Board approves amended settlement with Superintendent Dr. Geddes after contentious debate; vote 4–3

The Danville CCSD 118 Board of Education approved an amended settlement agreement with Superintendent Dr. Geddes after an extended and often emotional public discussion punctuated by repeated procedural motions.

The board first considered tabling the item to a later meeting; that motion failed. Board members then resumed debate on the amended settlement, which proponents said narrowed district exposure by addressing how any Teacher Retirement System (TRS) penalty would be handled. Opponents said board legal counsel and outside attorneys had recommended against signing and urged postponement until the newly elected board takes office.

Opponents noted the board attorney and another law firm had advised against approving the agreement as presented. One board member said the advice from counsel “strongly tell us, underlined in their statement, they do not recommend our signing this agreement.” Another asked that the matter be paused until the new board seated May 7 so that the incoming board could consider the full record.

Other board members argued the district had already worked on a settlement since late fall and that the amended agreement included provisions to limit the district’s exposure if a TRS penalty is assessed. A board member noted attorneys had reviewed Dr. Geddes’s records and reported finding nothing that suggested additional wrongdoing; proponents said the settlement reduces the risk of prolonged litigation.

Several speakers addressed questions about whether Dr. Geddes had been placed on paid leave “pursuant to an investigation” and whether the district had formally voted in open session to permit remote work. One board member said Dr. Geddes was allowed to work remotely for safety reasons after a threatening phone call; another said the Danville police and the FBI deemed the threat unfounded and that a security assessment had been performed (the assessment document was not shown in open session during the discussion).

Board members also raised potential financial implications. One person said attorneys had “floated the number $95,000 at least” for potential TRS penalties; opponents said the final TRS determination remained unresolved and that signing without TRS or legal approval risked exceeding the president’s authority.

After debate and a roll‑call vote, the motion to approve the amended settlement passed 4–3. Board announcements said the settlement requires signatures from the parties to take effect, and it may still be subject to external reviews by TRS or other authorities depending on the agreement’s final terms.

The board recorded no public line‑item for the settlement amount during the meeting; several board members said the exact payment total was not released in open session and would be provided when the final agreement is published.