There is a story in today's News-Times about what reporter John Pirro describes as a "dismissal" of my FOI Complaint against the BOE.
It's my opinion that the article is as accurate as was Pirro's reporting on the Spatola Ethics case: it is full of errors and omissions and is misleading and biased. I suspect that my criticism of his reporting in that matter led to his coverage of this one...a story that in my opinion is full of errors and omissions and is misleading and biased.
Pirro wrote that the FOIC "has dismissed" my complaint as if it was dismissed in its entirely. Wrong. I "won" two of my counts, my charge that the BOE failed to warn the Bob Bigham Meeting properly and its failure to make a proper motion to go into executive session.
Pirro failed to report that what the FOIC issued was a "Proposed Final Decision," a Hearing Officer's recommendation to the full Commission. The counts in my complaint aren't "won" or "dismissed" until the Commission acts.
The HO did recommend dismissal of my claims: a) that former teacher Bob Bigham's name should have been in the agenda; b) that the Superintendent and her attorney shouldn't have been in the entire executive session; and c) that action was taken in executive session.
As I will argue to the full Commission, I think the public has a right to know if a teacher like Bigham is going to be discussed by the BOE so parents can make comments and be made aware of what's going on.
Nanci Barnes' story in this week's New Milford Times, "Resident's FOI Complaint Results In Split Decision" is accurate and comprehensive.
I have asked the Publisher and Editor of the News-Times to print a correction.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Split Recommendation From Hearing Officer In Lewin v. BOE FOI Complaint
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Publish the proposed final decision on this site - we'll see if you're right or the News Times.
...I will do so ASAP and I expect that you will acknowledge the truth in a post.
Jay,thanks for standing up and demanding accountability from the BOE!
Thank you for posting this - it is an interesting read.
No matter how you slice it, this is a trivial matter that didn't need to waste taxpayer money. This type of legal nonsense wastes our $$ for your personal satisfaction. All of this basicly over not naming an employee over a private employment matter? What a waste.
I'm sure you'll come up with some sort of "I'm upholding the law" mumbo jumbo, but that's what you lawyers do 24/7.
Are you the person who asked Jay to post it?
anonymous at 4:03:
This is not a matter of private employment. It is public. That is a huge difference even if you do not understand or choose to aknowledge the difference.
This is about a teacher who the BOE rightly got rid of because he was doing nasty stuff with YOUR kids, dumbo!
As much as I disagree with you, and as much as I dislike your positions Jay. I have to say, although it may be a trivial matter its important that government works the way it should. I don't think its a waste of the taxpayer's money to force the government operate as it is outlined by our laws, Because one day it won't be a trivial matter and who will object to it then
I applaud you for trying to keep the government honest..a hard job...but someone has to do it
Thank you
Unfortunately, some only see Jay as Jay....and therefore dislike and stymie anything he does or thinks.
If it were not for his brand of oversight, we would be much less informed regarding the whole story, and be at risk of being exploited by entities that were meant to protect and serve the taxpayer and public.
"This is about a teacher who the BOE rightly got rid of because he was doing nasty stuff with YOUR kids, dumbo!"
Agreed, but they still have to do this within the confines of the law.
What else are these people cutting corners on?
Every town needs a Jay Lewin. He has the best interest of the town in what he does. It may come at a cost but at least there are results that make the town Government better.
Look at how much money Kane and the other NM First members have cost us filing ethics complaints that had no merit. Does anyone remember that? I do, it was a waste of town time and money. Does anyone remember their "Shadow Govenment" rantings.
"What else are these people cutting corners on?"
I'll bet that you have surpassed the speed limit sometime in the last week. What other laws do you choose to ignore?
I think it is a stretch to say that this error implies that the board is willfully subverting justice on a regular basis. They make mistakes. We don't always agree with their decisions. But they keep trying and we keep watching. (Or, at least Jay does.)
Elected boards or public officials breaking the law once may be a mistake. Let's face it, there are too many laws on the books for anyone to keep up with! (This dilemma is, of course, the handiwork of our slipshod elected officials.)
When elected boards or public officials continue to flout the law after the illegality has been pointed out to them, then it's no longer a mistake, it's willful misconduct. Unfortunately, this willful misconduct occurs all the time in government because Machiavellian politicians would rather see what they can get away with (if it suites their ends) instead of following laws they're sworn to uphold... This is especially true if politicians think nobody's paying close attention to their dishonest nuances.
It's still not going to get you people to stop whining about your already ridiculously low taxes
"YourTaxesAreToLow said...
It's still not going to get you people to stop whining about your already ridiculously low taxes."
You just don't get it (and you don't know the difference between "to" and "too"..). You keep saying that our taxes are low. Not everyone agrees with you. Remember, you only get one vote. That's it. Last time I checked, this is still a democracy.
A healthy debate about taxes and services, followed by a vote by the taxpayers, is the only way to determine if our taxes are "ridiculously low." I'm quite certain that our taxpayers are not willing (and/or cannot afford) to pay huge tax increases.
This is a message to Anonymous who wrote the following comment on February 11 at 12:22: "Publish the proposed final decision on this site - we'll see if you're right or the News Times."
Look at the correction on Page 2 of today's News-Times; who's right? Me.
Notice the person's online identity is "yourtaxesaretolow" (sic), not "MYtaxesaretoolow". This is an important distinction among hypocritical tax & spenders. Of course, people like this don't consider themselves "greedy" for wanting everyone else to surrender more of their hard-earned money over to the government (but they do consider everyone else greedy for wanting to keep more of what they earn).
Arrogantly declaring (your) taxes are too low in New Milford proves the absolute ignorance of the poster and renders his or her opinion all but worthless...
Okay Jay.
Who are you and are your motives genuine?
Some folks claim you aren't even a NM resident and your kids if it's true you have kids, don't even attend NM schools.
Are you a wonderful person trying to do the right thing for all of residents or just a lawyer with a few screws loose who likes to inflict aggravation on others?
Not an accusation....
Just a question from an on-line reader who doesn't know you personally. Obviously you have supporters among your readers, but who are you?
Post a Comment