WAYNESBORO – Parents supporting suspended Summitview Elementary School Principal Steven Pappas are raising sharp concerns after a teacher who testified in Pappas’ recent hearing was questioned by district administrators and attorney after the fact.
The district’s attorney, Michael Levin, however, noted in response, “There is nothing improper, unusual or unlawful about asking a witness follow-up questions after a hearing or when additional relevant information comes to light. In this case, the school district received additional information about which it had questions.”
The teacher was asked in advance to come to the meeting in the superintendent’s office, and when asked, was told she could be accompanied. However, according to a Facebook post, the attorney said the colleague she brought could not attend. She was allowed to invite someone else.
“During the encounter, the teacher became visibly upset,” the post said. “Staff members observed her distress in the hallway. She was then expected to return to her classroom and continue teaching young students immediately afterward.
“She was also told she could talk about the meeting with others — but that the attorney hoped she would not.”
Levin said, “Because the matter remains part of an ongoing, legally required process, the district must be careful not to disclose confidential personnel information. However, it is important to address misinformation and explain the procedures the district is obligated to follow.
He also said, “…employees of public school districts have a duty to cooperate with their employer when the district is gathering information relevant to an official proceeding or investigation. This duty applies in school districts throughout Pennsylvania and across the country. It includes answering questions when the district is reviewing testimony, evaluating facts or ensuring that a hearing record is complete and accurate. The duty to cooperate and answer questions is deeply rooted in law and is not extinguished because an employee has testified publicly.”
The Facebook post said, “Regardless of anyone’s position on the hearing itself, this raises a serious question for our district: Do teachers feel safe participating honestly in public processes?
“Because when educators see that testifying in a public hearing is followed by unexplained meetings with administrators and lawyers,” the Facebook post said, “denial of a chosen colleague’s presence, and visible emotional distress at work, the message being sent to every other employee is unmistakable: Stay quiet.”
Levin added, “Many school districts would not permit any representative to attend such a meeting. The teacher had no legal right to a representative under the law. Nevertheless, the district allowed the teacher to select a support person beyond what the law requires. The only limitation was that the selected individual could not be someone whose presence would compromise the integrity of the witness interview process because of their direct involvement in the matter. The employee was invited to choose another person, and the meeting concluded to allow her to do so.
“Contrary to online claims,” Levin said, “the meeting was intended to preserve the integrity of the hearing and investigative process. School districts must ensure that testimony is accurate, all relevant facts are considered, and that witnesses are not influenced by individuals with a personal stake in the outcome. Maintaining confidentiality and neutrality during witness interviews is a routine and necessary part of that responsibility. These procedures protect everyone involved — employees, administrators and the community — and are fundamental to fairness.
“The district categorically rejects any suggestion that employees are discouraged from participating in public proceedings. Teachers and staff regularly provide information in hearings, investigations, and internal reviews. Asking clarifying or additional questions afterward is a normal and lawful part of administrative due diligence, not retaliation or intimidation.
“We recognize that this matter has generated strong feelings in the community,” the district’s statement prepared by Levin continued. “However, the school board is required by law to make its decision based on the evidence presented and the governing legal standards. The process is not a popularity contest and cannot be decided by social media commentary. We respectfully ask the community to allow the legally mandated procedures to proceed and permit the Board to fulfill its obligation to reach a decision grounded in facts and law.”
The Facebook post said, “This is not about one person. It is about whether school employees feel secure speaking truthfully in matters of public concern without fear of what will happen afterward. A healthy school district depends on transparency, trust, and the ability of educators to speak openly without intimidation. The community deserves to ask whether that standard is being met.”
So far, three hearings have been held on behalf of Pappas, who was demoted by the board last November upon the superintendent’s recommendation. Another hearing is scheduled for 5 p.m. Feb. 11 at Hooverville Elementary School.
Pappas, a district principal for 13 years, has been on paid leave since September. Parents have organized two petition drives at Change.org, one seeking his reinstatement and the second declaring “no confidence” in the superintendent and assistant superintendent. They also are conducting a fund drive to help Pappas pay for his attorney.
