william e. hamilton v the board of education of the jordan-elbridge school district

7/27/2019 William E. Hamilton V The Board of Education of the Jordan-Elbridge School District

1/161

STATE OFNEW YORKSUPREME COURT: COUNTY OF ONONDAGA=======================================WILLIAM E. HAMILTON

Plaintiff,v.

THE BOARD OF EDUCATION of the JORDANELBRIDGE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, MARY L.ALLEY, DIANA M. FOOTE, JEANNE E. PIEKLIK,PENNY L. FEENEY and CONSTANCE E. DRAKE (the"Board Defendants"), SUSAN A. GORTON, PAULA L.VANMINOS, LAWRENCE J. ZACHER and JAMES R.FROIO (the "Employee Defendants") and DANNY L.MEVEC and ALICIA A. MATTIE (the "ConsultantDefendants") and MARYMADONNA,

Defendants.=======================================

TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT(S):

SUMMONS

Index No.: _RJINo.: _

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action and to servea copy of your answer on the Plaintiffs attorney within twenty (20) days after the service of thissummons, exclusive of the day of service (or within thirty (30) days after the service is completeifthis summons is not personally delivered to you within the State ofNew York); and in case ofyour failure to appear or answer, judgment will he- n against you by default for the reliefdemanded herein.Dated: October 11,2013

Dennis G. O'Hara, Esq.O'HARA, O'CONNELL & CIOTOLIAttorneys for Plaintiffs7207 East Genesee StreetFayetteville, New York 13066(315) 451-3810


2/161

SUPREME COURTSTATE OF NEW YORK

WILLIAM E. HAMILTON

- against-

ONONDAGA COUNTY

Plaintiff,

THE BOARD OF EDUCATION of the JORDANELBRIDGE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, MARY L.ALLEY, DIANA M. FOOTE, JEANNE E. PIEKLIK,PENNY L. FEENEY and CONSTANCE E. DRAKE (the"Board Defendants"), SUSAN A. GORTON, PAULA L.VANMINOS, LAWRENCE J. ZACHER and JAMES R.FROIO (the "Employee Defendants") and DANNY L.MEVEC and ALICIA A. MATTIE (the "ConsultantDefendants") and MARYMADONNA,

Defendants.

VERIFIED COMPLAINTIndex No.: _

Plaintiff, WILLIAM E. HAMILTON, by and through his attorneys, O'HARA,O'CONNELL & CIOTOLI, for his verified complaint against the defendants, states and allegesas follows:

ITHE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff, William E. Hamilton ("Hamilton"), is a resident of the Town ofSkaneateles, County ofOnondaga, and State ofNew York. He was the Assistant Superintendentof Business and Finance of the Jordan-Elbridge Central School District (the "District") fromJune 2003 until that position was abolished as hereinafter described effective June 30, 2013.Hamilton earned tenure in that position as of June 18, 2006.

{W0236466.1}


3/161

2. The District is a municipal corporation organized under and existing pursuant toArticle 37 ofthe New York Education Law, with administrative offices located in the Village ofJordan, New York. The defendant Board of Education (the "Board") is the governing body ofthe District.

3. The defendant Mary Madonna ("Madonna") is named as a party because of therelief sought in the Second and Third Causes of Action against the Board. These causes ofaction assert that the Board was legally required to discontinue Madonna's employment when itabolished the position of Assistant Superintendent of Business and Finance but, instead, illegallydiscontinued Hamilton's employment.

4. With the exception ofMadonna, the individual defendants fall into one of threecategories (i.e., the "Board Defendants," the "Employee Defendants" or the "ConsultantDefendants") as hereinafter described.

The BoardDefendants5. The first category of defendants are those individuals who were previously

members of the Board and who, on several occasions over a considerable period of time,individually and collectively violated their oaths of office, ignored their statutory obligations andabused and exceeded their authority by committing a series of acts against Hamilton and others,with malice and in bad faith, to promote their own personal interests. These individuals areMary L. Alley ("Alley"), Jeanne E. Pieklik ("Pieklik"), Diana M. Foote ("Foote"), Penny L.Feeney ("Feeney") and Constance E. Drake ("Drake") (collectively, the "Board Defendants").

6. Alley was a member of the Board from July 2004 through June 2011, andPresident of the Board for the 2008-09 through 2010-11 school years. She was a member of the

{W0236466.1} 2


4/161

Board at the time that several of the events hereinafter alleged occurred and was the prime actorin planning and carrying out said acts.

7. Pieklik was a member of the Board from July 2001 through June 2011, and wasan influential participant in several of the events and actions against Hamilton as hereinafteralleged.

8. Foote was employed by the District as the District 's Treasurer until the fall of2005. As Treasurer, she reported to Hamilton and she abruptly quit her employment, with nonotice, when Hamilton constructively criticized her job performance. Foote thereafter became amember of the Board from July 2008 until June 30, 2011. She was vice-president of the Boardduring the 2010-11 school year. Foote was a member of the Board at the time that several of theevents hereinafter alleged occurred and, acting in concert with other Board Defendants,committed a series ofmalicious, retaliatory and unwarranted acts against Hamilton.

9. Feeney was a member of the Board from July 2003 through June 30, 2012. Shewas vice-president of the Board for the 2005-06 and 2006-07 school years. Feeney was amember of the Board at the time that several of the events hereinafter alleged occurred and,acting in concert with other Board Defendants, was responsible for conceiving and carrying outseveral ofthe acts against Hamilton as hereinafter alleged.

10. Drake was a member of the Board from July 2009 through June 30, 2012 and wasvice-president of the Board for the 2011-12 school year. She was a member of the Board at thetime that several of the events hereinafter alleged occurred and, acting in concert with otherBoard Defendants, was a prime actor in planning and carrying out several malicious actionsagainst Hamilton.

{W0236466.1} 3


5/161

The Employee Defendants11. The second category of individual defendants are those District employees who,

personally and/or collectively, sought to ingratiate themselves with the Board Defendants and/orthe Board by committing tortious, unethical and malicious acts toward Hamilton and others inbad faith to assist the Board Defendants in their efforts to terminate the employment of saidindividuals. In exchange for such collaboration, these District employees were rewarded withtaxpayer supported employment, and/or promotions, and/or increased compensation and benefits.These rewards were bestowed by the Board without concern for equity or any rationalcompensation plan. These employees are Susan A. Gorton ("Gorton"), Paula L. VanMinos("VanMinos"), Lawrence J. Zacher ("Zacher") and James R. Froio ("Froio") (collectively, the"Employee Defendants").

12. Gorton was the District's Assistant Superintendent ofInstruction until she retiredfrom the District on September 7, 2012. As hereinafter discussed, Gorton was a "friend" of theBoard Defendants and she connived with those defendants to replace Marilyn Dominick("Dominick") as the District's Superintendent of Schools so that she could be appointed to thatposition. In her efforts to ingratiate herself with the Board Defendants and the Board, Gortonwrongfully contrived grounds to terminate the employment of Hamilton and others.

13. VanMinos was the District's Director of Operations from October 6, 2008 untilshe was fired by the Board in disgrace on May 16, 2011. Prior to her fall from grace, however,the Board Defendants and VanMinos schemed to have VanMinos replace Hamilton. After theBoard suspended Hamilton in July 2010, it put VanMinos in charge of the District's BusinessOffice and gave her significant salary increases and other benefits, including an unconscionable,unprecedented and illegal employment agreement. As hereinafter described, VanMinos sought

{W0236466.1} 4


6/161


7/161


8/161

in the second set of charges. The remaining charges are the subject of an on-going hearing beingconducted pursuant to Education Law 3020-a.

