Teachers, parents decry district leadership in public comments as board approves consent agenda including superintendent amendment

Dozens of teachers, parents and union representatives used two public-comment periods at the June 30 Sweet Home Central School District Board of Education meeting to report a 97% vote of no confidence in district leadership, describe safety and staffing failures, and call on the board to reconsider recent personnel decisions. The board then approved a consent agenda that included a superintendent contract amendment and went into executive session to discuss personnel.

The outpouring of criticism began in the meeting’s first public-comment period when Jen Russell, a parent, said communications from the district about a recent school lockdown were “botched” and that administrators told families students were “safe and accounted for” even when some parents had not been able to confirm their children’s locations. “We were lied to by the administration in a botched lockdown,” Russell said.

Why this matters: speakers said the no-confidence vote reflects sustained breakdowns in trust and day-to-day operations that they say are harming staff morale and student safety. Union and teacher speakers asked the board to act on the survey results and to reconsider personnel actions taken or planned by the board.

Union and staff speakers provided the meeting with details and examples. Paul Simondera, who identified himself as representing the Sweet Home Education Association, told the board that “97% of the educators in this district do not have confidence in the superintendent or assistant superintendent,” and said the board’s recent actions — including tenure grants and a contract extension scheduled for the superintendent — sent the wrong message to staff. Miller Pazaric, a Mabel Muir teacher, pointed to a $25,000 raise the superintendent received previously and to a high-paid PR coordinator hire as evidence he said that district priorities favored image over classroom support.

Teachers at the middle and high schools described chronic staffing shortages and communication gaps. Danae Zafla, speaking for roughly 80 middle-school educators, said personnel shortages had forced program aides into daily substitute roles and left some positions uncovered. “Class sizes in some areas are so large that both safety and instructional delivery have become a concern,” Zafla said. John Elliott, a high-school science teacher, cited multiple safety and discipline incidents and inconsistent lockdown procedures.

Parents told the board they were worried about student safety and the pace of follow-up from district leaders. Laurie Petrashevsky, a longtime substitute and parent, said her son asked her, “If somebody wants to beat me up, what should I do?” and that she had seen teachers who felt unsupported in managing difficult classroom behaviors.

Board response and actions: Board President Peter Bellanti opened the public-comment guidelines and later, after the public speakers concluded, asked the board to move into executive session “to discuss matters of personnel.” The board approved the motion to enter executive session; the motion carried with an affirmative voice vote. When the board returned, Bellanti said the board had listened to the comments and “will commit to discussing, investigating concerns, and meeting with our leadership with the objective of moving the district forward.”

Formal votes taken that evening included approval of a consent agenda of items labeled a through o (covering appointments, contracts, policies, donations and the superintendent’s fourth amendment) and approval of personnel items 1 and 2. A motion and second were made for the consent agenda and the board approved it by voice vote. The personnel motions similarly were moved, seconded and approved by voice vote.

What was not decided: Speakers repeatedly asked the board to act in response to the vote of no confidence. The board did not announce any personnel terminations or specific policy changes at the meeting; it instead moved to executive session for personnel discussion and later said it would investigate and meet with district leadership. The transcript does not record board action reversing or rescinding any previously granted raises or contract extensions.

The meeting also included several procedural approvals and routine district business, but the public comment session dominated the meeting’s attention and prompted the board to promise follow-up work.

The board scheduled follow-up board meetings and noted it will continue work over the summer; no deadline for a public report was given during the meeting.