Letter: UCF residency still an issue

To The Editor:

Letters1At the UCF Board’s work session on Monday, March 10th, it was reported that Dr. Sanville had privately discussed the situation of non-resident students that were attending our schools. The Board was satisfied with the explanation of this probable illegal situation.

After 3.5 months of raising the possibility of out of district students attending our schools and enduring several stalling techniques by Dr. Sanville, I was finally advised in early 2014 by our Superintendent that the information I requested was beyond the what is required of public agencies. He outright declined to provide the information I had requested.

The one bright development was that the Board has contracted with the Intermediate Unit to investigate this situation. I hope the public receives a complete, through, and honest report. This investigation must not be another “white-washing” of this serious situation. Hopefully it will be completed by the end of April, which would be six months after it was first requested.

Bruce B. Yelton

Pocopson Township

   Send article as PDF   

Share this post:

Related Posts


  1. Sean R. says:

    It’s funny,when I posted that the CCIU was not impartial because one of our own is on the board, my comment was deleted. The same goes for calling Open Eyes out as Mr. McGann. It must be nice to be able to take your ball and run home when you don’t like how the game is going. Furthermore, how can you be independent when you serve on an education committee. I make no allegations, but this is why conflicts of interest are so very important. Maybe I should take my ball start posting on the DLN site. At least my comments will not disappear.

    • Mike McGann says:

      No posts were deleted, the two you specifically mentioned are right where they’ve always been. So, I’m not sure what your issue is — but again, it doesn’t appear to be an acute grasp of the facts.

    • Turk182 says:

      Whoa. There’s like 100-plus posts here. Using that mouse to scroll up and, I dunno, check, might have been the way to go there, Sean. You make a lot of accusations — and here when the evidence showing you’re wrong is literally on this page, you can’t be bothered to look into it. Undoubtedly, you’ll be blaming McGann for the disappearance of Malaysian jet, next. Or Benghazi.

  2. had enough says:

    Taxpayers should not pay to defend superintendent.

  3. Kristin Hoover says:

    So happy you joined the conversation, R. Johnson! You raise a number of good points. Knowing Keith/Jeff/Vic, they will likely read Democratic politics into your message and the rest will be lost. They never understood the lessons of Penn State and how the Board of Regents and the School Board should serve an oversight funtion over the Administration. Without oversight, there is no check and balance on the power of the Superintendent who feels empowered to do whatever he chooses with the blessing of K/J/V. This is a dangerous situation for taxpayers as TE Resident points out because the Board/Administration has a lot of taxpayer money to use to cover whatever corruption they consider necessary. The situation is even more dangerous when the check and balance of RTK law is subverted by a Superintendent who routinely denies requests regardless of subject.

    K/J/V fail to understand what a pickle they have placed the CCIU in with this situation. I suspect that requesting CCIU input was a short-term knee-jerk reaction (free to the District) they thought would yield political cover for a decision they are certain will be in their favor. Afterall, Jeff Hellrung is the UCFSD representative to CCIU! They are sure that they can control the CCIU answer. We don’t even know exactly what CCIU was asked to do in this matter. Note that they have never made clear whether they consider any findings to be simple statements, recommendations or binding resolutions.

    Obviously R. Johnson and I see the fallacy in picking CCIU for this investigation. If I were CCIU, I would decline to take on this matter as they serve 11 other Chester County school districts besides UCFSD with services to approximately 86,000 students. They serve “special education and compensatory education programs; career, technical and customized education; mentor training and staff development; technology initiatives; consortia for school business operations; and curriculum services.” This matter is concentrated on one school district which does not serve the needs of the other Disticts and students. The matter of education theft by one family should not be allowed to tie up the resources of the CCIU and is far outside the main charter of that organization. It appears to lack any power in the matter and may set a bad precedent for the future. They would do well to take R. Johnson’s advice on an independent investigation.

  4. R. Johnson says:

    This morning I have been watching the Sunday morning news shows and see striking parallels to this local situation. A UCFSD School Board member describes the current CCIU investigation of the district’s handling of residency issues as an independent investigation. UCFSD is one of twelve districts that fund the CCIU, so UCFSD is one of the CCIU’s bosses. Therefore, the CCIU investigation of UCFSD is an internal rather than an independent investigation.

    The national press is currently covering the report commissioned by Governor Christie to investigate if he knew his underlings had deliberately closed a bridge for political reasons. Noting that the Christie report is an internal investigation, national commentators speculated on the credibility of its conclusion that Christie is vindicated. They wondered:

    1) Did Christie get what he paid for, that is, a favorable report from those employed by him?

    2) Or, might the investigators worry enough about their own reputations to strive extra hard to overcome their lack of independence (Fox News)?

    Realistically, unless the conclusion of an internal investigation criticizes its subject, the credibility of its conclusion will always be questioned. In fact, it may raise more questions than it answers (Christie coverage). This will be equally true of a CCIU report approving the UCFSD handling of residency issues. It likely will raise more questions than it answers, including speculation on the motivation of the investigators.

    A paid-for investigation can be independent. UCFSD could commission one of how it handled residency issues and any related issues and actors. Those hired should be strangers and should not be or have been previously employed by those under investigation and should have no expectation of future employment or favors from them. These investigators should be given full access to all information and legal opinions and have the right to elicit additional pertinent facts. They should have expertise in conducting investigations and the roles of school administrators and boards: someone like an ex-prosecutor or a local “Louis Freeh”. The findings of this kind of independent investigator would be far more credible and helpful.

    • TE Resident says:

      Well stated R. Johnson. Thank-you for the information Ms. Hoover. Mr. Hellrung as CCiu Rep from U-CF explains alot about why Keith and Open Eyes have been so eager for the report and so confident in their comments about this matter. They know the chances of it going their way are very good given who controls the information given to the CCIU. Boards all over the county support the administration. The CCIU is just an extension of this county wide partnership. As I said before, tax payers are at an extreme disadvantage

  5. Kristin Hoover says:

    If you’ve had enough bashing….then don’t do it.

  6. Keith Knauss says:

    Very interesting. Ms. Hoover tells us the Thane case is “not on point”. Yet, the district has two legal opinions from two lawyers that say Thane is directly applicable. Who are we to believe?
    Why hasn’t Dr. Manzone told Rafferty/Hoover/ TE Res/Yelton that she was advised that Thane was directly applicable? Why has she not told her supporters that a family can have their legal domicile in one district and yet establish residency in another district?

    • Kristin Hoover says:

      Keith: We are not an organized group or one who takes orders. We are all smart people who have listened to what has happened and arrived at our own conclusions. Legal opinions from two lawyers mean nothing. Lawyers always try to find ways to defend their clients — regardless of guilt. Sleeping at a property four nights a week during the school year does not make it a “residence” even if the family were actually following the DEAL made by Sanville. This four night a week thing is Sanville’s creation and not a product of tort law.

      How many ways have you figured out how to insult people who disagree with you? Now anybody who disagrees isn’t smart enough to think for themselves! Each of us has nefarious reasons for differing opinions! Residency matters only when you have an opinion that differs, but not when you commit education theft! Really?

      • Keith Knauss says:

        I see now. I should ignore legal advice from professionals and instead rely on Ms. Hoover’s creative interpretation of the law. I tried my best to help her understand, but have to give up at this point. I’m reminded of the saying, “You can lead a horse to water …..”

