The Upper Merion Area School Board approved three more confidential student settlement agreements Monday night, bringing the running total I have identified in public meeting records to 43 since September 2021.

The agreements were approved 8-1, with Director Gary Ledebur voting no.

But before the vote, Ledebur made clear that his objection is becoming less about any individual settlement and more about what he sees as a growing pattern.

“Having worked in special education [in] three or four districts in the state, I know that oftentimes confidential settlements are necessary,” Ledebur said. “Oftentimes they’re a good thing to do.”

He said, however, that he has become concerned by the increasing number of settlements across Pennsylvania, particularly in southeastern Pennsylvania.

“It has become a profit center for several law firms,” Ledebur said.

He continued: “Individual settlements may be justified… but collectively I am going to continue to oppose them because I believe Boards of Education, and particularly this board, should push back.”

“As long as we keep approving these, there will be more of them,” Ledebur said.

Director Jenn Lyons agreed that the increasing number of settlements is concerning, but disagreed with Ledebur’s approach.

“I can’t in good conscience withhold a vote to try to prove a point,” Lyons said.

She said the issue needs to be addressed at the state level and argued that refusing to settle could ultimately expose UMASD to greater costs.

“I don’t think that putting our district finances on the line as the gamble to prove that point is something that I could do,” Lyons said.

Ledebur responded that UMASD has both the educational and legal resources necessary to challenge cases.

“I do not believe that this school district lacks the talent to comply with that law,” Ledebur said, referring to the requirement to provide a free appropriate public education to students with disabilities.

“I also believe that we have the procedural talent and the legal talent to challenge this.”

Ledebur then argued that settling amounts to acknowledging the district could not provide an appropriate education.

District solicitor Jeffrey Soltanik pushed back on that characterization.

Soltanik told the Board that his firm had recommended all three settlements and was “aligned with the administration in our recommendation.”

Asked whether a settlement amounts to an admission that the district fell short, Soltanik said the agreements “specifically state that they are not admissions of liability.”

Ledebur remained unconvinced.

“On any individual settlement, one could make a strong case that we should settle because it’s financially in our benefit so to do,” he said.

But he argued attorneys are evaluating individual cases rather than what he sees as the larger trend.

“I believe that the trend is such that boards of education need to strongly push back or we will continue to get more and more and more of these settlements.”

The financial numbers provide additional context to that debate.

UMASD Treasurer’s Reports show $308,959.50 in payments specifically labeled “CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT” during July, August and September, the first quarter of the current fiscal year.

That is already more than the $240,522.19 in confidential settlement payments I identified during the entire 2025-26 fiscal year.

The Q1 payments should not be assumed to be payments for the three agreements approved Monday. No dollar amounts for those three agreements were publicly disclosed.

I pulled the settlement discussion from Monday night’s meeting so residents can hear the arguments from both sides directly.

See the full exchange here.

Enjoying the Spotlight? Don't stop here.

The best local stories come from the community. Have something that deserves the Spotlight? Email us at [email protected]

Thank you for reading,

Corey