I INATURE OF THIS ACTION

22. In this action, Hamilton asserts the following causes of action and seeks thefollowing relief:

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

{W0236466.1}

As requested in the First Cause of Action, an Order and Judgment pursuant toCPLR 3001 and Article 78 declaring that the purported abolishment of theposition as Assistant Superintendent for Business and Finance is null and void asbeing conceived and implemented in bad faith for the sole purpose ofcircumventing Hamil ton' s statutory tenure rights, and ordering Hamil ton' sreinstatement with back pay and benefits.As requested in the Second Cause ofAction, an Order and Judgment pursuant toCPLR 3001 declaring that the agreement between Madonna and the Board(Exhibit "G") that purports to retroactively change her tenure area at the end ofher probationary period so as to deprive Hamilton of his statutory rights underEducation Law 2510(2) is null and void.As requested in the Third Cause of Action, an Order and Judgment of this Courtpursuant to CPLR 3001 and 2510(2) declaring Hamilton 's rights underEducation Law 2510(2) and annulling the Board's determination to terminatehis employment while continuing to employ Madonna, together with anappropriate award ofback pay and benefits.As requested in the Fourth Cause of Action, an Order and Judgment pursuant toCPLR 3001 and 2510(1) declaring Hamilton's rights under Education Law 2510(1) and requir ing the Board to appoint Hamilton to any position created toperfonn the duties of his fonner position ofAssistant Superintendent for Businessand Finance, together with an appropriate award ofback pay and benefits.As requested in the Fifth Cause of Action, an Order and Judgment pursuant toCPLR Article 78 and Public Officers Law 107(1) voiding the so-called"reorganization" plan that was illegally discussed and approved by the Board inexecutive session(s) in violation of the Open Meetings Law, voiding all

7


9/161

(f)

(g)

(h)

(i)

(j)

(k)

{W0236466.1}

subsequent actions taken by the Board pursuant to that plan including theabolition ofHamilton's former position, and ordering the Board is to refrain fromany further violations of the requirements of the Open Meetings Law, togetherwith an appropriate award of back pay and benefits and attorneys' fees toHamilton pursuant to Public Officers Law 107(2).As requested in the Sixth cause of Action, an Order and Judgment granting apreliminary injunction pursuant to CPLR Article 63 enjoining defendants fromcontinuing the abolition of Hamilton's position and termination of hisemployment on the ground that he has demanded and is entitled to a judgmentrescinding the abolition of his position and termination of his employment, which,if continued during the pendency of this action, would produce injury toHamilton.As requested in the Seventh Cause ofAction, an Order and Judgment pursuant toEducation Law 3028-d rescinding defendants' abolition of Hamilton's positionand termination of his employment in retaliation for his reporting inappropriateand illegal acts, together with an award of compensatory damages sufficient tocompensate him for all harms and injuries suffered as a result of the defendantsretaliatory actions.As requested in the Eighth Cause of Action, an Order and Judgment awardingcompensatory and punitive damages for the several adverse employment actionscommitted by the defendants in retaliation for Hamilton's exercise of his right ofFree Speech under both the Federal and New York State Constitutions.As requested in the Ninth Cause of Action, an Order and Judgment awardingcompensatory and punitive damages for the unconstitutional restraint uponHamilton's right of free speech in violation of the First Amendment to the UnitedStates Constitution and Article I, 8 of the New York State Constitution bythreatening him with further disciplinary charges if he did not cease and desistfrom making public comments on the proposed budget.As requested in the Tenth Cause of Action, an Order and Judgment awardingcompensatory and punitive damages against all defendants for the intentionalabuse of the Education Law 3020-a process by filing and continuing toprosecute charges that they knew to be false and without any factual basis.As requested in the Eleventh Cause of Action, an Order and Judgment awardingcompensatory and punitive damages against the Board and Froio for theintentional abuse of the 8 NYCRR Part 83 process by filing charges that Froio

8


10/161

knew or should have known to be false and by failing to notify the StateEducation Department as information came to his attention that the Part 83charges he had filed seeking to revoke Hamilton's certifications were notsupported by the facts.

(1) As requested in the Twelfth Cause of Action, an Order and Judgment awardingcompensatory and punitive damages from the relevant defendants in theirindividual capacities for the defamatory comments made by said defendants,individually and collectively.

(m) As requested in Thirteenth Cause of Action, an Order and Judgment awardingcompensatory and punitive damages for the intentional concerted infliction ofemotional distress and psychological harm that Hamilton has suffered as aconsequence of defendants' actions.

(n) As requested in the Fourteenth Cause ofAction, an Order and Judgment awardingcompensatory and punitive damages to Hamilton for the tortious actionscommitted by defendants against Hamilton, without legal justification, and withthe intent to cause him pecuniary harm.

(0) As requested in the Fifteenth Cause of Action, an Order and Judgment awardingcompensatory and punitive damages to Hamilton for the malicious and tortiousinterference with prospective contract rights.

(p) As requested in the Sixteenth Cause of Action, an Order and Judgment awardingcompensatory and punitive damages to Hamilton for defendants' malicious andtortious interference with Hamilton's present and future economic relations.

IIIJURISDICTION AND VENUE

23. Hamilton has complied with all applicable notice of claim requirements underNew York law, including the General Municipal Law, by serving the Board with a timely andadequately detailed statement of his claims as they were known to exist on or about August 12,2011.

{W0236466.1} 9


11/161

24. Hamilton submitted to an oral examination regarding his Notice of Claimpursuant to New York State General Municipal Law 50-h on September 23,2011.

25. More than 30 days have elapsed since the Notice of Claim was served and noadjustment or payment thereofhas been effectuated by the District.

26. This action has been commenced within all applicable time limits in light of thecontinuing, ongoing nature of the tortious actions and schemes alleged herein.

27. Venue is proper pursuant to CPLR 503(a) and 504(2).

IVTHE BACKGROUND FACTS

28. For an extensive period of time, the Board Defendants controlled the Board andgoverned the District as if i t was a private enterprise, rewarding "friends" and punishing"enemies" and squandering taxpayer money and resources in the process. District employeeswere hired, promoted and fired on the basis of their personal standing with the BoardDefendants, rather than on the basis of merit and fitness. During this period, the BoardDefendants bestowed unwarranted financial benefits on "friends" and indiscriminately wastedDistrict funds in efforts to manufacture and, if necessary, prosecute charges against employeeswho they considered to be "enemies," including Hamilton.

Hamilton 's Perceived Association with Schue.29. One of the more contentious conflicts within the District in recent years was the

highly public campaign by the Board Defendants to terminate the employment of Janice Schue("Schue"), the former Principal of the District's Elbridge Elementary School. Upon informationand belief, some Elbridge Elementary School teachers who were unhappy with Schue's efforts to

{W0236466.1} 10


12/161


13/161

33. In January 2010, Hamilton informed Dominick that he believed it was a waste ofDistrict money and Schue's talents to assign her to the make-work position and he suggested thatshe be transferred to work with him in the Business Office. In several conversations withDominick and others, Hamilton also expressed his opinion that the treatment of Schue by theBoard and Mevec was a senseless waste of her talents and District money and likely to embroilthe District in litigation.

34. Upon information and belief, the Board Defendants were paranoid about thepossibility that any District employee might be a supporter of Schue. Upon further informationand belief, they were aware of Hamilton's opinions regarding the situation with Schue andinterpreted this to mean that he was her "friend" and supporter. For that reason, they consideredhim to be a persona non grata.

Hamilton's PerceivedAssociation with Dominick.35. The Board Defendants meddled in every aspect of the District 's business

operations and educational program, making critical educational and personnel decisions basedon who was in their good graces and who was not. In the process, they ignoredrecommendations of the Superintendent and other individuals who, by virtue of their educationsand professional experiences, had knowledge and expertise in educational matters. The resultingdysfunctional relationship between the Board Defendants and the District's administration wascontentious to a degree unprecedented in most public school districts in New York State.

36. Dominick became the District's Superintendent of Schools on January 24, 2000,and was employed under a contract with the Board that extended until June 30, 2012. Uponinformation and belief, she intended to serve out the full term of her employment.

{W0236466.1} 12


14/161


15/161

Dominick and secretly communicated directly with Alley and other Board Defendants onsignificant issues and, in the process, often distorted and misrepresented the facts to feed theBoard Defendants' obsession with terminating Dominick's employment. The Board Defendantsalso unsuccessfully attempted to recruit Hamilton to assist them in their campaign againstDominick but he refused to join this cabal.

41. During the time period that the Board Defendants and others were abusingDominick in an effort to force the early termination of her employment, she kept a writtentimeline of some of the actions committed in the course of this malicious campaign. Ms.Dominick was subpoenaed to testify in the 3020-a proceeding that the Board Defendantscommenced against the District's High School Principal David Zehner ("Zehner") and, undercompulsion of the subpoena, was required to produce a copy of her timeline. A copy of thattimeline is annexed as Exhibit "A."

