Two members of the Pleasant Valley School Board who were involved in contentious accusations last month seem to have come to a meeting of the minds.

Spurred on by a statement from board President Len Peeters, member Dan Wunder agreed to speak to other board members and not “air our dirty laundry in public.”

Previously, Wunder chastised board member Laura Jecker for posting a controversial Facebook remark that the administration and board were not taking the issue of bullying seriously enough. Wunder said he took personal offense at the remark, then recounted his efforts to stop bullying during the time that he has been affiliated with the school district.

At the most recent board meeting, Jecker also agreed to speak directly to board members when an issue arises and not take pot shots at them or the administration on social media.

Jecker’s agreement did have a proviso — when she asks a question, she said that she expects an answer. That’s certainly a reasonable expectation.

Jecker’s Facebook post came in conjunction with World Day of Bullying Prevention. She wrote that district leaders do not consider bullying important enough. She acknowledged in the post that a districtwide committee that had formed to address the issue appears to care, but, she added, she felt that the administration has relegated the issue to the “back burner.”

She urged readers of her post to send their concerns and narratives about bullying in the district and promised to tackle the problem head-on.

As you might expect, this did not go over well with some other board members, especially Wunder, who attempted to turn the tables on Jecker, accusing her of using a form of bullying by accusing administrators who are not in a position to defend themselves because of their delicate relationship with board members.

Peeters said board members should work together in a spirit of harmony, respect and cooperation, despite differences of opinion. Members should vote their conviction without bias.

I am pleased that the board members have agreed to communicate more directly with each other, but I also caution them: Important issues that concern all constituencies in the district should be discussed in open forums and not privately between two or three members.

Of course, I am not implying that there should not be any non-meeting conversations among board members, but the Sunshine Law has been instituted for a specific purpose — to make sure the public knows what their elected officials are thinking, especially before they take action with official votes.

Most, but not all, school boards encourage residents to participate in meetings and welcome their comments and suggestions. Most boards have set up protocols that lay out when members of the audience can comment either on agenda items or on other matters they might have on their minds. These protocols also specify time limits for each speaker, usually three to five minutes and other specifics to maintain decorum and order.

I am impressed with the Pennsylvania School Boards Association’s Code of Conduct, which encourages board members to display a “spirit of teamwork and devotion to public education” in pursuing their statutorial duties.

“Our obligation is to maintain free and strong public schools without surrendering our responsibilities to any other person, group or organization,” the code says.

This, by the way, includes the superintendents of schools, who sometimes overstep their authority because weak or acquiescent board members do not understand or perform their important roles. Simply stated: The board of education adopts policies; the superintendent implements them.

Board members must remember that they have been entrusted by the residents of their district with the stewardship of the education of the communities’ youth.

“The public expects that our first and greatest priority is to provide equitable educational opportunities for all,” the code goes on to say.

Because a board has nine members, there are sure to be some personality conflicts and differences of opinion. Since board members run for election and, in some cases, make promises involving controversial topics, cliques form, and sometimes this plays out with 5-4, votes as it does frequently in the Lehighton Area School District.

When a dissident board member chooses to take on his or her colleagues and the administration, sparks are sure to fly, and they certainly have in that district.

I find it beyond weird that the board would nearly ban one of its members from gaining entrance to the high school. Such is the case with the restrictions imposed in June on board member David F. Bradley Sr. for one year.

An investigation that cited two instances where Bradley was accused of bullying and overstepping his authority resulted in the unusual action. Bradley is pursuing legal recourse.

Here is a case where board members must accommodate themselves to individual differences, but board members also have a responsibility to go through channels and not go off the grid like loose cannons.

By Bruce Frassinelli | tneditor@tnonline.com