        • Open Eyes says:

          There is no use posting useful information here because most of the participants have an agenda already in place. Unless you have more fuel for the anti-UCFSD, anti-Sanville fire- forget it. There is no interest in anything that compromises their battle-ready arguments.

          Can you tell us when the CCIU report is due?

          • Kristin Hoover says:

            Nobody is anti-UCFSD. We want honest, transparent government where all citizens are treated equally. We want the rules to be applied equally so that one family is not specially favored by the Superintendent. We want elected officials to be respectful of individuals and of their First Amendment rights. We want the Superintendent to follow the law and uphold school code. We want Sanville to boot this family out of UCFSD.

            Instead, we got the opposite. We have officials covering their tracks and spending money on lawyers to justify bad decisions after the fact. We have opacity instead of transparency. No information is given without a right to know request being filed that is summarily denied. Confidentiality is the mantra used to conceal anything the Administration/Board don’t want people to know. This is an abuse of the concept. We have elected officials that were for RTK laws before they were elected and now they support denials of those requests. Elected officials insult members of the public if they dare to disagree. All of this is wrong and needs to change regardless of what CCIU says.

        • Kristin Hoover says:

          There is no more creative interpretation than the one provided by Sanville in his DEAL letter where he set aside tuition and told them they had to spend 4 nights a week at the practice during the school year in order to be considered residents. We do not know when the lawyers were consulted or what question was asked.

          The question remains why such a deal was made. I think I know. Do you? If not, why not?

        • TE Resident says:


          BOD’s have a bottomless pit of tax payer money to hire lawyers to prove whatever case they want to prove. Citizens, taxpayers, and parents do not.

          The tax payer is at an extreme disadvantage here. I hope the CCIU is open, fair, transparent and honest as a third party investigator. I’m not questioning their integriy, but as Ms. Hoover pointed out, they are funded by tax payer money from each district and so would seem to therefore, have at least a familiarity with the very people they are going to for the information to examine.

          • Kristin Hoover says:

            You make great points! The CCIU rep for UCFSD is Jeff Hellrung. Hopefully, that is counterbalanced by the fact that Dr. Manzone was the former representative to the CCIU and is well respected everywhere (even among current board members unless your name is Keith, Jeff or Vic). Despite what they have tried to mislead people into thinking in this set of postings, you can tell that the Board has different feelings on this and is not wildly supportive of K/J/V. There are new board members who may not know as much about this as the rest.

          • TE Resident says:

            Thank-you for the information that Mr. Hellrung is the CCIU rep. Wow!

  7. TE Resident says:

    Keith, Your desperate need to be right is clouding your judgement and damaging your credibility.

    • Kristin Hoover says:

      TE Resident makes another good point. Keith, if Thane were applicable, why would it be necessary to fight Sean so hard for access to records? This is a cover-up being being orchestrated by people who twist the Open Records law depending on which side of the School Board table they sit. How ironic!

  8. Keith Knauss says:

    Well, at least one of the dissenters has tried to find the PA Supreme Court Cumberland Valley v Thane case. Unfortunately, the dissenter found one of the lower court cases. Add “in residence hearing” to the search and make sure the case says “Supreme Court of Pennsylvania”. We’re getting close.

    • Kristin Hoover says:

      I know how to use search engines, libraries and public records. You simply do not understand the Thane case and refuse to see that his case is not on point. Thane was decided based on a pattern of activities of Mrs. Thane and her children which is radically different than we know the family in our case has exhibited. More than one person has told me that they watch this business at night/weekends as they drive to and from home in the course of their daily lives.

      Jack Merrick who is the UCFSD solicitor and Sanville also understand the fact that Thane is not applicable. If it had been, they would not have written the family three different letters pointing out the non-residency. Are you saying that you are more of a lawyer than your solicitor? Thane does not speak to the four night a week deal made by Sanville after he met with them.

      Something happened at this meeting with the family that made Sanville change his mind. What is it about this family that would lead Sanville to back off and “memorialize” his agreement with the family in writing? Why risk his job for one family when the Superintendent represents all families in the District? It clearly wasn’t the Thane case!

      • Open Eyes says:

        I am curious- what is your relentless fascination with this situation based on? You have made some interesting points- but the underlying theme in all of your comments is anger- and it feels personal.
        There must be more to this than you are letting on. Rather than spending hours on here repeating over and over your negative views of UCFSD- can we agree to wait for the CCIU report? What other options are there?
        I, for one, have had enough of the bashing.

        • TE Resident says:

          “I am curious-what is your relentless fascination with this situation based on?”

          And I am curious-What is yours, open eyes? The underlying theme in your comments is anger towards Ms. Hoover or anyone who disagrees or challenges your views and it feels personal, towards any citizen who dares to challenge you, to ask questions, to get to the bottom of this.

          Tax paying citizens have a right to ask questions without fear of retribution.

          • Open Eyes says:

            Agreed. I am a UCFSD resident and pay taxes here. That means I have a specific vested interest in what happens. If you live in TE – I am curious about your interest as well. I do not follow TE school matters- and do not know why you follow ours but it is not completely unusual.

            However, Ms. Hoover has written dozens and dozens of comments on this site (I did some research) and has even been warned by the publisher to watch herself- so I think the anger is rightly hers.

            Think the problem here is that certain people do not like my questions/comments. Seems that the only thing acceptable is to slam UCFSD. Am I not allowed to offer a different perspective- one that does not think an entire school district and its superintendent should be tarred and feathered based on a situation that is being investigated by a third party? Or is that point of view unwelcome? That is what I am hearing.

            As for Ms. Hoover- -yes I really do not understand her interest in happenings here..but as you say – it is her right to participate- even if her commentary has one tone, one idea, one goal……

            I still think- even with the residency case being investigated -that UCFSD is wonderful. We moved here BECAUSE of the schools and have not been sorry. We like having a superintendent who is accessible and friendly. We like our kids going to schools where the faculty is happy to see them every day. We like the warm community spirit. We like living here!

            We are so glad not to be in a district like Coatesville……….

  9. Keith Knauss says:

    I think it would be helpful for the Manzone/Hoover/Rafferty/TE Resident group to read and understand the landmark PA Supreme Court decision concerning residency.
    Cumberland Valley v Thane
    Please report back on what you have learned.

    • Open Eyes says:

      Thanks for providing something that is indisputable. Some on here mistake personal opinion for truth. It is causing a lot of confusion.

    • Kristin Hoover says:

      This case is not applicable to the case in point. But, if you want to play “lawyer” then let’s play:

      Act of March 10, 1949, P.L. 30, as amended, 24 P.S. § 13-1302.
      3. “Domicile” has been defined as: “[T]he place where he lives, in distinction from that where he transacts his business, the place where he chooses to abide, in distinction from that in which he may be for a temporary purpose.” McKenna v. McKenna, 282 Pa.Super. 45, 422 A.2d 668, 669 (1980). “Bona fide residence” has also been defined as “domicile”—actual residence coupled with the intention to remain there permanently or indefinitely. Id.

      Gee, I don’t see anything about “four nights a week” during “the school year”…..as Sanville seemed to when he played lawyer.

  10. Open Eyes says:

    Where is proof of a ‘deal?’ Other than the man who was being ‘observed’ by board member Manzone saying something in the police station- is there ANY actual proof? Documents? Additional statements? Eyewitnesses? Relying on one statement does not a case make.