42. Upon information and belief, the Board Defendants, Mevec and Mattie hadpreviously used threats to cause other employees who were not in their good graces to resigntheir employment. Their standard tactic was for Mattie to attempt to find some basis for apotential charge against an employee, no matter how tenuous, and for Mevec to then threaten theemployee with disciplinary charges unless they resigned their position. Mevec would also claimthat the Attorney General's office was ready to criminally prosecute the employee unless he orshe resigned. To make the situation seem even more serious to the employee involved, Alleyand sometimes another Board Defendant would attend the meeting at which Mevec delivered theultimatum to resign or face disciplinary charges and/or prosecution by the Attorney General'soffice. It did not matter to Mevec, Mattie or the Board Defendants that there was absolutely nomerit to any such charges.

{W0236466.1} 14


16/161

43. Upon further information and belief, Mevec and Alley used these same tacticsagainst Dominick. With the Board Defendants' knowledge and approval, Mevec and Alleythreatened to file disciplinary charges against her and to cause the Attorney General's office toprosecute alleged improper expense reimbursement claims if she did not resign before June 30,2012. Upon information and belief, Mevec, Alley and the Board Defendants knew at the timethat there was absolutely no validity to any assertion of improper expense reimbursement byDominick.

44. In the face of persistent demeaning and threatening conduct, Dominick eventuallyagreed to terminate her employment early. She and the Board entered into a severanceagreement, dated May 5, 2010, in which she committed to retire twenty (20) months early onNovember 1, 2010. A copy of the settlement agreement between Dominick and the Board isannexed as Exhibit "B."

45. The Board Defendants' plan was to replace Dominick with Gorton as theDistrict's Superintendent of Schools, and they appointed Gorton as Interim Superintendent assoon as Dominick agreed to retire early. The Board Defendants' plan to appoint Gorton, like somuch of their scheming, had been illegally presented to and rubber-stamped by the rest of theBoard in a secret executive session behind closed doors.

46. Gorton would have become the District's permanent Superintendent of Schoolsbut for the fact that Zehner successfully sued to set aside the action of the Board appointing heras Interim Superintendent on the ground that it violated the Open Meetings Law. A copy of thedecision of Supreme Court Justice Donald Greenwood that rescinded Gorton's appointment isannexed as Exhibit "C."

{W0236466.1} 15


17/161

47. Hamilton was critical of the fact that the Board Defendants regularly usurped theauthority of the Superintendent of Schools, as well as the cruel manner in which Dominick wastreated by the Board, Gorton, Mattie and Mevec. The Board Defendants perceived that Hamiltonwas a supporter ofDominick and, consequently, viewed him as someone who was not a "friend."Upon information and belief, the Board Defendants believed that anyone who questioned theirconduct, including Hamilton, was an "enemy," who should be replaced.

Hamilton's Escalating Concerns Regarding Mevec 's Performance and Billing48. Hamilton's standing with the Board Defendants was further harmed by the fact

that he simply did his job. As the District's Assistant Superintendent for Business and Finance,he oversaw the District's financial operations. His responsibilities included the obligation toinform the Superintendent and the Board in the event a service provider was not perfornlingcompetently and/or the District was not receiving value for the cost of such services.

49. In late 2009 and early 2010, Hamilton became increasingly concerned withMevec's lack of competence and his questionable billing practices. Throughout May and June2010, Hamilton informed Dominick of his concerns regarding Mevec. He also recommended, inwriting, that the District consider terminating its relationship with Mevec and retaining newcounsel. One of Hamilton's recommendations to Dominick regarding Mevec is annexed asExhibit "D."

50. Unbeknown to Hamilton, at that time, Mevec and Pieklik were involved in anillicit romantic relationship and, for this reason, Hamilton's well-intended criticisms of Mevec'sperformance and billing practices brought about the wrath of Pieklik and eventually other BoardDefendants. Upon information and belief, Mevec and Pieklik decided that they had to get rid ofHamilton in order to protect Mevec's position as the Board's attorney. To that end, they began a

{W0236466.1} 16


18/161

senes of actions I I I conceli with other Board Defendants I I I an effort to end Hamilton'semployment.

51. These actions were primarily carried out by VanMinos, Mevec and Mattie.VanMinos' motivation was the promise by the Board Defendants that she would replaceHamilton once his employment was tenninated. Mevec had an obvious personal and retaliatorymotivation as discussed above, and he was also paid significant fees for the time he allegedlyspent in efforts to terminate Hamilton's employment. 1 Mattie also greatly profited monetarilyby doing the bidding of the Board Defendants. In the process, she abandoned all concern forprofessional ethics and disregarded the obligations imposed on an Internal Auditor by applicableauditing standards.

The Board Defendants Determine to Replace Hamilton with VanMinos52. Upon infonnation and belief, in retaliation for Hamilton's perceived association

with Schue and Dominick and his criticisms of Mevec's poor perfonnance and questionablebilling practices, the Board Defendants decided to end Hamilton's employment and replace himwith VanMinos. VanMinos was a willing participant in this plan and aggressively attempted tothereafter find some basis to force Hamilton to resign.

53. As the District's Director of Operations, VanMinos was to report directly to andbe supervised by Hamilton. However, after she became an active participant in the BoardDefendants' attempts to find or manufacture some evidence of misconduct against him, she

During this same time period, Alley demanded that bills for Mevec's services be paidimmediately, ahead of the nonnal payment cycle, and without proper audit. In fact, after bothDominick and Hamilton continued to question Mevec's bills, Alley began to personallyauthorize payment of those bills without proper audit.{W0236466.1} 17


19/161

frequently ignored Hamilton (and Dominick) and circumvented the established chain ofcommand by dealing directly with the Board Defendants, Gorton, Mattie and/or Mevec.

54. In June 2010, Alley informed VanMinos that Hamilton was "going out the doorwhether he wants to or whether he goes nicely or hard," and that she and the Board Defendants(i.e., a "little committee") wanted to "write a contract/or [VanMinos] to be the business officialat Jordan-Elbridge." Upon information and belief, VanMinos coveted Hamilton's position and,for that reason, fabricated allegations and misrepresented his actions in an effort to portray himas being incompetent, immoral and/or insubordinate. A transcript ofAlley's voicemail messageto VanMinos is annexed as Exhibit "E."

The BoardDefendants Begin Overt Action againstHamilton55. Upon information and belief, the Board Defendants, Mattie and Mevec planned to

use the same threatening tactic against Hamilton that they had successfully used with otherperceived "enemies." Toward that end, they se t out to find some basis they could use for suchthreats.

56. For example, Mattie and VanMinos demanded that staffmembers at the Cayuga-Onondaga BOCES Central Business Office ("CBO") in Auburn, New York spend countlesshours, at the expense of the other school districts that participated in the CBO, to pour throughpayroll and accounting records in an attempt to find something they could use against Hamilton.Upon information and belief, neither Mattie nor VanMinos had been granted the authority byDominick or by the BOCES administration to use CBO staff members to conduct such anextensive investigation.

57. Foote assisted in this effort by calling a CBO staffmember after hours to ask thatshe help "dig up dirt" on Hamilton. Apparently, Foote assumed that this CBO staff member,

{W0236466.1} 18


20/161


21/161

62. On June 2,2010, Hamilton was ordered to attend an "ambush" meeting at whichAlley confronted him regarding alleged improprieties with respect to discussions that he andanother District employee had recently had with an arborist regarding possible tree removal workat a school site. Upon information and belief, VanMinos had previously informed Alley thatthere was some impropriety in that interaction, although none existed.

63. As hereinafter described, the Board Defendants, with the active assistance ofMevec, Mattie and VanMinos, thereafter undertook a series of actions with the intent andpurpose of creating bogus charges against Hamilton. In the process, they cajoled and at timesthreatened District employees and service providers to provide false and slanted informationagainst Hamilton and/or to withhold exculpatory information relative to Hamilton.

Mattie Abuses her Position as Internal Auditor to Assist the Board Defendants64. As of July 1, 2006, New York Education Law 2116-b required that the District

establish an internal audit function to (a) review and develop a risk assessment of the District'sfinancial policies, procedures and internal controls, and (b) recommend changes forstrengthening financial controls and reducing identified risks.

65. The statute permits the District to retain an independent contractor to fulfill theinternal audit function. In this regard, the Board has reappointed Mattie as the District's InternalAuditor since July 2008 despite the fact that, upon information and belief, she lacks thesubstantive knowledge and skills required to properly perfonn the duties of the position and isnot qualified by training, experience or ethical foundation to properly perform the internal auditfunction for a public school district in the State ofNew York.

