Region 12 Investigation Finds 4 School Leaders Violated Sexual Harassment Policies

WASHINGTON, CT — An independent investigation into inappropriate text messages exchanged among four Shepaug Valley School leaders found that all four violated sexual harassment standards, with the investigator recommending that two be considered for termination.

The 15-page, Oct. 18 report prepared by attorney Elisa H. Bartlett details a group text conversation involving former Region 12 Superintendent Donald Schels, Agriscience Director Tyler Cremeans, Assistant Principal Michael Croft and Dean of Students and Athletic Director Matthew Perachi.

The Region 12 school district serves Washington, Roxbury and Bridgewater.

The investigation followed a sexual harassment complaint from a former Shepaug Valley School teacher stemming from an inappropriate comment Schels made about her in the group chat.

Bartlett concluded that the conduct of all four employees created an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment in violation of federal and state sexual harassment standards and Region 12 Board of Education policy.

While Bartlett recommended that the district consider terminating Schels and Cremeans, she advised administrators to determine appropriate disciplinary action for Croft and Perachi.

The findings offer a more detailed account of the text exchange, how it became public and the concerns raised by district employees about the conduct of school leaders.

How The Text Messages Came To Light

The conversation began in fall 2024 after a newly hired teacher asked Cremeans whether two school employees were dating, according to the investigation.

Cremeans shared the question in a group chat with Schels, Croft and Perachi.

The exchange included laughing emojis and comments about the two employees before Schels made a sexually inappropriate remark implying he was involved in a sexual relationship with another teacher. Schels later told the investigator that no such relationship existed.

Cremeans subsequently sent the newly hired teacher a screenshot of the conversation.

The teacher told the investigator he saved the screenshot because the exchange made him uncomfortable. He later submitted it anonymously to the Board of Education after leaving the district at the end of the 2025-26 school year.

The investigation began July 31 and was expanded Aug. 10 to examine the effect of the messages on the school environment.

Bartlett interviewed the four employees involved, the complainant and other current and former district staff members.

Schels Made Other Inappropriate Comments, Report Finds

The report indicates the original screenshot may not have been an isolated incident.

Croft told Bartlett that Schels had made several other crude references to the same teacher in the group chat. Cremeans also recalled at least two occasions when Schels made comments that crossed the line.

Schels, however, told the investigator he did not specifically recall other inappropriate discussions. He acknowledged making the comment captured in the screenshot, describing it as a "terrible, terrible joke referencing a colleague in an objectified way."

He said he was embarrassed and ashamed and maintained that the comment did not reflect how he thought about his colleagues.

Bartlett found that Schels appeared remorseful but questioned whether he fully understood the impact of his conduct on the district.

According to the report, some administrators believed Schels had downplayed the seriousness of the incident when discussing it with colleagues.

The investigator also documented concerns about whether Schels could regain the trust of district employees. Some teachers threatened not to attend the district's annual convocation if he was present, according to the report.

Bartlett concluded that Schels' conduct violated sexual harassment standards and district policy, as well as the Connecticut Code of Professional Responsibility.

"Based on the totality of the circumstances, the Board may wish to consider the termination of the Superintendent of Schools," she wrote.

Cremeans' Judgment And Leadership Questioned

Bartlett was similarly critical of Cremeans, who initiated the group conversation by sharing speculation about a relationship between two employees, one of whom held a supervisory position.

The investigator found that the exchange mocked the employees and raised concerns about Cremeans' judgment, particularly his decision to share the screenshot with a newly hired teacher.

Bartlett wrote that she did not believe Cremeans could reestablish trust within his department, particularly among its female employees.

She recommended that district administrators consider terminating his contract.

The investigation also documented the effect the text exchange had on other employees.

One male employee referenced in the messages described experiencing anxiety and difficulty at work after the screenshot circulated.

The former teacher who filed the complaint said the messages reinforced her concerns about how administrators spoke about female employees behind closed doors.

Croft And Perachi Face Discipline

Although Bartlett found that Croft and Perachi also violated harassment standards, she did not recommend that either be considered for termination.

Croft, whose participation consisted of a four-word response, was described as remorseful and willing to rebuild trust, although Bartlett criticized his failure to intervene in the conversation.

Perachi characterized his response as a nonsensical comment and said he had little recollection of the exchange. Bartlett questioned his willingness to accept responsibility, noting that he appeared more concerned about the messages becoming public than their effect on others.

The investigator recommended that district administrators determine appropriate disciplinary action for both employees.

What Happens Next

Schels and Cremeans have since resigned.

Interim Superintendent Keri Snowden said during Monday's Board of Education meeting that Croft and Perachi are scheduled to return to work Oct. 26.

Both are expected to receive disciplinary action, additional training and a plan for returning to their positions, although the specific disciplinary measures have not been disclosed.