Special Meeting - July 19, 2000

SCOPE Tells Members of the Public, "We’re here to help the district find a Superintendent."

On Wednesday, July 19th, the School Board met in the Board Room of the district’s administration building. At 6:40 p.m., Board President Ellerbe made a motion that was completely unintelligible to the attending public. When a member of the community asked Ellerbe what the resolution was for, he just glared at the questioner. Finally, former Board President Grover explained that the motion "was for a particular matter of personnel."

Just before the Board entered into executive session, an unknown person joined the meeting and stayed behind as the public left the Board Room. About ten minutes later, Eloy Yndigoyen knocked on the door. When Ellerbe answered, Yndigoyen asked Ellerbe if the Board was going to go into open session. Ellerbe replied, "We will see what’s the Boards pleasure.

About fifteen minutes after that a group from SCOPE (http://www.li-scope.org) arrived on the scene. Your reporter, as well as Mr. Yndigoyen and Ms. Carol Nelson chatted for a short while with the group of four men from SCOPE. Mr. Adler, the Deputy Director of Management Services told the group, "We’re here to help them [the Board] look for a superintendent." When your reporter said that he believed that any discussion regarding the qualifications or requirements of a District Superintendent would have to be discussed at a meeting open to the public, Mr. Adler agreed that it would. The attorney in attendance with SCOPE, Mr. Tom Winkler, Esq., agreed that a discussion regarding the requirements of a district superintendent, according to open meeting laws of NYS, would indeed have to be held in public. Shortly thereafter, the group from SCOPE went into the executive session. Ellerbe closed the door behind them. The public was not invited to witness the discussion.

Finally, at about 10 p.m. the Board reconvened into open session. SCOPE had left sometime before.

Newly elected Board member Sunday Coward was upset regarding the difficulty she was having obtaining information from the District Clerk and the Superintendent. When she said that she was given the run-around Renken told her, "Requests usually go to the President of the Board and then he makes the request to the Superintendent."

Coward responded, "That wasn’t listed in the policy manual. I asked the District Clerk for the items that I thought I should have been presented with. I asked specifically for the student assessments. Those things were readily available. Those reports have been prepared. The only thing I received from Mrs. Moffett and Dr. Bediako was the policy book. They told me to read through it and get back to them with any questions. When I formulated the questions, they told me to speak to Mr. Ellerbe. Then Ron tells me I have to bring it to the Board."

When Renken told Coward if every Board member made requests from the staff, nothing would get done, Coward responded, "Don’t you think that each member of the Board should have the information on how your students are performing in the district? Shouldn’t that be something that should be given to any Board member?" Grover answered, "I don’t know that those reports would be readily available."

School Board Policy clearly states that "members of the board of education may legally act only as a body ... The actions of individual board members have no legal authority." Renken asked Coward, "How does it sound to go to the Board President to request information?" Coward answered, "I’ll do that from now on at a public meeting." Renken, the real power behind the Board, responded, "You can do it at any time."

The Board then went down the list of items that Coward was trying to obtain from the district. Neither the Board, nor Coward made any effort to give the pubic a copy of the list.

Coward wanted the school district attorney present at Board meetings. Ellerbe asked Coward why she wanted the attorney present. Coward explained, "There are a lot of references that we consulted with counsel. I think that if we are going to make those kind of statements, we would probably want to have counsel right there."

Grover Misrepresents Former School District Attorney
Accuses Attorney Hoffman of Running Up the Clock

Former Board President Grover then made reference to Board meetings that he never attended, as well as misrepresenting the actions of then Board Attorney Carol Hoffman, who was the former district counsel from the law firm of Jaspen, Ginsberg et. al. Esq. Grover would have been able to find out the extent of Ms. Hoffman's participation at the meetings by simply looking at the Board Minutes of those meetings. At that time, the Board was required to keep "complete and accurate" minutes of their meetings. It was only after Messrs. Grover and Renken were elected to the Board that the district no longer maintained minutes that reflected the actual happenings of the Board meetings.

