Grand jury cites former PV super, her assistant

Monroe County District Attorney David Christine Jr. released grand jury findings Tuesday that recommend the indictment of former Pleasant Valley Superintendent Carole Geary, former assistant to the Superintendent Christopher Fisher and district employee Joshua Krebs.

Krebs, employed by the district as director of support services, is currently on paid administrative leave after being charged with numerous wiretap offenses, perjury and giving false testimony. He is currently awaiting trial on the charges.

The most recent grand jury findings, dating back to Jan. 1, 2010, stem from the testimony of district employees.

The jury recommended that Geary be charged with four counts of official oppression, threats in official and political matters, retaliation for past official action and conspiracy. Three counts of the same charges were recommended against Fisher and two counts of each against Krebs.

The jury heard the testimony of a number of district employees who were the victims of the behaviors and criminal acts brought into evidence before them.

Diane Siani, currently an administrator at the high school, testified to being subjected to abuse while working under Krebs when he was principal of Pleasant Valley Elementary School.

Siani testified that the treatment had gotten so bad “that she began to keep a journal to document the times when he would pull her in the office, close the door and reprimand her.

“It came to a point where Siani was firmly convinced that Joshua Krebs was trying to break her spirit in order to get her to leave her position.”

The jury also heard from Betty VanHorn, a full-time custodian at the high school. VanHorn told the jury that she had previously worked as a substitute custodian and at one point was told by Krebs that she could no longer be assigned to the elementary school because of a “conversation” with no other explanation.

VanHorn later applied for full-time employment and was not given the position, while others with no experience were hired over her. At one point VanHorn addressed the school board about her concerns about being overlooked for the position.

After addressing the board, VanHorn testified that she was told by Krebs that she should have gone to him first and that “he was not sure if he wanted her to work at the district any longer.”

Questioned curriculum

Dawn Wisser, a special-education teacher at the elementary school, questioned using the Step by Step Learning Program that Geary brought into the district. There were complaints regarding the use of the program from a number of teachers, but Wisser took her complaints to several of the school board directors.

Wisser testified that she told the directors that other teachers would not come forward because they feared retaliation. She further testified that once Geary and Fisher became aware of her complaints, she was accused of cheating on the PSSA tests.

Wisser was eventually disciplined by Geary and filed a grievance against the district. The grievance was taken to arbitration and Wisser was exonerated.

Jennifer Weaver also questioned the use of the reading program. Weaver testified that she was told she was “unprofessional” and that she needed to “be careful of her facial expressions and mannerism.”

Weaver requested to be represented by her building representative, Joseph Agolino, who was also accused of being unprofessional.

Agolino also said he was embarrassed during an in-service training when Geary knocked his papers on the floor and yelled at him for not listening to the speaker.

Agolino also testified that he was accused of sexual harassment following a retirement luncheon during which a number of people involved made off-color jokes. He added that he was the only person from the party to be singled out. Agolino took his grievance to arbitration, where it was found that the allegations against Agolino were “in retaliation for protected union activities.”

Wiretapping

The jury also heard from John Gesiskie, president of the union that represents the teachers.

Gesiskie was a physical education teacher at PVE in April 2016 when a fellow teacher brought it to his attention that there was a video camera in the faculty break room.

Gesiskie took up the matter with the administration and eventually it was discovered that Krebs had installed the camera to catch a custodian who was taking long breaks.

This incident is the one for which Krebs is now charged with violating the Pennsylvania Wiretap Act.

Gesiskie took his concerns to the school board president and the Pennsylvania State Police.

Less than two months after reporting the incident, Gesiskie was informed that he was being transferred to the Vision Quest Program. Vision Quest is described in the presentment as an “alternate placement, primarily for juvenile offenders.”

When Gesiskie filed a grievance, Geary denied, saying that the reassignment was made in the best interest and needs of the district and that the reassignment was not to Vision Quest, but to the high school.

Gesiskie was forced to file for arbitration but reached a settlement with the district before the hearing which returned him to his prior position at PVE if he dropped his lawsuit.

District response

Attorney Mark Fitzgerald spoke on behalf of the school district following the release of the presentment by the District Attorney.

“We will absolutely continue to cooperate fully with the District Attorney’s Office throughout this process,” Fitzgerald said.

“Two of the three people mentioned in the presentment are no longer employed by the district. The third, Mr. Krebs, remains on administrative leave at this time.”

Fisher retired in 2015.

Geary retired from Pleasant Valley School District in 2017 and took a position as senior consultant with Step by Step Learning.

Attempts to reach Geary were unsuccessful.

Fitzgerald said that Krebs’ status is constantly under review.

“His status with the district is always subject to review and we will determine what our next steps will be from an employment perspective.”

Fitzgerald said he had only had an initial opportunity to review the document from the grand jury and it was too early to determine what impact it might have on the district.