Connecticut Regional School District 12 has placed Superintendent Donald Schels and three administrators on paid leave while an independent investigator examines an employee complaint involving allegedly sexually inappropriate comments in a 2024 group text. The district says no findings have been made and the leave is not disciplinary.
Editorial Note
This article is for general informational and educational purposes and does not provide legal advice. The allegations discussed below are under independent investigation and have not been established as fact.
Regional School District 12 has emphasized that the administrators were placed on paid leave without prejudice, meaning the action is not disciplinary and does not reflect a determination regarding the complaint or the individuals involved. This article distinguishes the employee's allegations from confirmed district actions and official findings.
Four Region 12 Leaders Are on Leave During an Independent Investigation
A Connecticut superintendent and three other school administrators have been placed on paid administrative leave while Regional School District 12 investigates an employee complaint concerning communications among the district leaders.
The Region 12 Board of Education voted on August 6 to place Superintendent Donald R. Schels on leave with pay and without prejudice.
The district subsequently placed three additional administrators on leave: Shepaug Valley School Assistant Principal Michael Croft, Agriscience Director Tyler Cremeans, and Dean of Students and Athletic Director Matthew Perachi.
The district serves the Connecticut communities of Washington, Bridgewater, and Roxbury.
According to the Board of Education's official public statement, the leave was imposed so an independent investigation could proceed without interference. The board explicitly cautioned that its action should not be interpreted as a conclusion that the complaint is true or that any of the administrators committed misconduct.
That distinction is essential.
At this stage, there is an employee complaint, an independent investigation, and temporary administrative actions intended to protect the integrity of that process.
There is not yet a final finding.
What the Employee Complaint Alleges
The investigation stems from a complaint submitted in July by Region 12 employee Deb Weik.
According to reporting by CT Insider, Weik alleged that the four administrators participated in a 2024 text-message chain containing sexually inappropriate comments about a female Shepaug Valley School employee.
Weik said some of the individuals involved were her direct supervisors at the time.
In her complaint, she characterized the communications as a breach of professional ethics and argued that they reflected a workplace culture inconsistent with the district's stated values.
Those assertions are allegations made by the employee.
The independent investigator has not yet publicly determined whether the text messages are authentic in the form alleged, how each administrator participated, whether the communications violated district policy or law, or what disciplinary consequences, if any, would be appropriate.
Those questions are now part of the investigation.
The District Has Stressed That the Leave Is Not Discipline
Region 12's official August 6 statement is unusually clear about what the administrative leave means.
The board said the action was taken "with pay and without prejudice" pending the results of the independent investigation.
It further stated that placing the administrators on leave does not reflect any determination by the board concerning either the complaint or the individuals named in it.
That wording matters because administrative leave is frequently misunderstood.
In school systems, placing an employee on paid leave during an investigation can serve several purposes.
It may prevent witnesses or employees from feeling pressure during interviews.
It can reduce the possibility that records or communications are influenced.
It may protect the accused employees from continuing to work in an environment where rumors are spreading.
And it can give an outside investigator greater independence.
None of those purposes automatically establishes wrongdoing.
Administrative leave can be a precautionary measure rather than punishment.
Region 12 Hired an Outside Investigator
The Board of Education voted on July 30 to retain attorney Elisa Bartlett of Bartlett Law LLC to conduct an independent investigation.
The board said Bartlett has experience handling matters of this type and asked that the investigation be completed both thoroughly and as quickly as reasonably possible.
The decision to use outside counsel is significant.
When allegations involve a superintendent and several senior administrators, asking employees within the same organizational hierarchy to investigate their own leadership can create obvious concerns about independence.
An external investigator can provide more separation between district politics, employee relationships, and the fact-finding process.
That does not guarantee that every participant will agree with the eventual conclusions.
But structurally, an independent investigation is generally more credible when senior district leaders themselves are subjects of the complaint.
Why Workplace Communications by School Leaders Matter
The allegations involve private or semi-private workplace communications rather than classroom instruction or an alleged interaction with students.
That does not necessarily make the matter insignificant.
Senior administrators set workplace expectations.
Superintendents, principals, directors, and deans influence employee evaluations, assignments, promotions, discipline, professional development, and organizational culture.
When leaders communicate about employees, those communications can affect whether staff members believe the workplace is professional, respectful, and safe.
A text message that might seem like an informal conversation among colleagues can take on a different meaning when the participants have supervisory authority over the person being discussed.
