I Got Milk, Who has Jim?!?!?!

[techie]

I hope with this upcoming BOE meeting, ALL of the YES voters will show up to find out what "E-mailgate" turned out to be.

This was a crime against individual BOE members, and a crime against PLAINEDGE.

It is amazing to me that the "Community" came together for a short time,... but when the most vocal got what they want,... everybody else has toned down.

I voted yes because that was what was needed, but it did not add anything for us other than a higher tax bill.

At the next BOE meeting, why don't we all demand the answers to E-Mailgate? This is a point that can CUT contracts, and replace members of the BOE and Administration.

I, we, voted to get a STRONG VOICE into the NEW BOE.
This is what is needed, but it seems that some of the candidates that used this site for promotion for themselves have forgotten this site and the MANY people that view it.

[justfacts]

Let's see - It was Ralph Raymond who asked to see the Bank Statements at a meeting and was denied access to them by Richman because "it was too much trouble" - a position that was backed up by the Board President after extended requests by Ralph!

MMMM!!!

And it was the newly appointed Board member Frank Presuto who pushed for answers to questions that embarrassed Richman!

MMMM!!!

And it was both Raymond's and Presuto's 60 or so e-mails that were suddenly re-routed to the home e-mail address of a Board member who's an open supporter of Richman.

MMMM!!!

None of the rubber-stamping other Board members had their e-mails tapped.

MMMM!!!

Could there be a reason or motive to purposely alter the settings on the District's e-mail server to extensively monitor just two Board member's e-mails and not monitor even one e-mail of the four others?

MMMM!!!

And then the core of the wire-tapping action is laid on the back of a employee no longer available to answer questions - an employee who would have no apparent motive or incentive to make the necessary complex changes in the e-mail server!

MMMM!!!

Just wondering about the coincidences - which could not happen by accident - and the wire-tapping which did need a motive for it to occur!

MMMM!!!

And the consequences of all this wire-tapping has a criminal impact on every resident of Plainedge that wants a Board of Education that can freely exchange information; and one that can question, even persistently, the Administration and its actions.

MMMM!!!

Ed.

[Go Plainedge!]

Ed:

Do you have any other NEWS for us??


;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

[Go Plainedge!]

Ed:

If your outline above is accurate then not only should Jim be removed (although he appears to be the scapegoat) but the BOE Trustee involved in receiving 60 emails should be removed from her position along with the TOP administrator and anyone else involved in setting up this illegal activity.

This is grounds for immediate dismissal of these people.

[justfacts]

goplainedge![/u]

Ah - Ha! NOW the lights are turning on!

Let me be a little pedantic for the moment so that all our lights are turned on in detail to the same wavelength.

If there was any request from a higher authority made of Jim, should the questionable scapegoat story hold true, especially by someone in Administration - then that person, not Jim, would be the cause and creator of the wire-tap. As such, that person could be found guilty of the violation of Penal Code 250.

If convicted of the felony offense under the penal code as the cause of the wire-tapping, the person would become immediately ineligible to retain their teaching certificate under another State law, despite the later filing of any appeal.

Then they would no longer be able to fulfill their contract with the District and their contract with the District would be broken by them. This activity is independent of the final results of the appeal.

The District would then have no further obligation to honor the terms of the contract - and all terms, and all future costs contained therein, would not have to be met by the District![/i]

Additionally, the receiver of the improper e-mails has an obligation to report the fact to the senders and the service provider as soon as possible. If they do not do this, they are guilty of a misdemeanor under the Penal Code. A Board Member found guilty of a misdemeanor cannot serve on the Board for a period of at least one year.

Further, a Board member can be charged by the Board with official misconduct and can be requested by the Board to resign. They then have 10 days to appeal and ask for a hearing with the Commissioner of Education or the are considered to have resigned.

That's the way the system is supposed to work.

Ed.

[Go Plainedge!]

[thewildrover]

If true or even mostly true:

Unethical - Certainly!!!

Criminal - Probably !!!

Disgraceful - Undoubtedly !!!

Resignable - Absolutely!!!

Where does the BOE victim want this investigation to go criminally

I will follow his lead, as it is ultimately his fight to start and finish.

Looking to gain (demand??) some insight at the June 13th BOE meeting

[Go Plainedge!]

thewildrover said:

If
I will follow his lead, as it is ultimately his fight to start and finish.

This is the only statement I can't agree with 100%. Yes, it is RR's fight. However it involved three BOE members that are serving the community....ones that are voted in by us. If there are unethical actions being taken by certain BOE members and administrative personnel, then it is our duty as a community to resolve the issue and demand the dismissal (at the very least) of those that are guilty.

If there is illegal spying taking place with this administration and BOE, then it directly affects us as a district and community.

A formal, third party investigation needs to take place.

[justfacts]

goplainedge!