Grover said, "One thing historically that has happened was that the Board meetings almost became run by the attorney. The attorney is there and the attorney begins to debate the law with an individual and then slowly took over the meetings. When I sit at a meeting and I say we did this under the advice of counsel, I did speak to that attorney and they did give me factual law as to why or why we couldn’t do those things. I know by the time Carol Hoffman had gotten done, it was the appearance that she was running this district. That’s why we had chose not to have the attorneys present."

Grover then insinuated that Carol Hoffman unjustly ran up the clock to boost her law firm's fees. He said, "There were substantial bills that came through from Jaspen and Ginsberg for their presence at those meetings. They ran the clock for like two hundred and twenty five dollars an hour for sitting at a meeting. There was no benefit to it, other than the fact they would open up a debate with somebody." An examination of the invoices submitted to the district clearly shows that Jaspen Ginsberg, et. al. billed the district at a rate of one hundred and forty dollars an hour.

Coward continued to maintain that the attorney should be in attendance at the meetings. Renken suggested that, "Maybe the answer is to act out of anticipation. If you look at the agenda and you know there is going to be something there, you bring the attorney in." Renken failed to mention that ever since both he and Grover were elected to the Board the agendas have been almost never ready much before the Board meetings.

Grover added to the discussion. "You get an attorney in here, [Ellerbe interjected - That "doesn't live here"), most of the time they are ego maniacs when they’re attorneys, anyway. They get insulted easily and they can easily escalate a Board meeting."

Ellerbe said that he preferred Board members to address all questions through him, rather than individual members calling counsel directly.

Grover said that if a Board member went through Ellerbe they would get an "answer in writing, which is much better than a conversation on the phone." Grover continued, "I can recall instances where I had gotten opinions over the phone, gone to Board meetings and said, "That it is the advice of Counsel," and asked for it to be followed up in writing and could not get it."

Renken suggested that a Board member could call the attorney if that member told Ellerbe about it. Renken asked, "Is there a problem with a board member talking to Ron and saying, "I’d like to call the school Board attorney about an issue."

Coward responded, "I have a problem with asking permission. I have a problem with that."

There was no resolution to this issue.

Lately there has been much controversy about the Board’s taking away the public’s right to address the body at the conclusion of the evening’s agenda. Some old timers in the district have estimated that this tradition goes back at least one hundred years.

Grover recommended that the question period at the beginning of the meeting be combined to include both agenda items and non agenda items. He also suggested that the Board retain the new end of meeting format for community members who want to sit down with the Board and have what he called, "Private discussions with us."

Ellerbe maintained that opening up the microphone for general questions would drive people away from the meetings. He also suggested that the Board limit the time to three minutes for the public to address the Board.

Grover said, "the Board’s supporters like Frank Tucker and Michael Raab can’t come to the podium and speak about the wonderful things that they saw."

Board member Muscara was the only Board member who spoke intelligently about this important issue. He said, "We’re hearing from both sides that there are people that don’t like it. I think it really does seem like a form of censorship. This is a good public place for people to say whatever they want, good, bad or indifferent. I think that because it is being perceived that way, we should change it."

New Board member Sunday Coward, who recently ran on a platform of open government, was strangely silent during this important discussion.

The meeting concluded with the new Board President Ellerbe asking for his "favorite motion," that to adjourn.

The July 27th meeting began at 7 p.m. with two members of the public present. Ellerbe, well aware of the requirements of a motion to go into executive session, violated the Open Meetings Law by saying, "Can I have a motion to go into executive session." Grover, who clearly knew this was wrong moved the motion. Your reporter asked what the motion was for. Incredibly, Ellerbe  said, "Personal business." Grover said, "Can I get a second on that personal business."

Your reporter asked if this was a single matter of personnel?" Muscara responded that it was. The Board never made a proper motion to enter executive session and none of the Board members made sure that they did.

Before the Board went into executive session, the District Clerk handed out a brochure which dealt with the requirements for finding an interim superintendent. The public was not offered a copy.

It was pointed out the week before by the attorney with SCOPE that discussions regarding the requirements for a superintendent are discussions that lawfully should be held at open meetings. The Board held this meeting in secret.