Plum School Board censures member, calls for resignation

Plum School Board’s president called for fellow board member Ronald Sakolsky’s resignation late Tuesday following a vote to censure him.

The resolution to censure Sakolsky, approved in a 7-2 vote, accused him of publicly sharing confidential or false information about the school district and its superintendent.

“Time that should have been devoted to the education of Plum Borough School District students has instead been wasted on investigating and remediating the antics of Mr. Sakolsky,” the resolution said.

The censure amounts to a public reprimand, but does not affect Sakolsky’s ability to carry out any of the duties of his elected office. Board President Angela Anderson said in an email that her separate call for Sakolsky’s resignation is supported by other board members, though she did not specify by whom.

Sakolsky, a retired seventh and eighth grade social studies teacher in Plum, said he will not resign.

“The public of Plum Borough voted me into office to represent them and keep the promises I campaigned on,” he said Wednesday. “Even though my family has suggested numerous times I get out of this, I will not let the community of Plum down.”

Sakolsky, who was elected in 2021, did not say whether he would seek reelection next year.

Sakolsky claimed that he has been the target of discrimination and false accusations since joining the board.

“I promised the public transparency from the campaign and have never deviated from that even when slandered, defamed and discriminated against,” he said.

Sakolsky and board member Megan Chuderewicz were the only board members to vote against Sakolsky’s censure.

Chuderwicz, who ran for the school board with Sakolsky and calls him a friend, said she voted against the censure because it did not provide “a concrete solution on how we work together to move forward.”

Anderson said Chuderewicz’s vote against the censure “raises the question of her competence on the board as well.”

Chuderewicz said Anderson questioning the competence of board members because of how they voted “sets a dangerous precedent.”

The censure resolution accused Sakolsky of:

• Disclosing on social media a confidential email that had been sent to his school board email account from Superintendent Rick Walsh.

• Acting unethically by sharing pictures of a fellow board member’s child through district email for political gain, and by asking about the confidential homebound instructions of a student by sending an email directly to a district teacher.

• Making unfounded personal attacks against Walsh.

• Disseminating false information on the district’s curriculum, materials and practices.

The resolution said Sakolsky’s “conduct as a board member has continued to erode, and his lack of professionalism interferes with the proper functioning of the Plum Borough School District.”

It added that his presence on the board and unwillingness to behave in a conscientious and professional manner “has impeded the operations and business of the Plum Borough School District.”

The resolution said Sakolsky “does not uphold the standards of professionalism that are required of an elected Plum Borough School District School Board Director. Mr. Sakolsky’s conduct does not reflect the mission, principles and standards of the Plum Borough School District.”

Sakolsky accused the board of violating the state’s Sunshine Law, burying conflicts of interest and engaging in questionable hiring processes. He said it won’t consider alternative thoughts on issues such as the search for a superintendent, taxes and full-day kindergarten.

“Our board is an oligarchy,” he said. “As long as they have five votes, that’s all that matters.”

Calling being on the board a “nightmare,” Sakolsky said, “The public has been fantastic, supportive and knowledgeable, (but) I’ve been called a racist, F.U.’d, banned from school grounds, silenced and even my reputation and career (has been) bashed by a past director recently voted out.”

At one point in Tuesday’s meeting, Sakolsky tried to refute allegations that he called Walsh antisemitic in an email, describing those accusations as “a spin tactic and untrue.” Anderson interrupted Sakolsky and told him to stop talking.

“We wrote this censure in such a way as to protect confidentiality and personnel, and you continue to sit here and do exactly what you’re being censured for,” she said. “You just took what you said, which we tried to protect, against a member of our personnel and just created a serious problem. Over and over again, this is what happens.”

Walsh told Sakolsky that he made “a very serious public charge” against him.

“I know you don’t understand because that seems to be the gist of our conversation is your lack of understanding,” Walsh said. “You just gave an example of how this board, specifically you, treats its one employee. I made it very clear that this is where I work. This is my place of employment. And your comments once again are unfounded and inappropriate.”

“Not once have you given any example of any charges against me,” he added. “Once again, I believe this is another example of you retaliating against me, publicly. … I’m flabbergasted in regard to how this man thinks he can say anything at any time.”