You touch on a point I did not cover in my pedantic reply. There need not to be a legal charge brought on the Administration. Should others not pursue the matter in the courts, the District is not left without recourse.

The Board, if it responds to the majority will of the public in its belief that improper and nefarious actions were taken with regard to wire-tapping; actions that were harmful to the District and provided the children therein with a harmful example of immoral behavior; can charge that the Administration was negligent and ineffective in the entire handling of the matter and request the dismissal of the Administrator in charge.

This, of course, can be challenged by the Administrator. But it would be at the price of generating widespread publicity about the situation which would follow the challenger in any future career endeavors.[/b]

Ed.

[thewildrover]

Go,

As I understand this, allegedly, and over simplified, emails that were addressed to FP at FP's district provided email address were also forwarded to another BOE members email address.

Your email to FP.

My email to FP.

Anyones email to FP was forwarded to another BOE members address as well.

I figuring it is FP's match, not RR's, that would have to start the criminal investigation fire.

Not that RR wasnt a victim here either. Thats a whole other story.

Facts is correct, there need not be a criminal investigation to get some, no not some, many answers with regards to the handling of this.

Talk about a can of worms Jeesh

[plainedgewatcher]

I don't care who's fight it is. Something VERY WRONG happened under this administration and this BOE and it needs to be addressed.

I demand it and this community demands it. Enough is enough !!!!

[justfacts]

Tuesday is the BIG night!

Tuesday is the first real BOE meeting following the Election of new members and the adoption of the budget.

It is the first meeting for the revitalized Plainedge Public to have their voices heard and their issues paid attention to - other than when their voices were raised to the single issue of passing the budget.

Will the Board listen to them? Will many even be there to raise their voices?

What will their main issue be? Will it be the one that could lead to a massive change in the Administration? The rumor has been for a few months that at the beginning of the new fiscal year Richman will announce his plans to retire at the end of the year - and leave the District with us having to honor the full terms of his contract.

Will the Board let him off so easy from the illegal e-mail incident? It is one of the events that could be used to demand his resignation - and have him leave the district without having to pay him the full terms of his contract.

Another contract breaking event is the enormous exceeding of the 2004/5 Budget - by $620,000! Who authorized him to spend to that excess? It does not appear in the minutes of any meeting! And what about an explanation of where the $620,000 came from? This issue could be used by the new Board to demonstrate a breech of the contract on his part - and just cause for his dismissal.

Neither of the above issues needs to be fulfilled in this coming meeting - but they should at least be initiated by community requests, giving the Board time to react in the next few months.

It should be a very interesting meeting - I hope many Plainedge residents attend and participate.

Ed.

70¢ on the dollar is not enough - squeeze the other pennies from the Capital and Administrative costs and let them fall into the Programs account!

[Go Plainedge!]

I won't be able to attend the BOE meeting.

IF YOU ATTEND - PLEASE PUSH FOR ANSWERS ABOUT THE EMAIL SCANDAL. Please don't accept any BS answer.

Ed - If Richman retires and through further investigations it's proven that he was involved in illegal activities while employed can we get out of fulfilling his contract?

What does his contract state?

Additionally, his contract was just extended (great going BOE ). With his announcement, do we still have to pay him a salary until 2009? I hope not.

[justfacts]

Go Plainedge!

You ask interesting questions! The answers are not interesting however!

Any legal/illegal determinations that follow will depend on the Judges decision - not any existing contracts or law. So an answer via that route is totally uninteresting since we have no control over what the outcome would be!

Whatever his contract "says" you can be sure that there is no clause that begins "In case I commit an illegal act . . . ."!

Third - Contracts are written to clearly define what terms are broken when a contract is voided! From that point legal settlements can be pursued. The Richman contract can be torn up today by the Board - - - if it had the courage to do so!

Court disputes over the terms can go on for years - sometimes longer than one's lifetime. See as an example the recent Secretary's court case against the District - extended by Richman's refusal to follow the dictates of the first court decision - PAY THE SECRETARIES!! It took three or four court decisions, and a lot of legal costs, to settle those terms.

There is no reason the Board could not use this case as an example of how to delay and extend any payments - if there is an adverse decision against the District! There is nothing for the District to loose, and everything to gain, by just breaking the contract!

But - and this is an important BUT - There are a couple of recent activities that give rise to adequate cause to dismiss the Administrator.

See other posts as to what they are. The prime thing to remember - it will take the Board to Motion, Second, Discuss and Vote on an action to dismiss the Superintendent. It is a "HIRE AT WILL" state law that gives them the power to "FIRE AT WILL" in New York State!

The question of highest interest is: Do they have the chutzpah to do what they should do?

The answer to that question is of the highest interest!

The Board's actions in the next few meetings should be very important to Plainedge!

Ed.

P.S. Since the Board extends Richman's contract for five years each and every year, does a One year notice on his part constitute a Breach of Contract? Shouldn't he give a Five year notice? ;D