Palmerton Area School District this week released a resignation agreement approved in January but redacted the name of an administrator on the Act 93 agreement and any information that could help identify the administrator.

The agreement, provided to the Times News in response to a Right To Know request, indicated the unnamed administrator would remain on paid administrative leave until the resignation date of March 31, 2025.

They will continue to receive their current salary and benefits through March 31, 2025, including health care benefits.

Post-resignation, the administrator will be eligible for COBRA health care benefits at their own expense starting April 1, 2025. The agreement specifies that no additional payments will be made after the resignation date, and the administrator will not accrue any further vacation, personal, or sick days, nor receive any salary increases during this period.

The employee was required to return all district property, including keys, computers, electronic devices, and confidential materials, by Jan. 10, 2025, or another mutually agreed-upon date.

Both parties agreed not to engage in any communications that would disparage each other, unless required by law. The agreement includes mutual releases, with both the administrator and the district waiving the right to bring any future claims against each other related to the administrator’s employment or resignation.

The agreement contains a confidentiality clause, stating that neither party will divulge its existence or particulars to any third party, except as required by law, including the Pennsylvania Right to Know Law.

However, Melissa Melewsky, media law counsel for the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association, said such clauses could raise legal concerns.

“The name of the employee is a public record and must be provided,” Melewsky said. “Sections 708(b)(6) and 708(b)(17) make the name, employment-related contracts, and settlement agreements expressly public.”

Melewsky also raised concerns about the confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses in the agreement.

“They amount to the government attempting to control the former employee’s speech on matters of public concern, which creates First Amendment issues,” she said. “The RTKL provision in the confidentiality clause doesn’t cure the constitutional issues.”

She added that while these kinds of clauses are common in the private sector, “there’s a different standard when the government is involved.”

The Times News is filing an appeal of Palmerton’s Right To Know response requesting that the Office of Open Records direct the district to release the unredacted agreement.