A primary focus of the meeting centered on a letter from Christine Dunn, which was read aloud, accusing Board President Matt Sulikowski of suggesting that her career advancement was due to nepotism because of her husband, a former board member. Dunn described Sulikowski’s comments as defamatory, stating they caused her significant harm and called for an investigation into his conduct. She demanded his suspension pending a review, emphasizing the false nature of the nepotism allegations and the impact on her professional reputation.

Following the reading of the letter, the board members deliberated on how to address the allegations. During the hearing of residents, Richard Dunn, Christine’s husband, took the floor to underscore the serious impact these allegations had on their family. He criticized the board’s environment as “reprehensible” and expressed his wife’s discomfort due to colleagues questioning her career progression. Richard Dunn’s impassioned address highlighted the need for systemic change rather than monetary compensation, emphasizing the importance of collaborative efforts for the benefit of students.

The board’s discussions on the allegations against Sulikowski were extensive, revealing deep-seated tensions. Richard Dunn referenced a recent strategic planning meeting, which he found productive, expressing hope for future collaboration. He stressed the necessity of moving past conflicts, urging the board to work together and end the divisive atmosphere, a sentiment echoed by other members during the meeting.

Another topic was the future of Superintendent David Cittadino. A board member addressed the removal of Mr. Cittadino, describing it as a “circus show,” and proposed a motion to vote publicly on his contract at the next meeting. The urgency stemmed from the impending notice period for Mr. Cittadino’s retention, set to conclude in March. Financial considerations were a focal point, with the cost of hiring a new superintendent estimated to be over $257,000. This prompted questions about the board’s ability to find a suitable replacement willing to accept a lower salary than Mr. Cittadino’s current earnings. The member emphasized Mr. Cittadino’s achievements, including the district’s recognition as a Blue Ribbon School, arguing against dismissing an experienced superintendent without thorough financial evaluation.

The board member’s skepticism about finding a qualified superintendent at a lower salary was shared by several others, leading to a consensus that any decision regarding Mr. Cittadino’s contract should be deferred until January when new board members are in place. It was clarified that the current board could not bind future boards to a contract, necessitating initial approval by the county before proceeding with a vote.

The meeting also touched on procedural aspects and the appropriate timing for discussing the superintendent’s contract. Board members debated whether Matt Sulikowski could present his plans for securing a new superintendent if Mr. Cittadino was not retained. While members could request information, it was ultimately Sulikowski’s decision to share his strategy.

In an attempt to improve the meeting’s atmosphere, a suggestion was made to encourage guests to sit closer to the front, fostering a more inclusive environment. However, the meeting concluded without any resolutions on the superintendent’s contract.