66. Mattie professes that she conducts her audits I I I compliance with GenerallyAccepted Government Auditing Standards ("GAGAS"), which would require that she be

{W0236466.1} 20


22/161


23/161

69. Moreover, in April 2012 Froio rejected a Board member's suggestion that theDistrict consider issuing an RFP for internal audit services on the ground that Mattie was"paramount" to the District's litigation efforts against Hamilton and others. Apparently, Froio iswilling to perpetuate the questionable arrangement with Mattie because he believes that shewould testify one way if she were being paid by the District and another way if she were not.

70. In fact, Mattie has been such a key player in the campaign to get Hamilton andothers that, on or about May 2, 20 12, Froio and the Board agreed to pay her an additional stipendfor "time spent on legal/litigation assistance," and to do so at a premium rate of $65 an houralthough her contract rate was then $50 an hour. Also, the Board gave Mattie this 30% rateincrease and committed to pay her an additional $9,750 for her help with "litigation" withouthaving issued an RFP for such services.

71. As hereinafter alleged, Mattie also made malicious and unsupported allegations tolaw enforcement authorities that Hamilton and others had committed criminal or other actionablemisconduct. These allegations were either known to Mattie to be false at the time they weremade, or were maliciously or recklessly made with utter disregard for the truth thereof. Insummary, Mattie's entire body ofwork for the District makes it clear that she has operated as apartisan advocate for the Board Defendants and not as an independent, unbiased and competentauditor.

72. Shortly after Hamilton was suspended on July 7,2010, the District requested thatthe local Comptroller's office perform another audit of internal controls over the Treasuryfunction. This followed the Comptroller's audit on "Internal Controls Over Selected FinancialOperations" that covered the period from July 1, 2006 to December 31,2007. Upon informationand belief, Mattie and the Board Defendants convinced the Comptroller to conduct this highly

{W0236466.1} 22


24/161


25/161


26/161


27/161


28/161

attorney asked SED to notify Mr. Rabin of his selection. However, the Board's attorney thenreneged on the agreement to appoint Mr. Rabin and advised SED that "1 am writing to informyou 1 cannot go along with the alternative selection of Mr. Rabin as Hearing Officer anylonger. "

90. Thereafter, the Board did virtually nothing to move along the appointment of aHearing Officer. In fact, every subsequent contact with SED was initiated by Hamilton'scounsel. As a consequence of the defendants delay, a 3020-a Hearing Officer was notappointed until almost twenty-nine (29) months after the initial charges had been filed againstHamilton.

91. The defendants also systematically withheld material and relevant documents thatHamilton was entitled to receive under Education Law 3020-a and ignored requests forrelevant documents that had been made by or on behalfofHamilton pursuant to the Freedom ofInformation Law ("FOIL"). This conduct not only delayed the proceeding but also costHamilton money for legal fees to respond to the Board's delaying tactics. Upon information andbelief, the defendants recklessly spent taxpayer funds on unnecessary litigation to causeHamilton to incur additional legal costs with the transparent goal of beating him into economicsubmission.

92. Rather than t imely prosecute the initial charges against Hamilton in compliancewith Education Law 3020-a, the Board spent hundreds of thousands oftaxpayer dollars on feesfor lawyers, Mattie, private investigators, external auditors, interim employees and District staffin a massive effort to find some microscopic basis for charges related to Hamilton's jobperformance. Upon information and belief, the Board also devoted substantial District assets inan unsuccessful effort to find some substantive reason for charges against the High School

{W0236466.1} 27


29/161

Principal, David Zehner, who similarly decided to defend himself rather than resign in the faceof defendants' threats.

93. The defendants' malicious efforts to end Hamilton's employment also includedmaking false allegations of criminal conduct to law enforcement authorities with the hope ofconvincing them to commence criminal proceedings against him, making patently false claims ofmisconduct to SED in an effort to have his professional certifications revoked, and filingadditional 3020-a charges against him. None of these law enforcement agencies havecommenced any type ofproceeding against Hamilton.

94. The net effect of the defendants' actions toward Hamilton has been to make itimpossible for him to obtain another position in public education. As of the date of thiscomplaint, he has submitted over thirty-five (35) applications for equivalent positions in otherschool districts. The universal response has been that these school districts will not touch himunless and until he is exonerated of all charges that have been levied against him by thedefendants.

95. Upon information and belief, defendants' initial plan was to force Hamilton toresign out of economic necessity with the beliefthat he could not afford to match public funds todefend the charges and respond to other actions of the defendants. Some of the other moreegregious actions of the defendants intended to beat Hamilton into economic submission are asfollows:

(aJ The Board Hires Kessler After Hamilton is Charged96. Some two months after the charges were finally filed against Hamilton, the Board

retained a private investigator, Kessler International, Inc. ("Kessler"), to investigate thosecharges. Upon information and belief, Kessler was actually retained to try and find some basis to

{W0236466.1} 28


30/161


31/161

100. As the Superintendent of a school district that had spent more than $100,000 forKessler's investigation, he certainly knew or should have known whether the informationgathered by Kessler supported or belied the charges being prosecuted by the Board at significanttaxpayer expense. Upon information and belief, the reason for such an incredulous claim byFroio was that Kessler's investigation conclusively demonstrated that the charges were withoutmerit.

101. Upon information and belief, the bad faith and utter hypocrisy of Froio and theBoard with respect to Kessler is clear from the fact that they thereafter did produce Kessler as awitness in the Hamilton 3020-a proceeding without raising a single question as to his tactics orthe reliability of his conclusions. In fact, Froio sat by Kessler's side throughout his testimony asif to vouch for his credibility.

102. Upon further information and belief, the malice and bad faith of Froio and theBoard is evident from their efforts to withhold exculpatory information from the Hearing Officerin a 3020-a proceeding in violation of Education Law 3020-a, the due process rights ofDistrict employees, and fundamental ethical principles that govern the conduct of proceedingsbefore a tribunal.

(b) Zacher and VanMinos Collude to Manufacture Charges Against Hamilton103. Upon information and belief, VanMinos and Zacher were involved in an intimate

personal relationship after Zacher was appointed as Interim Superintendent of the District.Hamilton had no knowledge of that relationship, as he was suspended at the time.

104. VanMinos and Zacher conspired to manufacture false evidence ofmisconduct byHamilton in an effort to wrongfully secure Hamilton's job for VanMinos. Zacher's romantic

fWD236466.1} 30


32/161


33/161


34/161


35/161


36/161


37/161


38/161

128. Upon information and belief, the Amended Charges were brought for the samemalicious reasons as the initial charges and all allegations in other forums. That is, to (a)

wrongfully continue Hamilton's suspension, (b) place financial pressure on him to resign hisemployment, and (c) retaliate against him.

(f) Froio Files a Part83 ComplaintAgainst Hamilton.129. Upon information and belief, in November or December of 2011, Froio traveled

to Albany to meet with Bart Zabin ("Zabin") from SED to discuss the filing of a complaintagainst Hamilton pursuant to 8 NYCRR Part 83 ..

130. Upon information and belief, Froio presented a draft of a Part 83 complaint toZabin, which alleged that Hamilton had ''poor moral character unbecoming of an AssistantSuperintendent ofBusiness and Finance." At that time, Froio knew or should have known thatthis draft contained several allegations that were false.

131. Froio filed his Part 83 complaint seeking to revoke Hamilton's administrativecertifications on April 10,2012. This was two months after Amended Charges were filed, somefive months after he met with Zabin, and after Kessler had submitted at least ten (10) reports tothe Board which illustrated that many of these allegations ofmisconduct against Hamilton werewithout merit.

132. Froio filed the Part 83 complaint in bad faith and with malice, after he knew orhad reason to know that the allegations in that complaint were without merit. Upon informationand belief, he did so in an attempt to bludgeon Hamilton into submission in the pending 3020-aproceeding.

(g) The BoardAbolishes Hamilton's Position to Circumvent his Tenure Rights

{W0236466.1} 37


39/161


40/161


41/161


42/161

142. Upon information and belief, the sole reason for Froio's recommendation toabolish Hamilton's position was to set up a situation where there would be no position for him toreturn to when the 3020-a charges against him were dismissed. This tactic is a blatant bad faitheffort to circumvent Hamilton's statutory rights as a tenured employee.

