THROOP — The Mid Valley School Board voted Wednesday against suspending or revising the district’s employment policy, which includes language that prohibits anyone related to a board member from working in the district.
The proposed revision would change the policy to state that a person related to a board member cannot work in the district unless they receive a majority of votes from the school board, and that the school board member they are related to can’t vote on their appointment.
Board President Steven Vituszynski said Thursday the policy was changed in 2016 to end a long-standing practice of directors’ family members being hired in the district. He said with the shortage of teachers, particularly those in highly technical subjects, the board felt it appropriate to update the policy.
Board Vice President Gerald Luchansky claimed during the meeting that the policy change is related to another board member looking to get their child a job.
Board members initially voted Wednesday on whether to table suspending the district’s current employment policy, but the motion failed with a 4-4 vote. They then voted 5-3 not to suspend the policy, with Vituszynski, Luchansky and board members Gabrielle Shimkus, Glenn Cashuric and Dan Lane voting not to suspend it, and Treasurer Anthony Barrett and board members Joanne Pesota and Mary Ruth Tanner in favor of suspending the policy.
The board then voted 6-2 against revising the policy, with Vituszynski, Luchansky, Shimkus, Lane, Pesota and Tanner voting against it and Cashuric and Barrett voting in favor.
Board Secretary Donna Dixon abstained on all votes. She said Thursday she abstained because she wasn’t at Monday’s work session meeting, where the items were discussed, and didn’t feel comfortable voting on items she wasn’t knowledgeable about.
Before Wednesday’s votes, Luchansky, who was on the board when the district’s employment policy was updated, asked why it was being changed when it has been successful in the nine years since it was enacted.
“There’s no reason to change it,” he said.
Luchansky then said a board member is looking to get their child a job. He did not specify which board member.
Barrett said his comments were uncalled for and other board members agreed.
Barrett said the board should consider all candidates for positions given the current climate for teachers and the specialized needs of the school district.
“We should be able to look at every candidate possible,” he said.
Luchansky said the position the board member’s child applied for needs to be filled and suggested it be reposted. Cashuric said the board has to look at the policies and probably repost the position.
Board members expressed frustration during the meeting that the information about the board member’s child being considered for a position got out into the community. They said the interview process is supposed to be private.
The district’s employment policy, which has been in effect since 2015, outlines how employees are hired, information needed prior to employment, how jobs in the district are posted, how an individual can apply for a job, how interviews will be conducted and how they are appointed.
It was revised in 2016 to include a policy prohibiting anyone related to any board member from working in the district.
Vituszynski said after the meeting that with the proposed revisions the policy would adhere to the Pennsylvania Public School Code. The code states anyone who is a father, mother, brother, sister, husband, wife, son, daughter, stepson, stepdaughter, grandchild, nephew, niece, first cousin, sister-in-law, brother-in-law, uncle or aunt of a board member can’t be employed in the district unless they receive the affirmative votes from a majority of the board, other than the member related to the applicant. The member related to the prospective employee can’t vote.
Other proposed revisions to the policy included updated language on deadlines for paperwork.
Cashuric said the district’s employment policy is among likely dozens that need to be changed and the board should take its time doing so.
“We need to take a better look at the policies and I think we need to do … some kind of review to make them better work for us and better work for the district, better work for the taxpayers,” he said.
Cashuric said tabling suspending the employment policy would allow the board to discuss it and what to do about it. He said he also wants an ethics opinion on the policy.
“Somebody needs to chime in to give us a green light on how to pursue a policy like this,” Cashuric said.
Throop resident Frank Galli speaks before members of the Mid Valley school board at their meeting Wednesday, May 14, 2025. (Christine Lee/Staff Photo)
Members of the Mid Valley school board during their meeting Wednesday, May 14, 2025. (Christine Lee/Staff Photo)
Solicitor Donald Dolan said the board can suspend the policy as long as it doesn’t conflict with the law, which it does not.
Throop resident Frank Galli said after the votes that the policy discriminates against family members of the board, adding it takes away the person’s right to work in the district.
“It is unconstitutional,” he said.
Vituszynski said after the meeting officials will discuss revising the policies. He said Thursday the board, in conjunction with the superintendent and solicitor, will finalize the changes in order for them to be added to a future board agenda.