Another contentious Facilities Committee Meeting occurred at Fallsington Elementary as community members expressed their complaints regarding the high school project and a continued lack of transparency from Pennsbury Administration and School Board. The latest dustup is related to a Geotechnical Survey Report that was contract through David Blackmore & Associates.
Another PA Sunshine Law Violation
At the start of the meeting, Lower Makefield resident Robert Abrams raised an objection, citing Section 710.1(c) of the Sunshine Act, which allows anyone attending a public meeting to challenge a perceived violation at any point. Abrams alleged that Pennsbury failed to comply with Pennsylvania’s Sunshine Law by not providing attachments related to the materials being presented.
In 2021, the Sunshine Act was amended by Act 65, which mandates that agencies covered by the law must provide a meeting agenda at least 24 hours in advance, listing each matter of business that may be deliberated or acted upon. Abrams specifically argued that Agenda Item 3B—”Geotechnical Survey Report Results – KCBA Architects”—did not include sufficient details to enable meaningful public participation and insisted that the Survey Report should have been made available.
During Abrams’ objection, Facilities Committee Chair Linda Palsky attempted to interrupt him multiple times and ultimately dismissed his concerns without providing an explanation.
Pennsbury Superintendent Claims No Report Exist
During his Sunshine Law violation objection, Robert Abrams referenced Superintendent Tom Smith’s admission that the Pennsbury School District does not possess the Geotechnical Survey Report, yet it is included for discussion on the agenda.
Prior to the meeting, multiple email communications were sent to Pennsbury School District solicitor Erin Aronson of Eastburn & Gray, along with her supervisor, Grace Deon, who serves as Managing Partner of the firm. Also copied on these communications was Bucks County District Attorney Jennifer Schorn (Kroiss), who holds jurisdiction over legal actions related to Pennsylvania Sunshine Law violations.
Notably, both Deon and Schorn (Kroiss) are currently candidates in upcoming elections—Deon for Bucks County Court of Common Pleas Judge, and Schorn (Kroiss) for Bucks County District Attorney, both running as registered Republicans.
The following exchange between Abrams and Smith took place prior to the meeting, during which Smith confirmed that no report had been received.
Discussion of Geotechnical Survey Report
Despite Superintendent Tom Smith’s assertion that the Geotechnical Survey Report had not been received and Robert Abrams’ objections regarding the lack of sufficient information for public participation on Agenda Item 3B, the meeting proceeded.
An employee from David Blackmore & Associates presented details of the Geotechnical Survey Report, though no PowerPoint visuals were provided—only verbal explanations that lacked depth. Despite the absence of a formal presentation and vague discussion, both David Blackmore & Associates and a KCBA representative, the architecture firm contracted for the PHS project, confirmed that the land was suitable for development.
When it came time for members of the Pennsbury School Board Facilities Committee—Linda Palsky, Chip Taylor, and Donna Petrecco—to ask questions, they remained silent. Important to note, Donna Petrecco is currently a candidate in upcoming elections seeking the to become Bucks County Pronothatory and is not seeking re-election to the Board after having been appoint to fill the spot vacated by State Rep Jim Prokopiak.
KCBA Punts During It’s Presentation
Despite prior claims that the Geotechnical Survey Report was unavailable, Agenda Item 4A—”Pennsbury High School – KCBA Architects”—included a PowerPoint presentation for public review. This presentation contained details regarding the Geotechnical Survey Report, contradicting statements made on public record.
On Slide 7, KCBA Architects provided a one-page visual featuring a report document from David Blackmore & Associates, directly referencing the report that had previously been stated as nonexistent.
Although the visual presented is not a complete report, it confirms that information was available to vendors but was deliberately withheld from public access.
Community concerns about the Pennsbury High School project have largely centered around wetlands determinations, high water tables and flooding risks. According to both the slide and the David Blackmore & Associates feedback, groundwater has been detected at shallow levels, and the soil composition consists primarily of sand and silt within the first 20 feet. Beneath that lies schist, which can serve as a building foundation but is not ideal due to its tendency to crack horizontally when exposed to built-up water pressure.
The following video captures KCBA’s representative opting not to provide in-depth commentary on the report that was never made available to the public.
Why is this lack of transparency a concern for Pennsbury residents?
For a project of this scale, the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) plays a crucial role, particularly in school districts experiencing declining enrollment and financial challenges like Pennsbury. Under Act 34, PDE serves as a checks-and-balances system to help prevent overspending and organizational misconduct at the local municipal level. In its authority, PDE can require Pennsbury to take the project to referendum to allow the community to decide, not the duly-elected School Board.
To learn more about the Act 34 Hearing process, you can click here to read our previous blog post, which provides a detailed breakdown of how it works.
For those interested, below is the full, unedited recording of Pennsbury’s Facilities Committee Meeting held on May 1, 2025.