(h) Froio's "Plan" was to Create a Civil Service Position for Mahaney143. On January 16,2013, the Board abolished Hamilton's position. On the same day,

it also approved an employment agreement with the District 's Treasurer, James Mahaney("Mahaney") that gave him a 33% raise (from $58,820 to $78,000 per year). That raise wasmade retroactive to July 1, 2012. Upon information and belief, this agreement and thesignificant increase in Mahoney's compensation was part of Froio's "plan" to reorganizeHamilton out of a position in circumvention of his tenure rights.

144. Upon information and belief, Froio's unannounced plan was to have Mahaneypass an open competitive test for the position ofDirector ofAccounting that was scheduled to beadministered by the Onondaga County Civil Service Commission, and then reassign the duties ofHamilton's position to Mahaney as a Civil Service rather than a certified employee. This was aneffort by Froio to create a position that would not be "similar" to Hamilton's position within themeaning ofEducation Law 2510(l).

145. However, on February 26, 2013, the Onondaga Civil Service Commissionpublished the eligibility list based on the results of the Open Competitive test it had administeredfor the position of Director of Accounting. Upon information and belief, Mahaney failed thattest.

146. Consequently, Froio had to develop a different plan. Upon information andbelief, under this revised plan Froio would be personally responsible for the District's business{W0236466.1} 41


43/161

operation and he would supervise the District Treasurer, an account clerk, two administrativeaides and a personnel aide who would collectively perform Hamilton's duties.

147. Even if Froio's so-called "administrative reorganization" had been conceived ingood faith and was not an obvious pretext to circumvent Hamilton's tenure rights, the current"plan" is facially absurd on two levels. First, Froio has no training, education, experience orcertification in school district finance and is eminently unqualified to supervise a $27 milliondollar school district business operation. Second, an account clerk, two administrative aides anda personnel aide are not legally qualified to perform the essential duties ofHamilton's position.

(i) Froio's Plan is Based on a False Premise.148. Moreover, the plan is predicated on false information provided by Froio as to the

administrative structure of other school districts in New York State and, in particular, theresponsibility for business operations. Specifically, Froio represented to the public and to theBoard in August 2012 that he would "be hardpressed to find a school district of1,400 kids withtwo assistant superintendents," implying that the District was overstaffed since it had anAssistant Superintendent for Business and Finance and an Assistant Superintendent forCurriculum and Instruction.

149. Upon information and belief, the claim that most school districts with similarenrollments do not have a dedicated school business official responsible for business and financehelped convince the Board to eliminate Hamilton's position. However, for the reasons set forthbelow, Froio's claim in this regard is false.

150. The membership of the New York State Association of School Business Officials("NYSASBO") includes individuals employed by 565 school districts (i.e., they are notemployees of a BOCES, private school, or other agency). Within that membership, there are at

{W0236466.1} 42


44/161


45/161


46/161

these ten school districts is 565 (they range from 310 to 950), which approximately one-third ofthe District's enrollment of 1,449 students. The Superintendent is also the Business

Administrator (i.e., Superintendent/Business Administrator) in only one of these districts.Business Manager/Treasurer 600 1Business Manager/Treasurer 696 1Business Manager/District Treasurer 353 1School Business Official/Treasurer 609 1School Accountant/Business Manager 950 ISchool Business Manager/Treasurer 651 1Business Official/District Treasurer 576 1Superintendent/Business Administrator 310 IBusiness Official/Treasurer 394 1District Treasurer/Business Manager 508 1Grand Total 10

157. Finally, the District is the only school district among its enrollment peers in theentire State of New York that has abolished its chief financial officer's position. Of the 565school districts that are NYSASBO members, 31 had student enrollments for 2012 in the rangeof 1,400 to 1,500 students. As shown in the following table, every single one of these districtshas a dedicated business official. In fact, ten out of the 31 districts (32%) employ AssistantSuperintendents as their chief financial officer.

BEDS District NameAkron Central School DistrictAttica Central School DistrictBlind Brook-Rye Union Free School DistrictCarle Place Union Free School DistrictCheektowaga-Sloan Union Free SchoolDistrictCoxsackie-Athens Central School District

{W0236466.1}

EJu:!!l! ~ tJ.1,480 School Business Administrator 11,467 Business Administrator 11,488 Assistant Superintendent Finance & Facilities 1Treasurer 11,408 Assistant Superintendent for Business 1Assistant Business Administrator 11,415 Director ofFinance & Administrative 1Services1,490 Assistant Superintendent for School Services 1Treasurer 1

45


47/161


48/161


49/161

(k) The District Belatedly Withdraws Specifications in an Attempt to Avoid theConsequences ofProsecuting "Frivolous" Charges

163. Education Law 3020-a(4)(c) provides as follows:The hearing officer shall indicate in the decision whether any of thecharges brought by the employing board were frivolous as defined insection eighty-three hundred three-a of the civil practice law and rules.If the hearing officer finds that all of the charges brought against theemployee were frivolous, the hearing officer shall order the employingboard to reimburse the department the reasonable costs said departmentincurred as a result of the proceeding and to reimburse the employee thereasonable costs, including but not limited to reasonable attorneys' fees,the employee incurred in defending the charges. If the hearing officerfinds that some but not all of the charges brought against the employeewere frivolous, the hearing officer shall order the employing board toreimburse the department a portion, in the discretion of the hearing officer,of the reasonable costs said department incurred as a result of theproceeding and to reimburse the employee a portion, in the discretion ofthe hearing officer, of the reasonable costs, including but not limited toreasonable attorneys' fees, the employee incurred in defending thecharges.

164. Most, if not all, ofthe withdrawn charges are, in fact, frivolous.165. On March 22, 2013, when the hearing on the charges was finally imminent, the

District withdrew sixty-two (62) specifications from the initial charges (approximately 53%).The District also withdrew seven (7) specifications from the Amended Charges (approximately6%). In total, eighty-two (82) or 33% of the specifications in the Original and Amended Chargesagainst Hamilton were withdrawn before the first day of hearings in the 3020-a proceeding.

166. The defendants withdrew these facially frivolous allegations in the apparent hopethat the 11 th hour withdrawal of such charges might avoid the consequences of Education Law 3020-a(4)(c) for the prosecution of "frivolous' charges.

{W0236466.1} 48


50/161


51/161

position to be abolished was Hamilton's position. This plan was conceived to circumventHamilton's statutory tenure rights. Moreover, it did not achieve any real and meaningful

efficiencies and/or economies for the District.173. On January 2, 2013, the Board conducted an executive session for the stated

purpose of: "Discussing litigation strategy for 3020-a vs. Hamilton." Upon information andbelief, Froio and the Board agreed during that executive session or at an earlier executive sessionthat the Board would thereafter abolish Hamilton's position as a means to prevent his return fromsuspension in the event he prevailed in the pending 3020-a proceeding.

174. Pursuant to Froio's recommendation, the Board adopted a resolution on January16,2013 that abolished Hamilton's position, effective June 30, 2013.

175. Under New York law, a tenured position may not be abolished as a subterfuge tocircumvent the tenure rights of an employee. However, upon information and belief, the Boardabolished Hamilton's position in bad faith in order to circumvent his tenure rights and not forany good faith reasons of economy or efficiency. The overarching purpose of the so-called"reorganization" is to cut off Hamilton's pay and benefits to make it impossible for him tocontinue to defend the 3020-a charges against him.

176. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' conduct, Hamilton has sufferedactual and special damages including monetary damages, loss wages and benefits, emotional andpsychological damages, embarrassment, humiliation, emotional distress, mental anguish andsuffering, and damage to his professional reputation and career.

{W0236466.1} 50


52/161


53/161


54/161


55/161


56/161


57/161


58/161


59/161


60/161


61/161


62/161


63/161

231. Upon information and belief, Froio never asked Hamilton for any informationregarding the validity of the charges he levied against him and, in fact, he did not meet Hamilton

until they were introduced on the first day of Hamilton's 3020-a hearing. Upon furtherinformation and belief, Froio abused the aforementioned processes in exchange for financialrewards from the Board in the form of future employment contracts and increased salary andbenefits.

232. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' conduct, Hamilton continues tosuffer personal and psychological injury and financial impairment to his ability to earn a living.Hamilton's damages in the form of future loss wages, benefits and professional opportunitieswill continue to accrue for the remainder ofhis professiona11ife.

233. The defendants' conduct has also directly and proximately caused Hamilton toincur significant attorneys' fees to defend against the various charges and complaints broughtagainst him and in order to retain his employment with the District.

