S. WHITEHALL TWP., Pa. — Parkland School District will continue its partnership with St. Luke’s University Health Network in sports medicine and health needs.
But several people voiced their concerns with the agreement at Tuesday’s Parkland School Board — including state Sen. Jarrett Coleman, a former board member.
- The Parkland School Board renewed a sports medicine and school health needs agreement with St. Luke's University Health Network
- State Sen. Jarrett Coleman, who was a previous member of the board, urged the board to reject the agreement
- The board voted to approve it, 7-1
Coleman resigned from the Parkland School Board last year after winning his Senate seat.
The board voted to renew an agreement with St. Luke’s to provide sports medicine and school health needs services. The previous agreement was for five years, and the new agreement is for seven years.
The agreement includes a myriad of services related to sports medicine and health needs, including providing five athletic trainers, two sports performance coaches and a team of physician specialists who will work with the Parkland athletic program.
St. Luke’s will provide those services in exchange for marketing exposure, with no charge to the district.
Superintendent Mark Madson said he was excited to renew the agreement with the health network.
“They've been an excellent partner here with our school district and they showed tremendous support for our students, our student-athletes and our coaches in our community,” Madson said.
The board also voted to approve a separate but connected agreement for an $85,000 sponsorship by St. Luke's of the swimming pool scoreboard, according to Madson.
The scoreboard drew controversy last year. In September, the board voted to buy an $80,000 aquatic scoreboard rather than a $20,000 alternative, saying the more expensive alternative could generate advertising revenue to offset the cost.
The scoreboard was referenced as an example of the board’s lack of transparency during last month’s primary election.
Almost all the people who spoke against the St. Luke's agreement during public comment were candidates during that primary election, except Coleman and one parent of a recent district graduate.
One of those former candidates was Laura Warmkessel, who said she asked the district to see the agreement and was told it was against district policy to share agreements before they are voted on.
“A lack of transparency creates suspicion,” Warmkessel said. “If this is so fabulous, this is so positive, and this is so wonderful… why don’t you have it openly with all the details on your website? Why aren't you shouting it from the rooftops? What are you hiding?”
School board member Patrick Foose agreed that the board should have made the agreement public before voting on it.
“Where is the transparency and leadership of this board?” Foose said.
Madson said it is policy for all agreements to not be published ahead of time, but the board could potentially vote to change that.
Coleman’s comments
Coleman said he decided to speak at the meeting because he received several calls about the agreement. He said he saw the agreement, and he thinks the deal is so good the district is “making out like bandits,” so he questioned why the district was not publishing it.
Madson said he is not sure how Coleman saw the agreement.
Coleman put the value of the agreement at $3 million. He said it would be money better spent by St. Luke's to pay off medical debt.
“How many outstanding patient balances could St Luke’s extinguish with $3 million?” Coleman said. “If the hospital has $3 million to spend on this effort, are they providing care at an appropriate cost to consumers?”
Madson said he is not sure where Coleman got the $3 million figure, as the services the district will receive are likely worth more than that. He said he had no comment on Coleman’s proposal.
The board voted 7-1 to approve the agreement, with Foose as the lone dissenting vote. Director Annette Wilcox was absent, but board President Carol Facchiano read a statement from her saying she would have voted in favor of it.
