Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Discipline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
CUSD 300 board votes 6-1 to issue notice to remedy in employee discipline case involving Thomas Sitki
Summary
After a closed-session review, the Community Unit School District 300 Board of Education adopted a resolution finding that evidence showed employee Thomas Sitki violated multiple board policies and authorized a notice to remedy; the resolution passed on a 6-1 roll-call vote.
The Community Unit School District 300 Board of Education voted 6-1 on March 10 to adopt a resolution authorizing issuance of a notice to remedy in an employee discipline matter concerning Thomas Sitki.
Following closed-session deliberations, the board considered a resolution that "finds and determines that evidence shows" that Mr. Sitki violated Board Policies 5:120, 5:125 and 6:235 and authorizes issuance of a notice to remedy that outlines directives which, if not followed, may lead to further disciplinary action up to and including dismissal. The board read the resolution aloud and then took a roll-call vote. The motion to approve the resolution was moved and seconded; the roll call produced a 6-1-0 result in favor of adopting the resolution.
The resolution text, as presented to the board, directs the administration to issue the notice to remedy substantially in the form of the attached exhibit and states the notice is effective upon adoption. The board recorded that the resolution would be in effect "forthwith upon its adoption." The agenda identified the item as "approval of employee discipline case number two."
The transcript does not specify the full name of the board member who cast the single recorded dissent on the final vote; the board clerk recorded the tally as 6-1-0. The resolution cites specific board policies by number; the transcript records the policy references but does not include additional factual findings beyond the board's statement that evidence shows policy violations. The district did not provide additional public details about the underlying allegations during the open session portion of the meeting.
Because the item followed closed-session discussion, the district did not discuss investigative details in public. The board's action authorizes next steps under district policy; the notice to remedy was authorized for issuance immediately following adoption. There was no further public debate or amendment to the resolution recorded in the meeting transcript. The meeting then moved to adjournment.
The board's action is an internal personnel determination under district policy and state law; the transcript does not indicate any immediate administrative suspension or change in employment status beyond the authorized notice to remedy. The district may provide additional public information only as allowed by law and its policies.