234. Hamilton requests monetary and punitive damages from the Board for the harmand injuries suffered as a result of this abuse of process in an amount to be determined by thetrier of fact.

FOR ANELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTIONAGAINSTTHE BOARDAND FOR ACAUSE OFACTIONAGAINST THE DEFENDANTFROIO, INDIVIDUALLY

-ABUSE OF PROCESS UNDER 8NYCRR PART 83-

235. Hamilton hereby incorporates all previous paragraphs of this Complaint as if fullyset forth herein.

236. Upon information and belief, Froio obtained the position of superintendent ofschools by committing to assist the Board Defendants in their campaign against Hamilton,regardless of the merits of that campaign.{W0236466.1} 62


64/161


65/161


66/161

246. In making these defamatory public statements, the defendants individually andcollectively either knew that they were false or they made them with reckless disregard for the

truth.247. The defendants communicated these defamatory and slanderous statements to the

public at large at Board meetings open to the public and in remarks made to other individuals.The public and these third parties reasonably understood these statements to refer to Hamiltonbecause they either referenced him by name or were made in a context that clearly implied theywere referencing Hamilton.

248. The above-referenced defamatory and slanderous statements were patently falseand injured Hamilton's reputation by subjecting him to public ridicule, hatred or contempt,causing him to lose the public's esteem, and injuring him in his profession or trade.

249. The above-referenced defamatory statements were made with actual malicetowards Hamilton, with a gross disregard for the truth, with utter and reckless disregard to the

effect of the statements, and with a wrongful and willful intent to injure Hamilton, hisprofessional and personal reputation and physical and emotional well-being, and to expose himto ridicule and contempt in the community in which he lives and works.

250. The defendants knew that these statements were false because they all had accessto and were privy to information that refuted the statements. Consequently, the defendants knewthat there was a complete absence of any evidence to support these false accusations.

251. The above actions by the defendants, individually and collectively, directly andproximately caused Hamilton special harm including, but not limited to, monetary damages,damage to his reputation, humiliation, physical and emotional distress, mental anguish andimpacted his ability to obtain new employment.

{W0236466.1} 65


67/161


68/161


69/161


70/161


71/161


72/161


73/161


74/161


75/161

290. The following acts of interference with Hamilton's contractual rights by Zacherwere culpable, done with wrongful means, and done with the primary purpose of inflicting

financial injury upon Hamilton:a. Zacher acted with malevolent and improper intentions designed primarily

to inflict financial injury upon Hamilton in retaliation for his publiccriticism of Zacher and the Board.

b. Zacher acted with improper means because his retaliatory actionsconstituted independently tortious actions referenced herein, includingprima facie tort, abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotionaldistress, and defamation.

c. Zacher acted with improper means because he maliciously and wrongfullycontinued to prosecute Hamilton under 3020-a. Zacher knew or shouldhave known that the allegations against Hamilton were false, butnevertheless continued to aid the Board Defendants with their costlyprosecution ofHamilton under 3020-a.

291. Furthermore, upon information and belief, the Board and Froio knew that theinitial charges were bogus and, in many instances, outright false and that they could not beproven at a 3020-a hearing. Thus, they began an intense search for additional charges to fileagainst Hamilton. On February 15, 2012, Froio filed a second set of 3020-a charges againstHamilton. The Board made a finding ofprobable cause with respect to this second set of chargesand, in the process, reaffirmed and realleged the initial charges as amended. They did so despiteknowledge that there was no factual basis for several of those charges.

292. The Board made the determination ofprobable cause on the second set of chargesand decided to continue prosecution of the initial charges as amended, despite actual orconstructive knowledge that several of the charges were not supportedby the evidence and didnot justify the further expenditure of public funds to pursue.

{W0236466.1} 74


76/161


77/161


78/161

conduct that precluded Hamilton from fulfilling the duties required of him by wrongfullysuspending him from his position. As a result of said suspension, Hamilton has been prohibited

from performing the duties and responsibilities of his tenured position.304. The aforementioned conduct of the defendants was malicious. This malice is

evidenced by, inter alia, the blatant falsity and fallaciousness of the 3020-a charges and Part 83complaint, and the fact that the defendants knew or should have known that there was no factualbasis to support such allegations. Defendants filed the 3020-a charges and Part 83 report witha reckless disregard for the truth and for the District's fiscal well-being. Such reckless actionsfurther evince defendants' malicious intention to harm Hamilton.

305. Defendants' malicious intention to harm Hamilton is further evinced by theiranimosity towards Hamilton because of his professional relationships with colleagues asdescribed in this Complaint and his justif ied criticisms of Mevec's competency and billingpractices.

306. As a direct and proximate result of the defendants' conduct, Hamilton hassuffered and will continue to suffer monetary damages, damage to his contractual relationshipswith the District, and damage to his protected property interests in his employment as a tenuredadministrator.

307. Hamilton has also spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorneys' fees in aneffort to preserve his contractual rights in employment with the District, and he would not havehad to spend these amounts but for defendants' wrongful suspension of him from hisemployment with the District, initiation and continued prosecution of the initial and amended 3020-a charges, and the filing of a Part 83 report.

{W0236466.1} 77


79/161

Dated: October 10, 2013

308. Hamilton seeks monetary damages from all defendants for this tortiousinterference with prospective contract rights in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact.

vPRAYER FOR RELIEF

309. Based on the foregoing, Hamilton respectfully requests appropriate relief fromthis Court, including an award of attorneys' fees, and an award of damages in the amount ofSeven Million Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($7,250,000.00) or such other sum as issufficient to compensate him for the multiple injuries caused by the defendants' violations ofstatute (including those New York State Education Law provisions related to the abolition of hisposition, the New York Open Meetings Law, and Education Law 3028-(d), their violations ofhis Constitutional right of free speech and their tortious conduct as alleged herein. Hamiltonfurther respectfully requests punitive damages again mt -Tefreta)ts.

//'/ . " " " , ~

Delmis G. O'Hara, Esq.O'HARA, O'CONNELL & CIOTOLIAttorneyfor Plaintiff7207 East Genesee StreetFayetteville, New York 13066(315) 451-3810

{W0236466.1} 78


80/161

VERIFICAnON

State ofNew York )) ss.:County ofOnondaga )

William E. Hamilton, being duly sworn, deposes and states that he is the Plaintiff in thewithin action; that he has read the foregoing Complaint and knows the contents thereof; that thesame is true to his own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on

{W0236466.1} 79

EILEEN M. MALAYNotary. ~ u b l . i c , State of New VorkQualified In CorUand CountyNo. 01 MA6043076Commission Expires June 12, 20Lff


81/161

EXHIBIT "A"


82/161

Timeline:Hired as Superintendent effective January 24,2000. Annual evaluations all above average.3/27/07 Board had been very gracious in granting raises in excess of7% some years. I have aletter acknowledging that I was not going to accept the increase offered to other administrators.While their generositywas much appreciated, I just felt it was too much for the taxpayers. New5 year contract was negotiated to run until June 30, 2012.4/7/09 Board President Mary Alley requested, via e-mail, a meeting with Noel Hotchkiss(Board member), Assistant Superintendent Sue Gorton and myself to discuss her dissatisfactionwith Elementary Principal Janice Schue. Sue, Noel and Mary felt that Janice had lied to theBoard during a report on student academic performance when she stated that all children in herbuilding who were eligible for AIS services were being served. Other concerns were also raised.Meeting occurred in late April. Not sure of date, but it was after the 20th It was decided thatDan would interview Elbridge staffto determine if:

Janice had manipulated CSE proceedings, blocking parent requests for evaluation, andbullying CSEmembers and teachers.

Janice had acted inappropriately in her relationships with fellow ALT members. Janice had discriminated against a student in 2nd grade.

