|
Prior to the start of Tuesday night's school board meeting, about 250-members of the Saugerties Teachers' Association were peacefully walking a picket line in front of the school building, and the parking lot was filled almost to capacity. Yet, in spite of having 250 picketers, the use of bullhorns and the filled-to-capacity parking lot, Superintendent Rhau was totally oblivious to all going on around him. In fact, he was quoted (Kingston Freeman) as saying he "was unaware" of any picketing going on. Perhaps he had something else on his mind. When I entered the cafeteria (where the meetings are usually held), I was informed that the meeting would be held in the auditorium. When Brennan (who has obviously decided against stepping down from the position of president) convened the meeting at approximately 7:10 p.m., I noticed that members Kovac and Maclaac were absent. Minutes later, however, Kovac appeared, fresh from a soccer game and still outfitted in his uniform of shorts, knee socks and bright yellow shirt. Then, as soon as Kovac was seated, board member Parisian, in an unprecedented maneuver and citing the "discussion of an individual" as the qualifying reason, called for an executive session, even before the break. The incident had the air of a stunt had been planned in advance and rehearsed. After a 20-minute session behind closed doors, the meeting resumed with no relative action from the board. During the balance of the meeting, several motions and resolutions were called to the floor for board action. Following herewith are a few of them: • Motion to hire and put board president Brennan's daughter on the instructional substitute teacher list; There had also been a motion on the agenda to hire Andrew Fisco (brother of board member Sam Fisco), who had been offered a job by school officials. However, Sam requested that his brother's name be removed from the list. Then, Rhau made a recommendation that the board approve raises for the administrative personnel in the Hildebrandt Building, which conveniently includes 4% salary increases for Rhau's and Nucifaro's personal secretaries. Remember, Rhau has already received his 4.75% salary increase and stands a good chance of 8% more in just a few months, once the board evaluates him. But, also remember, teachers are still working without a contract, and children still go without proper textbooks! Then, to top off the evening, Rhau informed the public that an additional $2-million dollars is needed for school repairs. Board member Kovac who, I believe, chairs the Facility Committee, has never mentioned a word at any public meeting with respect to this $2-million dollar shortage. Why not?
Executive Sessions During Tuesday's board meeting, I addressed the board regarding their practice of continuously moving into executive session. During every single board meeting that I have attended during the past nine months, the board has gone into executive session . Each time they cite the same reason, that it is "for the purpose of discussing contract negotiations and specific personnel matters." But their "reason" is merely an excuse to go behind close doors to discuss things they don't want the public to hear; and just because they claim it, doesn't mean that it's valid or legal or true. I've been informed that certain "elite" board members, as well as members of the administration, were "irate" that president Brennan had discussed a letter with me that the Board had written regarding the budget....an issue that had no right to be discussed in executive session in the first place. That letter was public information. In fact, Vince Buono who was president at the time, had the responsibility to put a stop to its inclusion in executive session, but failed to do so. Come to think of it, during Buono's reign as president, he was notorious for going into executive session. In this instance, Brennan did nothing wrong by reading me that public letter. As I've indicated in prior articles, there are only certain very specific categories that qualify for executive session privilege. Each and every board member has an obligation to object to discussions that are taking place in executive session in violation of the sunshine laws, and when they fail to oppose, they are just as guilty. I am a strong advocate of open government and feel that every branch of government, whether it is town, county, state or school, should adhere to these laws to discuss issues of public interest openly, and not behind closed doors where the public may be shut out. The people have a right to know. I also understand that certain "elite" members were "fuming" over that fact that some board members discuss issues outside of executive session. But this is not illegal—not all matters discussed are confidential. For instance, an advisory opinion issued on February 1, 2005, by Robert Freeman, Executive Director of the New York Department of State, Committee on Open Government, in response to a question from a member of the Greece Board of Education regarding whether a board of education has the authority to adopt a policy "to declare what is...and what is not, confidential" in relation to the Open Meetings and Freedom of Information Laws. The subject policy reads: "Matters discussed in executive sessions must be treated as confidential; that is, never discussed outside of that executive session. A violation of confidentiality will lead to disciplinary action as established by the Commissioner of Education." and Robert Freeman's opinion reads: "No legal basis for prohibiting a member of a board of education or any other person present during an executive session from speaking about or disclosing information obtained during an executive session validly held. Further that there is no law that generally prohibits a person present during an executive session- from speaking about the closed session." Freeman said a board of education cannot adopt a rule or policy that has the "force of law," or is "empowered" to "silence an elected official." If a board member wishes to discuss an issue outside of executive session, it is his or her right.
Federal Law Suit As you will recall, a Civil Rights lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court (No.Dist.,NY) by a teacher who had accused Rhau and Price of violating her First Amendment Rights to freedom of speech. District Court Judge Lawrence E. Kahn, ruling in favor of the Plaintiff-teacher, concluded that the Defendants' policy (Faculty Handbook for 2006-2007, page 23, "Communication") restricted the Plaintiff's (and School District employees') First Amendment rights. This wrongful act and the resulting decision against the District will not only cost taxpayers thousands of dollars in legal fees and court costs, but their actions were irresponsible and demonstrated a total lack of leadership, as well. It is my understanding that neither Rhau nor Price have done anything to correct District policy and bring it in line with the Court's decision. As a result of their arrogance, disobedience, and lack of leadership could and more likely will lead to another costly federal lawsuit against the District. A teacher's primary job is to get children to think for themselves. Part of that learning process is teaching them to speak, and express their ideas. Here we have a school principal and superintendent who have been admonished by the Court for doing the exact opposite to teachers. According to the Court's decision, their freedom of speech is being curtailed by the policy. It is imperative to this community and the employees of the Saugerties Central School District that Rhau and Price immediately take the proper action to change the policy to avoid another costly federal lawsuit.
George D. Heidcamp, Sr. September 21, 2006 |