Residents, staff accuse district of toxic workplace and prolonged isolation of an employee

At the Goshen Central School District Board of Education meeting on June 2, 2025, several community members used public comment to describe a persistent "toxic culture" in district workplaces, to criticize repeated personnel investigations and to urge the board to resolve a prolonged period of isolation for an identified employee.

Nancy Weber, speaking as "a concerned member of the school community," said multiple buildings and departments have undergone investigations over several years that "cost the community thousands of dollars in legal fees and third party investigators," and that staff report fear, stress and intimidation. "When our administrators, teachers, aides, clerical staff, and support teams are emotionally drained, fearful, and sick from stress, it is impossible for them to give their best to our children," Weber said.

Other public commenters described an individual employee being kept out of regular duties for "nine, 10 weeks," which one speaker called "cruel." Paul Dennis, identified as a resident and longtime taxpayer, said he had been told the person has been in a room away from work for about nine to ten weeks. Dr. Christie Kreeny, who introduced herself with the title "doctor," said paying two people for the same role—one active and one isolated—was "fiscally irresponsible" and urged the board to "make a decision. Come up with a resolution. Who's running the show?" The board moderator interrupted to remind speakers that public session rules prohibit discussion of individual personnel by name and that personnel matters should be presented to the superintendent during regular business hours.

Speakers urged the board to focus on lasting culture change rather than repeated cycles of "damage control." Weber acknowledged the board's recent investments in building security but said money spent on investigations did not substitute for efforts to improve workplace culture. She called for prioritizing staff well-being as a prerequisite for improving student outcomes.

The board did not take a public personnel action during the meeting. The district's published public-comment rules, read at the meeting, emphasize that matters involving individual personnel or students are not to be discussed by name during public session and should be addressed privately with the superintendent.

Because the comments addressed personnel procedures and ongoing personnel matters, the board later moved into executive session to discuss employment history of particular persons, with the intent not to reconvene the public business portion of the meeting.