Dan Mevec was asked to formulate a timeline for his investigation and to present a summaryreport to the Board when he had completed the investigation, complete with hisrecommendations.5/11/09 I met with Elbridge Elementary Principal, Janice Schue to review concerns about studentperformance in her building. Her Unit Leader, Brad Hamer was present, as well as Asst. Supt.Sue Gorton. Sue has never done an evaluation of Janice that I am aware of, although she isJanice's direct supervisor.5/20/09 I requested, via e-mail, the timeline from Dan to present to the Board at the Boardmeeting that evening. I received a document that summarizedMevec's findings, but saying thathe felt there was more investigation that needed to be done. He had found that much of theparent complaint about discrimination revolved around things that had happened in theclassroom and did not conclusively point to Janice. He wanted to find out if the teacher wasacting based on direction from Janice. In the letter, he did recommend that the Board act on June10,2009. He was not clear as to what the Board should do, but I understood it to mean thatJanice should be reassigned during the remainder of the investigation. Dan also toldme that his


83/161

interview with the parent representative on the CSE committee only raised issues that wereseveral years old.5/27/09 I asked to meet with Mary and Dan for a strategy planningmeeting. I just felt that Ididn't have enough information to plan well for what was happening at Elbridge.5/29/09 Board Meeting - prep materials I summarized the investigation being conducted intothe conduct of Janice Schue. I put into writing my recommendation that she not be reassigned atthis time and should finish the school year to cause minimal disruption to the staff, students andfamilies ofElbridge Elementary. This was not received well. Board reassigned Janice Schueagainstmy recommendation on 6/8/09.6/5/09 French teacher accused of cheating on Regents. Mary very upset with me for contactingRandy Ray - BOCES Labor Attorney, instead of General Counsel Dan Mevec. (e - mail)6/8/09 Dan Mevec and I met with David Shaferwho was standing in for Brad Hamer as UnionLeader to let him know that the board would take action on Janice that night during a specialboard meeting. Principal Janice Schue was reassigned by Board resolution (special meeting) toposition of Special Projects Administrator, against my recommendation.6/9/09 Staffmeeting held at Elbridge. Mary addressed the staff and told them their building wassick. I spoke briefly letting staffknow that SED was asking us to look into a matter.6/12/09 Dan sent a request that I set up interviews for him with 18 staffmembers, 2 parents and3 ALT members. I did so. Mary wanted to have a meeting with Sue, Dan and I beforeinterviews began, but it was not possible. We were able to get together on the 16 th6/14/09 Board President leading the band to investigate - Mevec doing interviews for days anddays, no written summary report ever given to Board. He promised that he would proceed with3020A charges last fall, said he had plenty of evidence from his investigation. Meanwhile,Elbridge Staff and community went to bat for Janice. Special ed. interviews implicated SueGorton and Beth Russ more than Janice. Charges never spoken of again to this day. Janice isassigned as Special Projects Administrator doing busy work at the tune of nearly $100,000 peryear.6/16/09 I let Mevec's legal assistant know that we would need an additional day to schedule allof the interviews he had requested.6/17/09 3020A charges filed by me after discovering that a French teacher allegedly cheatedwhen administering the French III Regents Exam.


84/161

6/23/09 Board President, Mevec and I were debriefing about his investigation. Board was tomeet to review my evaluation that night and then review it withme an hour later. Before thatmeeting, Board President informed me that the Board would not be extending my contract, dueto trust issues. I was shocked! Trust issues were never clarified. I had never had a negativeevaluation nor had any complaints made to the Board been reduced to writing as my contractrequires. I had prepared a reflection on my evaluation, and handed it to Mary. I could not meetwith them to review it- too emotionally distressed to do so. By the way, the evaluation itselfwas the best I've ever been given.6/29/09 Mevec requested that I set up interviews for him with 6 members ofthe ALT on theJanice Schue matter. I did so.6/29/09 Mary e-mailed me at 10:02 p.m. to ask for a meeting with me. This became a habit. Iwould get late night e - mails with very little if any detail and would spend the rest of the nightawake wondering what complaint they had against me now.6/30/09 Board President Alley contacted me and asked to meet with me, along with the VicePresident, Kelly Oschner. I contacted Michelle at NYSCOSS for help. I ask for advice,including whether or not I should waive my right to insist that the Board vote on my contractextension.

7/6/09 Board member Jeanne Pieklik micromanages our preschool FOSPA program. She hasexpressed her dislike of the teacher on many occasions. In all instructional issues, the Boardleaves Asst. Supt. For Curro And Instr. Sue Gorton, out ofthe line of fire.7/6/09 Mary involves a personal friend into assessment of the Health Care Plan. He is a brokerand could benefit from the District changing plans. Pressured me to sign a letter releasing ourinformation to her friend, Tony. Our plan does not allow that, so I did not sign the letter.7/10/09 Dan's assistant e - mailed me that Dan would be at the 7/15/09 board meeting to givethe board an update.7/13/09 Mevec and Michele had a conversation. Mevec said the Board wanted me gone as soonas possible and would file charges and move to terminate if I did not cooperate. He was beyondrude to Michele.7/15/09 Two Board members openly criticizedme for the poormath regents results in opensession. In Executive Session, Dan Mevec let the Board and I know that Janice's attorney hadpetitioned the Commissioner for a stay, allowing her to be returned to her position as Principal.


85/161

7/23/09 Another 10:33 P.M. e-mail from Mary, asking for a meeting with me.8/3/09 Mary directed me to write a disciplinary memo on an administrator. She says that she islosing patience. Sue Gorton directly supervises principals, but is not held accountable by BOE.8/5/09 Dan was scheduled to meet with Janice and her attorney. Meeting had to be rescheduled.8/18/09 Michele expresses concern about not being able to connect with Mevec. Despite leavingmessages, she's not heard from him.8/19/09 I requested an update from Mevec on the Janice Schue investigation. Meeting withJanice and her attorney had not been held, so no update. Many hours and even days ofinterviews, but to no avail.8/20/09 Michele again expresses concern as to why Mevec is so difficult to reach. She had evenleft him her horne phone and gave him permission to call after hours. Still no return phone calls.8/20/09 Mary contacted Rick Timbs to analyze our math program, without my knowledge. Ifound out after the fact and e - mailed Rick, who is a friend as well as a colleague. Mary gotupset because she had told me Rick was very busy right now. (Sue Gorton not criticized at all forthis problem with higher level math scores.)9/6/09 Mevec let the Board know that Commissioner decided not to grant a stay in the Schuematter, finding that the District had a right to reassign her. (Date is 9/6/1 0 on the memo, but isincorrect.).9/7/09 Mevec recommends that the Board award the Food Service bid to AdvancedMeals. Thishas recently become an issue in the Internal Audit. (Bill Hamilton on the hot seat.)9/7/09 Board member Diana Foote very critical ofBill Hamilton and the bid process.9/11/09 Mary once again directed me to reprimand an administrator, who reports to Sue Gorton.9/15/09 I sent an e-mail request to Dan's office requesting that he attend board meeting to givean update on JS situation.9/20/09 Mary e - mailed me at 8:31 p.m. on a Sunday night asking if she and VP could meetwith me about my contract.


86/161

9/22/09 Board officers, Donna Conroy (who was invited because she "knows about contracts")met with David,my husband and I to ascertain my exit intentions. See summary ofmeeting.9/23/09 Mary called a Special Board Meeting for the next evening to hold an Executive Session.The topic was not announced, but she sent me a separate e - mail letting me know that it wasaboutmy contract.9/24/09 I had a private consultation with the Retirement System. I communicated with Michelethat if the Board forced me out right away, it would cost me $41,000 per year, as opposed to myfinishing outmy contract.9/24/09 Board held a Special Meeting in Executive Session about my contract. I was not invited,but sat in the hallway until they adjourned at about 9: 15 p.m. I stood outside of the door whenthey came out of the meeting and not one ofthem was even going to acknowledge me. I calledafterMary as she started down the hall and asked if she'd like to talk, but she said she was notprepared to do that. Another sleepless night for me! None of the other members evenacknowledged my presence. DanMevec also walked by without a word.My husband is very concerned that, if the board files charges and I lose, I would lose all ofmyretirement benefits guaranteed in my contract. He feels that I need to prevent them from filingcharges, even if they are bogus.

9/24/09 Michele again expresses concern that Mevec does not return calls. She had left anothermessage today.10/12/09 Mary e - mailed me and expressed her intention to talk to the BOE about myintentions. She hoped I had had a chance to discuss with my husband. I answered that I thoughtI had another week, until the next regular meeting. I said she could tell them that I am willing tonegotiate an earlier exit than my contract date. She then said they would wait and talk about it onthe 21 st.10/14/09 I requested Dan Mevec's assistance in setting up a QUIP committee to assist SED in anassessment of the health of our Special Education practices at Elbridge and to perhaps gleaninformation as to how Janice Schue has governed the area of Special Education.10/21/09 As requested by Board officers, I putmy thoughts into writing regarding circumstancesunder which I might consider retirement. The letter was clearly of a confidential nature.10/22/09 The Board had an initial discussion ofmy letter in executive session.