    Seems that if there is no actual hard evidence of a deal most of this is moot.

    • had enough says:

      Exactly what Sean R is trying to get

    • Kristin Hoover says:

      Your eyes are open but your mind is closed. You ask for an eyewitness account and for documentation. You’re in luck – one was published in the Unionville Times…..


      Sanville had written three letters saying that these people were non-residents and then he meets with them. Suddenly, in August 2012, he actually puts in writing his DEAL saying “the District’s position is that, if the children at sleeping at the {in District property] the majority of the time — at least four days per week — then they will be considered residents of the Unionville-Chadds Ford School District. In the matter of tuition, at this time we will set the tuition question aside. Moving forward, we will trust your affirmation of residency at [the in-District property]. There are witnesses and documents and I even provided you a quote from Sanville’s DEAL! What else would you like?

      • Open Eyes says:

        LOL. This is funny. A resignation letter full of accusations is not proof. As for the quote- if UCFSD is following the LAW- how does that amount to a deal?
        Who are the witnesses and what did they witness?

        I remain a taxpayer & parent who thinks that UCFSD does an excellent job. I am not naive nor do I wear blinders. I do have questions about the motives at play here though.

        The few angry people here are the minority- but that does not mean that they should not be heard. However, it is important that there be facts and objective data presented. The Manzone resignation letter could not be more subjective.

        Let me know if you have anything that meets that criteria- but thanks for looking.

        • Kristin Hoover says:

          The quotes I provided are from Sanville’s letter to the parents where he memorialized the deal he struck and stated he would take them at their word that they would make their kids sleep 4 nights a week at the business property during the school year. He also decided not to seek any tuition money in return….yet they now raise activity fees because there is no money! If those parents had to chunk out all the money they owed, there would be no reason to raise activity fees. CCIU will have a copy of Sanville’s DEAL and there are witnesses to what occurred who will likely be asked for their input. Knowing Dr. Manzone, I am sure that she has a significant amount of documentation. Who gave Sanville the right to waive this money? He simply empowered himself and this level of arrogance is as troubling as failure to follow the school code. If he gave one person a DEAL, then why spend money on 16 ongoing investigations? They all deserve the same DEAL!

  11. had enough says:

    Proof of what?

  12. Open Eyes says:

    I think the fact that Manzone was spending hours watching a family is more disturbing than anything they could have been doing. The million dollar question is: Why do you support guerrilla tactics against a family with children?????

    • had enough says:

      Keith is the expert on RTK and Efficient Education. He should know better.

    • had enough says:

      I don’t think anyone said it was hours or guerrilla tactics. I think she just parked on a public street. What I don’t understand is why children who supposedly live in UCFSD were at the house in the first place. If they weren’t there, they couldn’t have been followed.

  13. Open Eyes says:

    Kudos Keith. Thanks for providing proof.

  14. TE Resident says:

    Yes, thank-you for that very important information. He was “agitated” as Keith says, because he was caught residing in a residence outside the district, not because he was offended by Dr. Manzone parking outside his house. Got it.

    BTW, people park outside my house all the time. If it bothers me that much, I go out and ask them why. It’s not a big deal, unless of course I had something to hide.

    • had enough says:

      It sounds like he chased Manzone, not vice versa. probably thought she was another investigator and Sanville was violating the deal.

  15. TE Resident says:

    Keith, your arrogance is only trumped by your hubris. Don’t know how you got elected with all these good people around you.

  16. Open Eyes says:

    TE: Did I miss something? Were you with Manzone? Seems that you know details. Are you a supporter of stalking as a legitimate way to get information?

    Were charges filed against the man? Against Manzone?

    If there is proof that all you say is true, please provide it. Thus far it seems that there is only support for Manzone’s story based on her viewpoint. That is hardly impartial.

    The quest for truth continues………

    • TE Resident says:

      open, please calm down. If you read my post again I say “it sounds like” about 3 times. It’s clear no one has proof and I don’t know the details.

      You have now labeled her “a stalker”. What is the law on that? I don’t know what the law says on that or when someone crosses the line into stalking. Am I a supporter of stalking to get information? No, I am not but I’m not sure that’s what I would label what she did like you are when as you said no one knows the truth.

      I do know she has an impeccable reputation so I take her at her word that there was no high speed chase and she went to the police station while he was tailgating. Do I know that for sure? I don not, but I believe it at this point.

      Will you admit that Board members presented information to the public that was just not true.

      • Open Eyes says:

        TE- LOL- I AM calm- just genuinely confused by what appears to be blind loyalty to a former BOD member who engaged in very questionable behavior regarding a family whose residency was in question. I think the BOD was exceedingly generous to her because she was not censured or asked to resign. Manzone has been reactive and not proactive. Can I get any agreement on that? There were children in the home! Were her actions those of a rational parent/board member? I think not. Anyone who thinks that sitting in a car outside of someone’s home for long periods on multiple days is the best way to solve a problem is suspect in my book. The end result- in a police stations- bears that out. The BOD must have been mortified. I know I am – even though I do not live in Manzone’s district- but am a UCFSD resident.

        I cannot state that the BOD presented anything untrue as I have no proof. Do you? This whole situation is so murky and so inflammatory- I think the BOD has done as well as anyone could. Still think the CCIU review will shed new and bright light on the whole mess. We need some answers!

        • TE Resident says:

          I got the impression she tried desperately for over a year to get information about this from Mr. Sanville and was blocked so became so frustrated about it, decided to see for her self by sitting outside the house in the morning.

          I think most BOD’s were very gracious and kind to her, a couple were not at all and there is your problem. A couple inflammed the situation by labeling her and name calling her and diagnosing her behavior that it brought attention and sympathy to her cause. I think had they just thanked her for her service, expressed regret and genuine remorse for her resignation, (like most did) none of this would be happening. She resigned. The public character assaaination was not necessary.

          When BOD’s start labeling their peers and name calling them and demonizing them in public print, it’s really bad form, raises eyebrows and before you know it, this is what you have.

          Hopefully, the third party will clear up the confusion.

          • Kristin Hoover says:

            My guess is that TE Resident is absolutely correct. Many times, the board disagrees during the conversations that go back and forth by telephone and in executive sessions. What the public sees in the meeting is the “cleaned up” end result where anybody who disagrees risks shunning by the Board leadership and Superintendent. Keith/Jeff/Vic control the narrative and their comments about Dr. Manzone are a sample of the wrath that would be leveled at anybody who openly disagrees. One can only assume that whatever Keith/Jeff/Vic said to her in private at least mirrored their public swipes.

            You make an excellent point that people (and the CCIU) should understand — if the Superintendent had taken the appropriate actions and been transparent in communications, she would not have needed to take any action on her own. They take every chance to perpetuate misinformation about Dr. Manzone knowing full well that she is not the problem. They mistakenly assume if they tarnish the reputation of a fine individual that somehow they improve their own positions. The nasty wrath directed at her and anybody who disagrees is a deliberate distraction from the fact that education theft occurred. Instead of prosecuting it as Lower Moreland did resulting in a $10,000 fine instead of jail time for the thieves, the Superintendent tells the family that they can continue to be enrolled and they need to spend 4 nights a week at the business address. If anybody is worried about stalkers, I have been told by several people that they never see anybody at the business at night. So, even with the free deal they got, the family has failed to comply. Nobody seems to even care about that.