That power imbalance is why workplace-conduct policies typically apply beyond formal meetings.
Professional standards do not disappear because a conversation takes place through a private group text.
At the same time, context matters.
Investigators will need to determine exactly what was said, who said it, whether each participant responded or merely received the messages, whether the employee being discussed was identifiable, and whether the communication violated applicable workplace policies or laws.
Those distinctions should be established through evidence rather than assumptions.
Not Every Inappropriate Comment Is Automatically Illegal
The investigation may ultimately involve several different standards.
One is professional conduct.
A message can be inappropriate, disrespectful, or inconsistent with leadership expectations without necessarily violating a specific law.
Another standard is district employment policy.
Region 12 may have rules regarding harassment, discrimination, respectful workplaces, employee conduct, electronic communications, or supervisory responsibilities that apply regardless of whether the conduct reaches the level of an unlawful employment practice.
A third standard is employment law.
Depending on the evidence and circumstances, allegations involving sex-based comments or workplace hostility can raise questions under state or federal discrimination law.
But establishing a legally hostile work environment generally requires more than simply showing that an offensive statement was made.
The full context, severity, frequency, workplace impact, and relationship between the participants can matter.
That is one reason a careful investigation is necessary before drawing conclusions.
The Superintendent's Position Raises the Stakes
The inclusion of Superintendent Schels makes the case particularly significant.
Superintendents occupy the highest administrative role in most local school systems.
They are responsible not only for academic leadership but also for employee culture, professional standards, compliance, personnel management, and organizational accountability.
When allegations involve the superintendent, the school board itself often becomes responsible for determining how the matter will be investigated and what action will follow.
That creates an additional governance burden.
Board members must protect the integrity of the district while also ensuring that the superintendent and other employees receive a fair process.
Moving too slowly can create the appearance that leadership is protecting its own.
Moving too quickly can create the opposite problem: treating accusations as proven before investigators have completed their work.
Region 12's decision to place the administrators on paid leave while retaining an outside investigator appears designed to create room for the fact-finding process without publicly prejudging the result.
What "Without Prejudice" Means Here
The phrase without prejudice is particularly important in this case.
It means the district is not treating the leave itself as disciplinary punishment.
The administrators continue to receive pay while the investigation proceeds.
That does not guarantee they will ultimately return to their positions.
If investigators substantiate serious policy violations, the district could later consider discipline or other employment action.
Conversely, if the evidence does not support the allegations, the administrators could be returned to their positions without the leave itself being treated as a finding against them.
This kind of procedural distinction protects both the district and the employees.
It allows leadership to respond to a serious complaint without turning an interim step into a public declaration of guilt.
The Acting Superintendent Is Now Leading the District
While Schels is on leave, Keri Snowden is serving as acting superintendent.
The leadership transition underscores one practical consequence of administrator investigations that is often overlooked.
When senior leaders are removed temporarily, someone still has to run the school system.
District operations continue.
Staffing decisions continue.
School preparation continues.
Families still need information.
Students still return to classrooms.
The effect of an investigation therefore reaches beyond the people named in the complaint.
A district must maintain continuity while also preventing the temporary leadership structure from interfering with the investigation.
That balance becomes especially important when several administrators from the same school or leadership team are simultaneously unavailable.
The Case Raises Questions About Leadership Culture
The allegations also raise a broader question that cannot yet be answered conclusively:
Were the alleged messages an isolated lapse in judgment, or did they reflect a larger leadership culture?
The employee complaint reportedly used language suggesting a "good ole boy" administrative culture.
That characterization comes from the complainant and has not been established as an independent finding.
Still, culture is an appropriate subject for investigators to examine.
Workplace culture is rarely defined by a written policy alone.
It develops through what leaders tolerate, what employees believe they can say privately, how complaints are handled, whether supervisors challenge inappropriate behavior, and whether staff believe speaking up will damage their careers.
A district can have strong written anti-harassment policies while still developing an unhealthy workplace culture.
The reverse is also possible: a serious individual incident may occur in an organization without demonstrating a systemic problem.
Investigators should distinguish between the two.
Transparency Will Matter Once the Investigation Ends
Region 12 has said it will keep the school community informed about the investigation and related actions.
That commitment will become increasingly important once the independent review is complete.
School employees and community members will reasonably want to know whether the allegations were substantiated, what policies investigators found applicable, whether corrective actions are needed, and what steps the district plans to take.
Personnel laws may limit how much detail can be released.
But districts can often provide meaningful transparency without publishing confidential employee records.
