I walked away from the December 9 Souderton Area School Board meeting feeling something I hadn’t felt in years: cautious optimism.
I wasn’t able to attend in person, but I watched most of the meeting via livestream — and the difference was striking. The meeting was informative, productive, and, most importantly, functional. Presentations were given on proposed track upgrades at Indian Valley Middle School and Indian Crest Middle School, as well as improvements to the high school tennis courts. Board members asked thoughtful, substantive questions, pressed for clarity, and agreed that more information was needed before any decisions were made.
There was respectful back-and-forth. There was no posturing. No hostility. No dismissiveness.
In short, it looked like a school board doing what a school board is supposed to do.
I honestly hadn’t seen that level of professional and measured engagement at a Souderton meeting. It felt like proof that change — real change — might finally be taking hold. It was a reminder that when leadership is willing to listen and engage in good faith, governance can improve almost immediately.
But just nine days later, that optimism evaporated.
The December 18 meeting revealed that while some things have changed, others remain stubbornly the same — particularly when it comes to board leadership and the enforcement of decorum.
During public comment, Board President Ken Keith allowed two speakers to use the podium not for public input, but for personal attacks. The first was former board member Janet Flisak, who was voted out by the community in November. Rather than offering constructive commentary, she used her time to chastise and lecture newly elected board members — individuals who had been sworn in only days earlier and who were not responsible for the decisions she criticized.
READ: Souderton residents say school board’s Thanksgiving Eve appointment is a ‘lame-duck power grab’
The tone was not reflective or conciliatory. It was divisive. And it set the stage for what followed.
The next speaker was given the same latitude to deliver a three-minute tirade aimed squarely at the newly elected board members. He made sweeping allegations without evidence, blamed them for statements and advocacy efforts that predated their service, and attributed my own work — documented, sourced, and publicly available — to them. His remarks were factually incorrect, inflammatory, and misleading.
At no point did the Board President intervene.
That silence mattered.
Public comment exists to allow residents to express concerns about district operations and governance—not to misidentify people, assign blame inaccurately, or make personal accusations without factual basis. The board president’s role is not passive. It is to maintain order, enforce decorum, and protect the integrity of the meeting.
Mr. Keith failed in that responsibility.
What makes this failure particularly glaring is the board’s history of selective enforcement. I have personally witnessed meetings where speakers critical of Mr. Keith were interrupted, silenced, or removed for far less. When criticism was aimed at him, decorum rules were suddenly rigid. When criticism targeted newly elected members or private citizens who challenge the status quo, those same rules disappeared.
Decorum cannot be applied based on who is speaking — or who is being criticized.
The community spoke clearly in November. Voters rejected the kind of leadership that relies on intimidation, deflection, and control. They voted for oversight, accountability, and a more transparent, respectful process. That mandate does not end on election night, and it does not pause because holdover members are uncomfortable with change.
If the remaining board leadership has any genuine interest in representing the community they were elected to serve, they must stop allowing public comment to be weaponized against individuals — especially when those individuals are misrepresented or falsely accused. Allowing that behavior is not neutrality. It is endorsement.
The December 9 meeting showed us what Souderton can look like when leadership allows the board to function as intended. The December 18 meeting reminded us how quickly progress can be undermined when leadership abdicates responsibility.
The difference wasn’t policy. It wasn’t experience. It was leadership.
And leadership, as Souderton has learned the hard way, matters.