            Keith/Jeff do their best to make it appear that there is tremendous “confusion” to use your word. They say that residency is too hard to define when the vast majority do it all the time. There is nothing in the school code or anywhere else about “4 nights a week” as if the Superintendent were even empowered to make any kind of deal to give away education. The truth is already out there and continues in spite of verbal stone throwing.

          • Open Eyes says:

            Agree and thanks for putting it so well. I still cannot help but feel that Manzone had some responsibility to ensure that HER behavior did not compromise the BOD. Remember- this is a residency issue- which is important- but there are other far more grievous issues that might have warranted her rogue behavior. But no more from me on that. When is the CCIU report due?

        • TE Resident says:

          Open, Her resignation was a sign that she did not want her behavior to compromise the board. She said she could no longer serve with good conscious. I think she would have left it at that. She hasn’t been out on street corners blasting horns or carrying signs. I have only seen two comments from her on the matter, one being on this thread almost a week ago. So, it’s not accurate to blame her for this bru ha ha. No one is “to blame.” It’s just one of those things that kept growing…..like a snow ball rolling down a hill gathering mass with every turn.

        • Sean R. says:

          Here is the million dollar question. The home that Mrs. Mazone sat outside of is not in the UCFSD. Do you think that is why the father chased her away? Would he have done the same if this incident happened in the UCFSD ? Do you see where this going and why?

    • Kristin Hoover says:

      Dear Keith (aka “open eyes”):

      I find it interesting how you and Jeff quickly shift your perspective when you serve on the Board vs when you are only a member of the public. In School Board Meeting Minutes from 8/26/09 (page 5 of 19) “Jeff Hellrung, East Marlborough Township Resident, commented about the expensive clerical error the District made in March and its effort to keep if from the public’s view. The error became public only through a Right-to-Know request to PDE and prevents the District from raising $638,000 this year for the budget. Some members of the community will be happy with the reduction from a 6.1% to a 4.1% increase; others will be very unhappy. We could have had improvements to the A.T. program, pay increases for teachers, and a FLES program. There are longer-term implications, as this amount will be missing from the budget every year into the future. Everyone makes errors, even excellent employees, but he believes this error was unintentional. The apparent attempt by the Administration and School Board to keep this information from the public is more concerning.”

      I quoted this paragraph from the meeting minutes in its entirety, but on page 6 of 19 of these same minutes, Mr. Hellrung goes on to ask, “Does the Board consider withholding important budgetary information ethical behavior? 3. Does the Administration consider that it is ethical to make handouts and public presentations that mislead the public? He read a statement from the Open Records Office regarding a citizen’s right to know, which promote trust in government. That trust has been broken.” Note this section is also quoted from the meeting minutes in its entirety.

      So….to recap, when Sharon Parker was the Superintendent and Jeff was a resident and one of her staff member made an unintentional error, this is what he has to say about ethics and RTK and the public’s trust in government. When the Superintendent he hired makes a deal with a resident that requires them to spend four nights a week at their business address in Chadds Ford thus enabling this family to continue their theft of education (a criminal act and not an unintential mistake), we need to all find better things to do with our time! Move along, there’s nothing to see here! Notice that he suggests that money might have been spent on “pay increases for teachers” when you and he complain about labor costs as a board member! What’s the definition of hypocrite, again?

  17. Open Eyes says:

    TE- I think the context of the situation is being misrepresented. Holly Manzone was essentially stalking this family- and when the father discovered her outside- again- Manzone fled to the police knowing her actions had incited this man. She is far from innocent. Her actions are those of someone for whom the cause is very personal.

    Under such duress there is no way for anyone other than that man to know if what he said was true. He was being accused by a woman who had been engaging in a campaign of sustained ‘observation.’ Sure he was agitated. I would have been too.

    Does anyone have corroboration about the ‘deal?’ other than this man’s statement in a volatile situation in a police station? Is there documentation supporting it? Or is this a supposition put forth by people who do not like the superintendent? Hard to tell at this point.

    Agree that the CCIU is going to have to be provide some clarity.

  18. TE Resident says:


    It doesn’t sound to me like the man was afraid of anything, the least being Dr. Mazone. There was no high speed chase. She drove to the police station because she was afraid. She was being tailgated by him. He didn’t have to pull into the police station. It sounds like she was the one who was afraid, not him. It sounds like he was angry and finally blurted out what he thinks is the truth, He made a deal with the supt. Hopefully, this third party will get to the bottom of it.

  19. Open Eyes says:

    So Board member Holly Manzone spends her free time watching a family that she thinks is illegally enrolling their kids in our schools. Her ‘observations’ become enough of an issue that the state police are involved. While at the police station- the father tells Manzone he has a deal with the district AND she believes him? REALLY?

    Now the person she thinks is guilty says something and suddenly his word is elevated to gospel truth? Does that make any sense to anyone else? How does the ‘guilty party’ become the person Manzone and others believe without a doubt? Where is his credibility? Or is simply that there is a group here determined to cast UCFSD administration and BOD in a bad light and therefore will hitch their wagon to anyone- including someone they think is ‘stealing’ education? Seems desperate to me.

    There are so many suspicious things about these ongoing attacks. Despite the fact that UCFSD is a stellar school district no one mentions that. Why? The continued attacks against Dr. Sanville and the BOD smack of personal vendettas. Ms. Hoover’s intense and unrelenting focus on a district she has no current ties to is questionable.

    Can anyone here say anything good about UCFSD? Why did you move here? Are you/have you sent your children to private schools because UCFSD is not good enough? Or are you just in the attack-mode because it seems like a fun thing to do? From the outside looking in this appears to be a few very angry people pulling out all the stops over and over.

    The CCIU is investigating UCFSD’s residency cases. Many of you do not like that either- but it is beginning to sound like you would not approve of anyone. Think about the validity of the ‘deal’ that is the lynchpin in the argument here. A man ‘caught’ by a Board member says he had permission granted by the district- and all of a sudden he is believable? Wow. I have some beach property in Indiana for you.

    Time to ease up on the vitriol- what purpose does it serve at this point? You are on the record as hating Sanville and the Board. Some of you have launched personal attacks- and they are documented. If that is your goal- to be known as at all costs as no holds barred group who will pick apart every single action of this administration and BOD- mission accomplished. Sure hope it was worth it. Look at some of your comments- are they really the kinds of things you say and act on?

    Let’s see what the CCIU says.

  20. steve says:

    Sean says: While a number of the members who pulled that jackass stunt are gone, many of us are still angry because we will have to pay for that at some point in the future. Those of the kind of things that make folks really angry. It gets harder and harder to look at old vs. new board when things like that occur. We do need more transparency from the board, and not the Obama kind either. We also can’t have board members negotiating contracts when they have family members teaching in the schools.

    Keith Knauss
    March 23, 2014 at 3:42 PM
    How ironic. ALL the board members who voted for the $70M high school are gone and the two main citizens (Jeff and Keith) who organized the opposition are on the board. Yet, now we’re supposedly hiding things and untrustworthy.

