Yes; Tracy Magnotta — Yes; Dr. Laurel Erickson Parsons — Yes; Vivian Demko — No; Mr. Santos — No; Mr. Broom — No; Board President Cedric Detmar — Yes. The motion carried and the chair announced the contract was approved.

Separately, the board approved a 3% annual salary adjustment for the superintendent; the chair announced that motion passed by a 7–2 margin.

What the meeting did not resolve: several residents’ requests for an immediate, independent audit and fuller publicly available contract details. Board members who supported the vote said performance goals will continue to be set and enforced annually even under a multi‑year contract; opponents said the timing — shortly after an election and before newly elected members take office — undermined public confidence.

Next steps: the board indicated the contract terms and the buyout provisions will be finalized in administrative documents and brought to the board as required by law. Community members in the meeting said they will continue to press for additional transparency and follow‑up reporting on personnel and performance indicators.