At minimum, the community should eventually understand whether the complaint was substantiated in whole, in part, or not at all.
If systemic workplace issues are identified, the board should explain what changes will follow.
If allegations are unsubstantiated, that conclusion should also receive clear public attention.
Accountability includes reporting exonerating findings as well as adverse ones.
New To Education Analysis: Due Process and Workplace Standards Are Not Opposites
Cases involving alleged administrator misconduct often become polarized quickly.
One side may assume that placing administrators on leave proves serious wrongdoing.
Another may argue that the absence of a completed investigation means the district should have taken no action at all.
Neither position adequately reflects how responsible workplace investigations operate.
School districts have an obligation to take credible complaints seriously.
They also have an obligation to treat accused employees fairly.
Those responsibilities are not contradictory.
Paid administrative leave can create space for both.
It allows an allegation to be investigated without requiring the district to decide the outcome first.
The most important test comes next.
Was the investigation independent?
Did investigators review the complete context rather than isolated excerpts?
Were all four administrators given an opportunity to respond?
Was the complainant treated without retaliation?
Were conclusions tied to evidence and policy rather than public pressure?
And will the district accurately communicate the result?
Those questions matter more than whether the allegations initially produced dramatic headlines.
What Educators Can Learn From the Case
The case offers a practical reminder for administrators and educators at every level.
Digital communication is still workplace communication.
Text messages, private chats, direct messages, and group conversations can become relevant in employment disputes, investigations, public-records requests, litigation, or professional-conduct reviews.
School leaders in particular should assume that communications about employees may eventually be examined outside their original context.
That does not mean administrators cannot communicate informally.
It does mean professional judgment should remain consistent across platforms.
A useful standard is simple:
Would the communication still appear appropriate if the employee being discussed, the school board, an investigator, or the public later read it?
That question cannot prevent every mistake.
But it can help leaders recognize when an informal conversation is crossing into territory that could damage workplace trust.
Key Takeaways
Regional School District 12 has placed Superintendent Donald Schels and three administrators on paid leave while an independent investigator examines an employee complaint involving communications among the four leaders.
The other administrators are Assistant Principal Michael Croft, Agriscience Director Tyler Cremeans, and Dean of Students/Athletic Director Matthew Perachi.
The employee complaint alleges sexually inappropriate comments concerning a female school employee appeared in a 2024 group text.
The allegations have not been established as fact, and Region 12 explicitly says the paid leave is without prejudice and should not be considered disciplinary action.
Attorney Elisa Bartlett has been retained as the independent investigator.
The case raises broader questions about administrative culture, workplace communication, leadership responsibility, due process, and how school boards should respond when allegations involve senior district officials.
FAQ
Have the Region 12 administrators been found guilty of misconduct?
No. The investigation is ongoing. The district explicitly says placing them on leave does not represent a determination concerning the complaint or the individuals involved.
Why were they placed on leave?
The Board of Education said the action was taken so an independent investigation could proceed with complete independence.
Are the administrators still being paid?
Yes. The district describes the leave as paid and without prejudice.
Who is investigating the complaint?
Region 12 retained attorney Elisa Bartlett of Bartlett Law LLC as an independent investigator.
Final Thoughts
Region 12 is dealing with a serious workplace complaint involving several of its highest-ranking administrators.
That warrants careful investigation.
But seriousness should not be confused with certainty.
The district has not concluded that Donald Schels, Michael Croft, Tyler Cremeans, or Matthew Perachi committed misconduct.
Instead, it has temporarily removed the administrators from their duties while an outside investigator attempts to determine what happened.
That is where the story should remain for now.
If evidence substantiates the complaint, the district will have to decide what accountability is appropriate and whether broader cultural changes are necessary.
If the evidence does not substantiate the allegations, that outcome should be reported just as clearly.
Either way, the credibility of the process will depend on whether the investigation is independent, fair, evidence-based, and transparent enough for employees and the community to understand why the district ultimately acts as it does.
Support New To Education
New To Education publishes independent reporting and analysis focused on educational law, school governance, administrator accountability, workplace culture, and student opportunity while providing tutoring and other educational services.
Supporting New To Education helps us continue producing careful, evidence-based education coverage for families, educators, students, and communities.
Related Articles
Connecticut Family Sues Avon Public Schools Over Alleged Antisemitism and Retaliation
Sources
Regional School District 12 — Public Statement, August 6, 2026
FOX61 — Region 12 Superintendent, Three Others Placed on Leave