    It’s this stuff that has me LMAO. Sean, you seem to prove Eyes point about the oppositions’ anger having no bounds.
    It’s funny, I have been opposite of Keith’s positions for many years, but I’m siding with him on this one. I also appreciate that he is one of the only board members to write in mediums like this one to keep people informed…thanks Keith!!
    Also funny that when a board is polarized and votes are always close or tied that nothing gets done, it’s dysfunctional…when a consensus is reached and the board has a unanimous or an 8-1 vote, it’s conspirisy. Now that this all important residency issue is being investigated by a third party, why can’t people just let them come out with there findings?
    I guess this answers my question..
    quote by K. Hoover: The community is now at the mercy of corrupt officials. That’s simply not right.
    CCIU is the wrong group to be investigating this and I suspect that you picked them because it was free and you figure it will go your way. They are not lawyers and the legal ramifications of this need to be crystal clear to you, Sanville and the go-alongers on the Board.

    Need to be crystal clear!!! I don’t think that this angry side could see through any crystal right now,no matter how clear. Anyway, that’s my opinion as one who has lived here since the mid 70’s and whose wife graduated from U-ville in the 60’s…I’ve seen a lot over the years, but this is hillarious to me.

    Now I would like to put out there a hypothetical situation. Sean said that it’s not illegal to sit on the side of the road (in reference to the Manzone incident). Imagine you have a high school student. A faculty member suspects the student is abusing alcohol or drugs in school. The faculty member stakes out the house, to gather information on the student, and his/her friends. maybe to link known abusers to the student, maybe to turn info to the police..whatever. Would you, as the student’s parent, allow that? After all, it’s perfectly legal. Now, say there was an altercation/chase/incident which ends up at the State Police baracks and is now public. Would that faculty member be held in high esteem for his/her actions? Would you, as a parent of a U-ville student, want you child in that teachers class??
    Mr. Hellrung said “highly inappropriate behavior”…would you consider that teacher’s behavior to be highly inappropriate or a-ok??
    (and as a note, I’m have been even more opposed to most of Jeff’s positions over the years than Keith’s, but solidly with him on this one!!)

    • Open Eyes says:

      Thanks for some salient comments that raise interesting points. What is ‘legal’ and what is ‘ethical’ are very different.

    • TE Resident says:

      Steve, I don’t understand your point. there are any of a million hypotheticals we could come up with in this instance as any other in life that would be legal. No point considering them unless they actually happen, just like in this case with Dr. Manzone. It actually happened, it’s out of the ordinary, it’s being considered.

    • Sean R. says:


      You make some really good points, but this situation is very different then the scenario that you mentioned. A teacher is not an elected official, and the school district most likely has rules regarding their employees and what they can do when it comes to contact with their students. Mrs. Manzone is accountable to the taxpayers as an elected official, and they may choose to re-elect her or not. The taxpayers are the ones to decide if Mrs. Mazone’s activities were appropriate or not. She was not employee of the board or the district. Private Citizens watch other citizens all the time and it’s not unlawful. There has to be an intent place someone in reasonable fear of bodily injury or substantial emotional distress. That comes strait from the PA Crimes Code Title 18 section 2709.1 Stalking. A citizen searching for the truth may not be supported by the school board, but then again it doesn’t really matter what they think about. It seems like Manzone let the cat out of the bag and this has angered some. I just want to know the truth one way or another.

    • Sean R. says:

      Well Steve, I don’t know about how any of the board members feel about the residency issue one way or another. However, I do know that I have looked into this matter and have found enough evidence that shows the folks in question do not reside here, and I’ve been doing investigate work for over 25 years. What concerns me is that the school district refuses to release the reports that their investigator did and the letter from 8-10-12 where they changed their position regarding residency. When your actions are being questioned, you put it all out there so the truth is known. At least that is what you do when you are telling the truth. The opposite is what you do when trying to hide from it and that is what is being done here. I really don’t care what this person or that person says in the least. Show me the evidence so we can all go home and put this issue to rest. However, the district thinks they are above that. I guess we will see about that my friend because this is far from over.

  21. Kristin Hoover says:

    “Ensuring open and honest government is a bedrock principle of democracy. It can only be attained through the unfettered exchange of information between citizens and their government. A citizen’s right-to-know, sometimes known as freedom of information, fosters accountability, prevents abuses of power and promotes trust in government. Pennsylvania has codified this important right to access government records in Act 3 of 2008, called the Right-to-Know law.”

    —Terry Mutchler
    Executive Director
    PA Office of Open Records

    I think these are important thoughts for UCFSD to keep in mind. I remember the days when Keith was another member of the public and got an award for his RTK activities. Then, he gets on the Board and suddenly things are different. Now he knows at least 26 reasons why somebody shouldn’t know. What prompts Mr. Right-to-Know to become Mr. Your-Right-Not-To-Know?

  22. Sean R. says:


    Why do we need another investigation? What were the results of the CFR investigation? Is there a reason the district does not want to release those records? Did we not spend enough money on that one.

  23. Keith Knauss says:

    OK, Kristin firmly believes all “11 board members are inept, deceived and afraid to speak out” and Dr. Manzone is a crusading hero.
    I’m in the camp that believes Dr. Manzone made a mistake and misunderstands the legal definition of residency. That said, let’s see what the CCIU has to say.

    • Kristin Hoover says:

      Dear Keith:

      I never said what you seem to be quoting. I simply said that nobody wants to be shunned and marginalized, let alone subjected to the treatment you heaped on Dr. Manzone. You and Jeff and Vic never miss a chance to take a swipe at her. A brilliant woman who attended meeting after meeting, pitched in and volunteered for hand-on science through curriculum council, band activities and whatever else came along gets vilified by your lies because she refused to go along. Her greatest accomplishment is that she really listened to what parents and teachers and support staff had to say. I admire brains/guts and she’s got ’em. If she hadn’t spoken out, the community would be unaware that education theft had occurred and Sanville/Board aided and abetted an illegal act. Elected officials and the Administration serve the community, but it seems that unchecked power has led to real corruption in the District. The community is now at the mercy of corrupt officials. That’s simply not right.

      CCIU is the wrong group to be investigating this and I suspect that you picked them because it was free and you figure it will go your way. They are not lawyers and the legal ramifications of this need to be crystal clear to you, Sanville and the go-alongers on the Board.

      • Keith Knauss says:

        OK, Kristin firmly believes all “11 board members are inept, deceived and afraid to speak out”. Now, in addition, according to Kristin we’re “corrupt officials” and tell “lies”.
        Very revealing!

  24. Sean R. says:


    There is some well earned anger against the school board, and it’s not looked at as new. We had a community vote where over 60% of the citizens who voted said they didn’t want the 70 plus million dollar renovation done to the high school. After voting it down twice, the school board said screw you and they did it anyway. While a number of the members who pulled that jackass stunt are gone, many of us are still angry because we will have to pay for that at some point in the future. Those of the kind of things that make folks really angry. It gets harder and harder to look at old vs. new board when things like that occur. We do need more transparency from the board, and not the Obama kind either. We also can’t have board members negotiating contracts when they have family members teaching in the schools.