87/161

11/1/09 The Board president allowed her husband to scan my confidential letter into his personale-mail and then send it to the rest of the board on her behalf.11/2/09 I had a real problem with that invasion ofprivacy and contacted Michele who hadadvised that it was definitely a breech.11/3/09 Board micromanages a bus driver situation, begins to rely on Paula Van Minos (Dir. OfOp.), more than Bill Hamilton (Asst. Supt.) and 1.11/11/09 Board officers met with me to do agenda prep, but then talked about how surprised theywere that my letter requested so much money to retire. I explained that it was consistent withlanguage inmy contract about a "no - fault" exit. Ifmy contract was no good, then over 700others may not be good. They asked me to reconsider the amount, sincemy letter had resulted insticker shock. I said to them that all of this was unnecessary, since I had told them months agothat I intended to retire in June 2011. The payment oftaxpayer dollars instead ofletting meleave as I would have anyway is an unnecessary waste ofmoney.11/18/09 Board again discusses my exit in executive session.11/19109 Board micromanages a student issue - parents and school disagreed about mathplacement. (Sue Gorton not involved at all.) Mary is critical ofme in an 8:44 p.m. e-mail.Once again, no sleep!11/20/09 Three teachers had approached the Board about donating sick days to a teacher in adifficult situation. I began working with Randy Ray from BOCES on the matter, but Maryworked with Dan on it instead ofusing BOCES. Another example ofher micromanagement andcreation of expense to the taxpayers. (e-mail 11/20 from Sharon)11/23/09 Mary Alley toldme that the board had decided to let me choose my date of departureand would like to know that before February break.1/13/10 I met with the Board Officers. They toldme that they had discussed my contract beforethe Holidays with the rest of the Board and had decided to offer me a sum ofmoney to leave atthe end of September or early October. I told them I had planned to stay until June 30, 2011, andthe amount they were offering ($40,000) was not enough to change that plan. They pressured meto make a decision before February break so they could plan their next step.1/19/10 Michele advised me that, if the Board wanted me to leave, they should either trigger the"no fault" provision in my contract, or engage in realistic negotiations for separation. I later


88/161

talked with Michele on the phone and told her that I was afraid oflosing my health insurancebenefit in retirement. I told her I was really feeling bullied.2/3/1 0 I updated Michele about the hostility I was continuing to feel from the Board. Sheexpressed the same at the hands of the District's attorney, DanMevec, who had continued to berude and threatening to her.2/26/10 Another meeting with Board Officers. We discussed a tentative exit date of 10/31/10with a provision to access Article XIII of the Principals' contract that provides a 50% of finalsalary payment upon retirement, and the protection of all retirement benefit that are inmy currentcontract.3/1/10 I faxed Mevec a contract with Department of Social Services to review. It took monthsand was done only after I received a very abrupt e-mail from DSS saying we were one of onlythree districts that had not returned it.3/3/10 The Board officers requested (insisted really) that I have some form of document readyfor the Board meeting that night regarding my intentions and what I would accept as an exitagreement. They asked ifwe could leave it in the hands ofthe attorneys to finalize. I told themthat I was not pleased at all with the way Dan had treated Michele. I told them that I would onlyagree to that ifMichele could draft the document. I sent Michele a copy of the retirementincentive out of our Principals' contract along with several other points that would protect mybenefits in retirement. We also discussion a section on a mutually binding release of any and allclaims that either party may have against the other. I put all of this in a list ofbulleted items thatwould be included in an agreement for the board to consider in executive session without mepresent. I asked Mary Alley if she wanted me to stay and wait outside. She said no and that shewould call me the next day.3/5/10 After two sleepless nights and hearing nothing from either board officer, I e - mailedMary to ask ifwe needed to talk. I communicated with Michele by e-mail, telling her that itsure feels like torture. Even a courtesy call of e-mail would have been appreciated.Eventually, Mary answered my e-mail over the weekend that two members had been absent, sothey needed to discuss the matter further. They planned to hold a special meeting on 3/1 0/1 0 todo that.3/9/10 Michele sent me a draft copy of a Separation Agreement.3/12/10 Mary called and wanted to pick up a copy of the draft agreement to review over theweekend. I still had several parts that Michele and I were working on.


89/161

3/15/10 Michele expressed concern about a Public Officers Law that says a resignation iseffective 30 days after the delivery of the letter, no matter the date on the letter. She asked fortime to research it. Dan became irate and called Mary Alley, who then called me. She was veryirritated.3/16/10 Michele Handzel sent Dan Mevec a letter outlining her concerns about my retirementletter starting a 30 day clock for departure, as opposed to November 1st.Same day - Mevec sent a letter to Michele indicating that the board would be very upset if theydid not have an answer the next day, and may "opt to move in the direction of termination."Board President Mary Alley phoned me after 9 p.m. Because ofMichele's concern that theBoard could force me out 30 days after accepting my retirement letter, instead ofNovember 1,Mary expressed willingness to add wording to the agreement that states if the board tries toterminate me before November 1, except for gross negligence or the commission of a majorcrime, I would be paid one year's salary in addition to what the agreement already provides.Also during that phone call, Marymade it very clear that the Board wanted to act on myretirement letter at the March 1i h meeting.

3/17/10 I made Michele aware of the 3/16/10 phone call in an e-mail and asked for her opinionas to whether or not such added wording would protect me.3/17/10 Letter from Michele to Mevec summarizing a conversation which she acknowledges asheated earlier that day.3/1 7/10 Letter from Mevec to Michele regretting the tone of previous conversation.Acknowledges there won't be a settlement tonight, but possibly a special meeting would be held.3/17/10 I read my letter of retirement publicly at the Board meeting.3/18/10 Letter from Mevec to Michele with a few proposed changes - nothing major.3/26/10 I inquired ofMichele via emai l as to whether she had seen a revised agreement withthe newly agreed upon wording in it. She replied that she had not, and was surprised, givenMevec's push to finalize my resignation.3/27/10 I received an e-mail regarding a message that had been sent to AssistantSuperintendent Bill Hamilton by Dan Mevec on Saturday, March 27 about a business deal. He


90/161

stated to Bill that he wanted to talk to him before talking with me (Marilyn) on Monday. Billasked if I knew what it was about. I did not. I forwarded it to Michele with a message that Ibelieved something bad was brewing.3/29/10 Michele finalized documents and sent them to Mevec.4/1/10 I wrote to Michele in an e-mail asking if she had any word. She replied saying that shehad not heard anything, but did confirm the receipt of our proposed documents.4/5/10 Mary micromanages logging contract that was awarded.4/7/10 Michele spoke to the legal assistant in Dan Mevec's office, but still had not received anyresponse to her inquiries from Dan Mevec.Also on this date, the Board had been very hard on Athletic Director. So much so that he let meknow he plans to retire earlier than he had hoped. Mary sent an e-mail critical ofhimobviously wanting him gone.Mary and I talked and agreed to remove my retirement letter from the agenda, as we had heardnothing from Mevec about finalizing the separation document.4/12/10 Letter from Michele to Mevec.4/14/10 I resent the DSS contract after receiving no reply.4/15/10 I had a conversation with the Board officers regarding the agenda items related to myexit. I told Mary that I hoped Dan would get back to my attorney and that we would have theagreement in time to include in the board packets for next week. She said that she may not bewilling to sign the document. I asked for a reason. She replied that the HS Principal, who wasbeing investigated, had implicated me. She went on to say that if she signs my agreement, shewas concerned that I may not be supportive of the investigation. I said that I didn't see how thetwo were related. I asked if she was questioning my integrity. She finally said, "OK, OK, I'llsign it." I let her know that Dan has had it for two weeks and has not returned any messages leftby Michele. She also told me my mileage claims for certain school related events were beingdenied. Mary said that the board does not require me to attend events, etc. Interestingly, myvisibility at events has been applauded in all ofmy evaluations over the years, and even thebrochure for the search when I was hired expresses involvement as a requirement for the job.4/16/1 0 After a conversation with Mary Alley about the status of my separation agreement, Iwrote a letter to her summarizing our discussion. She expressed reluctance at signing my


91/161

agreement because she believed I would cease to cooperate wi

william e. hamilton v the board of education of the jordan-elbridge school district

Documents