    • Keith Knauss says:

      How ironic. ALL the board members who voted for the $70M high school are gone and the two main citizens (Jeff and Keith) who organized the opposition are on the board. Yet, now we’re supposedly hiding things and untrustworthy.
      Some comments:
      – There are 8 board members who served with Dr. Manzone that disagree with her position. There are 3 new board members who have examined the records and disagree with Dr. Manzone’s position. Are these 11 board members all inept, deceived and afraid to speak out?
      – Your place of residency for enrolling students is not necessarily the address where you register your car or pay your taxes or have your telephone number or where you receive your mail.
      – The Right to Know Law has numerous exceptions (I believe 26) that keep records confidential for very good reasons. The district denied Sean’s RTK request for several of those reasons. Sean has appealed his RTK request denial to the a neutral arbiter – the Office of Open Records. That’s a good thing. The OOR decision will eventually be published on the OOR website for all to see. If the district is wrong he’ll get the records. If the OOR upholds the denial, I hope we won’t heat cries of “they are inappropriately hiding something”.

      • Kristin Hoover says:


        It’s clear why Board members all stuck together. Everybody sees what happens when you don’t. Anybody who broke ranks would forever be frozen out of the tiny well-controlled stream of information provided by you and the Administration. They would have no hope of being able to pass anything during the rest of their term. Nobody wants to serve while being regarded as a traitor. What are you going to tell the parents who call with concerns — Sorry Mr/s X, they tell me nothing and there is nothing I can do with one vote? Unfortunately, shunning is a powerful social tool. It’s easier to look away than stare at eduction theft and force prosecution/re-paynent.

        TE Resident clearly understands the dynamics of the Board by calling out you and your two buddies who really run the District while Sanville serves as your re-tweeting front man. You have made the issue of residency much more complicated/costly than it needed to be by Sanville’s deal. Now you tie up resouces of the CCIU that could be better used for other districts for a problem that should never have happened. It is my hope that CCIU will ask WHY Sanville made the deal. My guess — therein lies the bigger story.

        • Open Eyes says:

          No one in a police station ever lies to deflect blame from themselves. NEVER happens. Certainly not after they have been ‘watched’ by an angry woman with an agenda. Nope. Does not happen.

          The wholehearted belief in a single statement made by the very person you believe is guilty is the weak link here. Think about it. Why does this man gain credibility? Because he says something that you think is damning?

          • TE Resident says:

            It makes no sense for this man to have to deflect blame. He followed Dr. Manzone to the police station. He was tailgating her. He did not have to pull into the station and he did not have to talk to an officier. There was no pressure for him to lie. There was cause for him to tell the truth and maybe that’s what he did.

          • Sean R. says:

            Open Eyes,

            I think I have finally figured it out. Kristin was wrong about your identity. Your comments and negative attitude towards those who say anything that you perceive as negative against the district has made me think. You are not Keith Knauss, you are actually Mike McGann. When the comments were made about a particular family that doesn’t live in the district, you protected those people and deleted the post. You will probably delete this one as well. If you are that close to the district that you have to censure the community, then you need to reevaluate your journalist integrity. This situation really is amazing.

          • Mike McGann says:

            Sean, I’m getting a little tired of this.

            I’m not Open Eyes. Frankly, I don’t need to be – I’m pretty comfortable expressing my own opinion about things on this site — and pretty much anywhere. While you take shots at my credibility, you make baseless accusations, which doesn’t say much for your own credibility.

            The post of yours I deleted contained information that identified the family — and the minors involved, which is flat-out morally wrong and potentially illegal (in the sense that a board member may have shared with you protected information). I won’t be party to such behavior and would have hoped, based on your profession as a municipal police officer who should understand the privacy rights of minors, that you wouldn’t be either.

            That this entire run of comments, and almost a half dozen letters from Bruce, appear here attests I don’t practice censorship.

            Honestly, I’m disappointed in you, I thought you were a person of character, despite the fact that we disagreed on many issues. Evidently, on that, I was wrong.

      • TE Resident says:

        Hi Keith, Most interested in your comments here. I had the impression Dr. Mazone was not allowed to examine the records. Did she have access to the records all board members examined? It does seem strange that all 11 agree with this yet Dr. Manzone seemed so in the dark when it came to getting or knowing information about the situation.

        I don’t know and can’t figure out what your second bullet point means. Could you please explain. thanks.

        So, do you know why the records have been denied? Do you have all the information or does just Mr. Sanville have all the information. If you have the information and other board members do not, how does that work? Thanks

      • Sean R. says:


        Whether or not the OOR grants my request to overturn the school districts denial of my open records request has nothing to do with the school district hiding the truth or not. The school district has enlisted the help of two attorneys’ and they have enlisted the help of the party that was being investigated too. The school district has been dishonest by crying FERPA, and anything else then can think of to kill my request, and they may very well win at this level. The funny part is that FERPA protects education records and I have not requested anyone’s records. I think the reasonable thing to do is to view what the private investigators conclusion regarding the residency issue. If folks reside in the district, then that is great. However, when Dr. Sanville sends three letters from May 2012 to July 2012 that state you are not a resident of the district. A reasonable person must question why Dr. Sanville would suddenly change his mind when the evidence was already out there.

        Lastly, no one is saying that the district is not a great place to send our children. However, the “never better” slogan does not mean that we do not have our share of problem. Our ranking in the state makes us a perfect target for those who want to attend our schools when they do not legally reside here. Why is there so much deflection towards Mrs. Manzone? If she had broken the law I know enough law enforcement officers to say that she would have been charged criminally. Why not release the documents that state what the truth is and let the chips fall where they may? Governing in secrecy leads to mistrust and dissension. Whenever someone goes to these lengths to hide something, it makes me suspicious of what I am being told and with good reason my friend.

        • TE Resident says:

          Good point Sean. School Board Directors have vast resources (at taxpayer expense) (two attorneys, really?) available to them and many if not most have vast experience and are very adept at navigating their way around tax payer questions and inquiries while few of us have the time, energy, resources or experience to fight their never ending bottomless pit of mind games and tactics that leave the very people who pay for all of this completely in the dark.

  25. steve says:

    Very well said. I’ve been following this thread and shaking my head at some of the comments.There also seems to be an anger against this new school board, with cries that the minority have to keep speaking out loud, and vote the rascals out. All well and good, that IS democracy. But they forget that some hardcore “fiscal responsible” board members that were elected with the Tea Party sentiment at the time, were voted out by the MAJORITY in recent elections, giving us this present board. Just depends on which side of the fence you are, how great the view is!!

    • Kristin Hoover says:

      One then wonders why fiscally responsible people (Democrat/
      Republican/Tea Party) would then support a deal giving one family a free education for their children at the expense of tax payers or how they would support a raise of $30,000 for a lackluster Superintendent.

      • Open Eyes says:

        The LOCAL community supports Dr. Sanville. Everyone of my neighbors and the parents at our schools all think he is doing a superlative job and we are happy to have him for another four years. Your hatred of him is hard to understand. Even more difficult is why you spend so much time on here bashing him and UCFSD. Was your experience here that bad? You are on the other side of the country. You do not pay taxes here. Why do you care? Is there not a cause/problem in California that you can devote energy to? I really do not get it. Does not make sense unless you are grinding an ax…….?

  26. Open Eyes says:

    I am a taxpaying resident of UCFSD and am really puzzled by the ongoing haranguing here. The upside is that UCFSD is SUCH an extraordinary district that there is but one situation that fired up the naysayers. Very interesting.

    According to Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary a bully is:

    : a blustering browbeating person;

    I find this an apt description of Ms. Hoover. She cannot seem to move past the fact that the CCIU is doing an impartial investigation of the residency issue. Her rants are verbose and repetitive and overuse the same tired and insulting phrases. She has nothing new to add but simply cannot move on. It is a classic case of verbal bullying.

    It is my experience that people like Ms. Hoover have other things going on that cause them to lash out- in this case from behind a computer screen and from 3000 miles away- at anyone they can. She must have a lot of free time and energy to devote. One can only wonder what her own situation is like that she is so mad. Guess California living isn’t all it is cracked up to be.

    Here is my suggestion to everyone here: WAIT for the CCIU report. Cease and desist the mud-slinging as it does nothing but make those doing it appear to be angry zealots. If your concerns are legitimate- they will be borne out by the audit.

    And if you are all SO unhappy in UCFSD – there is always the option of moving. Homes in our district sell quickly (because of the schools) and you can find less expensive digs in other parts of Chester/Lancaster Counties. However do everyone a favor and when you move- focus your attention on what is going on in your new community. Do not let Ms. Hoover’s misplaced attention to UCFSD be a model for your own actions.

    My eyes are WIDE OPEN and I recognize that not all is perfect in UCFSD but I also know that there is not a better school district around. What kind of support is it to grind away, for months, at one issue? An issue that has some pretty unusual aspects – including a former school board member who has been accused of stalking the family in question. Where is the outrage over that?

    Find something useful to do with your time. This is not it.

    • Kristin Hoover says:

      Dear Keith:

      Reminds me of a line from Hamlet: “The lady doth protest too much, methinks” by William Shakespeare.

    • TE Resident says:

      Open, You are obscuring this matter with your personal feelings. If your arguments had merit, you would stick to them and they would stand alone. They don’t, so you bully and ridicule others and when that doesn’t work you use personal assassination tactics in an attempt to discredit others and blame them for what you yourself do.

      Please stick to the issue when posting comments, otherwise turn your computer off. Thanks.

      • Open Eyes says:

        TE: The only thing being obscured here is the truth. The rabid attacks on UCFSD by a few sour grapes ignore the fact that we have an outstanding school district. That IS a fact.

        That you & your crew are so angry over an issue that is being investigated is cause for concern. That you are willing to carry on at fever pitch for days & days is baffling. That the most vocal agitator lives in California is almost comical. But really -what is your point? All I see here are personal attacks & endless ranting. It is shrill & distasteful.

        Based on the length, content, & number of posts by the mad mob here, it is not my computer that needs a break.

        I am doing some research on the entire situation & will keep an eye out for the truth. I know it is out there.

        • TE Resident says:

          Open, I agree, the truth is being obscured and has been for a while.

          I am not angry and I have no crew.

          Keith, Mr. Hellrung and Mr. Dupuis have and continue to attack citizens who disagree, starting with Dr. Manzone and the latest being Mr. Yelton when he simply wrote a letter to this editor stating his opinion.

          Your distasteful and shrill character assassination of me and others (Mad mob?)has become predictable and boring.

          If it is your wish to stop the conversation, I would suggest you stop posting comments. That’s how it works. Thanks.

    • Sean R. says:

      Open Eyes,

      The problem with the CCIU is that they are not impartial. They work for the districts and one of our very own is on the board of the CCIU. It would be like a newspaper editor being on an education board in the school district, and then hoping that he would report things fairly. I really don’t see how that would happen. Furthermore, this isn’t about naysayers it’s about problems that exist, and all districts have them. We need to deal with the residency issue once and for all. All folks really want is the fair and balanced truth.

  27. Kristin Hoover says:

    “LUDICROUS” is the best word for all of this! Dr. Sanville tells people to file RTK requests for information when he already knows he will deny them. They wasted money on an investigation only to have it end in a deal for the Chadds Ford business owner. Why bother spending money/time on 16 investigations when all those families need to do is play “Let’s Make a Deal”? Just tell them the “quid pro quo” and be done with it! Why not just throw open the boundaries of the District to everybody? When you make one exception, where do you stop?

  28. Sean R. says:


    In January I submitted a right to know request to Dr. Sanville so I could see for myself what the school district’s investigation revealed regarding this matter. However, the district has done nothing but stall and use their attorney’s to fight this issue, and to ensure that the truth doesn’t come out. My right to know request regarding this information was denied by Dr. Sanville and is currently on appeal with the state in Harrisburg. While I try to look at things objectively, it is hard to believe that they would work so hard at hiding the truth if it supported their assertions. The reality is this, the truth is always the truth and the same goes for the facts. Release the information and let the chips fall where they may. If folks do not reside in the district, then you do not allow their children to attend our schools. It seems like a simple concept to me, so why is it not being followed? Since we are so well regarded in the state, it should come as no surprise that there are many who would like to attend our schools, even if they have to be dishonest to get through the front door. The attitude around here seems to be as though things have never been better, so don’t rock the boat. I believe in justice and doing the right thing. Hopefully, those who are in power believe in that as well.


    • TE Resident says:

      Thank-you for the information.

      You say the district uses their attorney to fight this issue…………

      The district is using the districts attorney which is paid for by the very same people (taxpayers) who are trying to get the information that the attorney is working hard to block from the taxpayer. It is ludicrous.

      • Sean R. says:

        That is correct. Many folks have spoken to me about this issue, so I figured I would do a RTK request to put the issue to rest. The UCFSD has used their attorney multiple times to either file things that make no sense, or to out right try to use other laws to block the documents that I am seeking. All I wanted was the investigative reports that the district used to determine residency. However, it is on appeal with the state Open Records Office. They have now requested that this matter go to a hearing, even though I requested that the names of any minor children be redacted. Who knows what to think at this point in time. If they are doing the right thing, release the reports with the names blacked out. If they are as some people say, this should clear up any confusion.

  29. Kristin Hoover says:

    Here are some of the things that I find “odd” about “Open Eyes” anonymous posting:

    1) the need to throw out a “red herring” to distract readers from the real issue — theft of education which is a crime punishable by fines/jail. This theft was approved against school code by the current Superintendent with his deal as reported by the father of the Chadds Ford family to Dr. Manzone and other witnesses.
    2) the failure of the Board to recognize and properly exercise their oversight function over Dr. Sanville’s activities by choosing not to act immediately to remove these children and seek repayment. They lack oversight of RTK as they are routinely denied on many topics due to “confidentiality.” Confidentiality is an important matter, but it has become the cover for all things the District chooses not to address. RTK seems to be a completely different thing depending on which side of the table Keith happens to sit at the time of the request.
    3) the outright bullying and vilification by the Board of anybody who disagrees is wrong. Fear of retaliation is real in this District and I do respect the right of those to post anonymously. However, it seems a bit gutless of “Open Eyes” to call me out by name, but I suspect that their real name would be too revealing of the source of this bullying.

    • Sean R. says:

      The school district also tries to use FERPA to deny RTK requests which is nonsense. The act protects students school records, not those who are breaking the law.

  30. TE Resident says:

    I don’t find it odd. From previous posts, she revealed she had 3 children in the school district, so unless she made a “deal” with Mr. Sanville, I’m going to assume she lived in the district.

    I know what you mean though. For four years I found it odd that Keith Knauss posted on Community Matters in Tredyffrin Township, http://www.pattyebenson.org (you’ll see his latest comment if you go there now, right hand side under “recent comments”, just click on Keith’s name) because Keith has never had any stake in the TE School District, yet he continues to give comments and reply to district residents. It’s his right to post there just like it is Ms. Hoover’s right to post here. I get Ms. Hoover, I don’t get Keith Knauss.

    • Open Eyes says:

      Point taken but I still think it is strange. I moved here 9 years ago and do not follow what is going on in my old district. The intensity of her interest makes it appear to be more personal than just ‘caring’ about the place she used to live. Who has time for that?

  31. Open Eyes says:

    I am most interested in the remarks of a California resident who has no stake in UCFSD. Are there no school board politics in the Golden State that Ms. Hoover can find fault with? Why is she so interested in a situation 3000 miles away? Does anyone else find this odd?

    • Observing says:

      I believe the internet phrase used for this is “trolling.”

      • Kristin Hoover says:

        I’d really like to think that we can have an honest discussion of issues and disagree without name calling.

        • TE Resident says:

          Trolling used as an internet term describes a situation where a person manipulates other people in the hopes of disrupting their emotional equilibrium. People do it in real life too.

    • Sean R. says:

      Open Eyes,

      She lived here for years and her children went to our schools. That is why she cares about what goes on in the district.


      • Open Eyes says:

        Okay…I guess. But when does she lose interest? How long do you hang on to what used to be? Surely California has some issues she can sink her teeth into.

        • Sean R. says:

          She was involved in our community for many many years, and I am sure that she still cares about what goes on here. I think it is tough to give someone a hard time about caring in this day and age when most people won’t even give you the time of day.


  32. Holly Manzone says:

    Jeff, you were not there and what you say is not true. I was there. There was no high speed chase. Being tailgated by the father, I drove to the nearest state police barracks. The police officer said that my actions were legal, but I should discontinue them for my own safety. It was also there that the father told me he had a “deal” with the superintendent. That is the real issue for the Board and the public. Again, personal assassination is being used to deflect attention from the potential malfeasance of the administration and the Board’s inadequate oversight.

  33. Jeff Hellrung says:

    The outrageous conduct from Dr Manzone was her admitted personal stake out on two consecutive days of the allegedly non resident family. The result was a dangerous high speed car chase that ended with state police intervention and a police warning to Dr. Manzone to cease her stalking like behavior. I’m not feeling emotional about this. I’m just giving my views on what I consider highly inappropriate behavior from a school board member. Dr. Manzone admitted to this behavior. Ironically, had she not taken this ill considered approach but rather allowed the investigation to be done by professionals, the case would probably have been appropriately resolved by now.

    • Kristin Hoover says:

      Dear Jeff:

      You make TE Resident’s case for her/him in how you have twisted what happened into your own set of created “facts.” There was no high speed chase and Dr. Manzone did nothing illegal.

      Dr. Manzone acted quite responsibly and pointed out a situation that has been not only tolerated, but where the Superintendent made a deal to allow it! Only by directly observing the situation herself could she gather the facts that the “investigations” couldn’t seem to get. This would have been known only to the Board/Sanville and the family with the deal if she had taken no action. She is a hero not a villain!

    • Sean R. says:


      It is not illegal to sit on a public street and watch a residence. If I recall the matter correctly, it was reported to PSP that the home owner drove across his lawn and went after Mrs. Manzone. She then drove to the State Police barracks in Avondale. The homeowner should have written down her license plate and then called the police if he had a problem. You may sit outside my house or anyone else’s that you chose to whenever. It sounds like she wanted to verify for herself what was going on, and as a citizen she may do that. If there was something criminal, I know enough of those guys down there that someone would have been arrested. Since that was not the case, there were no criminal charges filed. End of story.

      • Observing says:

        If you do it repeatedly, and are not a licensed PI, it absolutely can be illegal – the crime is known as “harassment.”

        • Kristin Hoover says:

          If Dr. Manzone had been suspected to have done anything that was illegal, she would have been charged. She did nothing wrong.

  34. TE Resident says:

    “I also reported that the claim of non residency that prompted “the outrageous conduct” and subsequent resignation of School District Director Dr. Manzone was also being investigated.”

    Well, I can see by your emotional outburst, that you are not immediately interested in any meaningful debate or mutually beneficial conversation. When abandoning intelligent conversation in favor of inflicting insult and injury on a hard working, smart citizen who generously volunteers her time and freely gives her expertise to an entire community, it’s best to let some time pass in the hopes you can get your feelings in order.

    I’d be interested in responding when you can engage in a more logical or constructive way. Thanks

  35. Kristin Hoover says:

    Cheers to Bruce Yelton once again! We need more people like Bruce who want the District to be a fair and honest place. He did his job as a citizen and long-time actual District resident. Another person who did her job was Dr. Manzone. Both of whom have been viciously attacked by the Board despite the fact that both are held in high esteem by the community.

    Now if Dr. Sanville had really done his job (even before the $30,000 pay raise the Board thought he deserved), one wonders why it would have been necessary for Dr. Manzone to become so deeply involved in obtaining evidence of the non-residency of that family who runs a business in Chadds Ford. If Sanville hadn’t made a deal with the family to allow their children to continue to attend UCFSD schools, why would the District try to obtain “political cover” by getting the CCIU involved? If Sanville were doing his job, there would be no need to repeatedly deny RTK requests of various kinds. All of the supposed confidentiality is a great cloud of cover for a weak, deal-making Superintendent in which to hide. It makes it very difficult to get at the truth.

    I find it interesting that there are 16 ongoing investigations that were considered “credible” (using Jeff’s word) enough to merit an investigation. That means that these 16 are only the “tip of the iceberg” for the number of families who send their children to UCFSD for free. I’m assuming that the Chadds Ford business owner is not one of those 16 open investigations given the deal. My question continues to be…..why did Sanville make the deal?

    • TE Resident says:

      Yes and I find it interesting that Mr. Hellrung labels Dr. Manzone’s behavior as “outrageous conduct” when she was simply doing her job, serving the best interests of the tax payer. When Mr. Sanville gave instruction to Mr. Yelton to file a RTK, Mr. Sanville clearly had no intention of honoring the RTK, because his response to Mr. Yelton was that he didn’t ask the question in the right way. Why is this not in Mr. Hellrung’s words, “outrageous behavior?” Further example of the board working for the administration while the citizens and children are after thoughts.

      Dr. Mazone gets labeled, blamed and ridiculed while Mr. Sanville gets a hefty raise. Does this make sense? I don’t understand how Board Members who talk to citizens like this get elected.

  36. Jeff Hellrung says:

    At the March 17 Work Session, I reported that at the regular monthly Personnel Committee Executive Session that morning Dr. Sanville gave his semi annual update on all ongoing residency investigations. Our Administration investigates all credible claims of non resident students attending our schools. Sixteen residency investigations are ongoing at this time. Committee members were satisfied that all investigations were proceeding appropriately. If any such claims of non residency are confirmed, the non resident students are disenrolled. I also reported that the claim of non residency that prompted the outrageous conduct and subsequent resignation of School District Director Dr. Manzone was also being investigated independently by our Chester County Intermediate Unit. We do expect a complete, thorough, and honest report from the highly qualified and highly respected CCIU.
    Jeff Hellrung
    School Board Director

Leave a Comment