STATE OF NEW YORK

SUPREME COURT: COUNTY OF ONONDAGA

=======================================
WILLIAM E. HAMILTON
Plaintiff,
v.
THE BOARD OF EDUCATION of the JORDAN-
ELBRIDGE 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 "Consultant
Defendants") and MARY MADONNA,
Defendants.
=======================================
TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT(S):
SUMMONS
Index No.: _
RJI No.: _
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action and to serve
a copy of your answer on the Plaintiffs attorney within twenty (20) days after the service of this
summons, exclusive of the day of service (or within thirty (30) days after the service is complete
ifthis summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and in case of
your failure to appear or answer, judgment will he- n against you by default for the relief
demanded herein.
Dated: October 11,2013
Dennis G. O'Hara, Esq.
O'HARA, O'CONNELL & CIOTOLI
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
7207 East Genesee Street
Fayetteville, New York 13066
(315) 451-3810
SUPREME COURT
STATE OF NEW YORK
WILLIAM E. HAMILTON
- against-
ONONDAGA COUNTY
Plaintiff,
THE BOARD OF EDUCATION of the JORDAN-
ELBRIDGE 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 "Consultant
Defendants") and MARY MADONNA,
Defendants.
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Index No.: _
Plaintiff, WILLIAM E. HAMILTON, by and through his attorneys, O'HARA,
O'CONNELL & CIOTOLI, for his verified complaint against the defendants, states and alleges
as follows:
I
THE PARTIES
1. Plaintiff, William E. Hamilton ("Hamilton"), is a resident of the Town of
Skaneateles, County of Onondaga, and State of New York. He was the Assistant Superintendent
of Business and Finance of the Jordan-Elbridge Central School District (the "District") from
June 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}
2. The District is a municipal corporation organized under and existing pursuant to
Article 37 ofthe New York Education Law, with administrative offices located in the Village of
Jordan, New York. The defendant Board of Education (the "Board") is the governing body of
the District.
3. The defendant Mary Madonna ("Madonna") is named as a party because of the
relief sought in the Second and Third Causes of Action against the Board. These causes of
action assert that the Board was legally required to discontinue Madonna's employment when it
abolished the position of Assistant Superintendent of Business and Finance but, instead, illegally
discontinued Hamilton's employment.
4. With the exception of Madonna, the individual defendants fall into one of three
categories (i.e., the "Board Defendants," the "Employee Defendants" or the "Consultant
Defendants") as hereinafter described.
The Board Defendants
5. 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 and
abused 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 are
Mary 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, and
President of the Board for the 2008-09 through 2010-11 school years. She was a member of the
{W0236466.1} 2
Board at the time that several of the events hereinafter alleged occurred and was the prime actor
in planning and carrying out said acts.
7. Pieklik was a member of the Board from July 2001 through June 2011, and was
an influential participant in several of the events and actions against Hamilton as hereinafter
alleged.
8. Foote was employed by the District as the District's Treasurer until the fall of
2005. As Treasurer, she reported to Hamilton and she abruptly quit her employment, with no
notice, when Hamilton constructively criticized her job performance. Foote thereafter became a
member of the Board from July 2008 until June 30, 2011. She was vice-president of the Board
during the 2010-11 school year. Foote was a member of the Board at the time that several of the
events hereinafter alleged occurred and, acting in concert with other Board Defendants,
committed a series of malicious, retaliatory and unwarranted acts against Hamilton.
9. Feeney was a member of the Board from July 2003 through June 30, 2012. She
was vice-president of the Board for the 2005-06 and 2006-07 school years. Feeney was a
member 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 out
several ofthe acts against Hamilton as hereinafter alleged.
10. Drake was a member of the Board from July 2009 through June 30, 2012 and was
vice-president of the Board for the 2011-12 school year. She was a member of the Board at the
time that several of the events hereinafter alleged occurred and, acting in concert with other
Board Defendants, was a prime actor in planning and carrying out several malicious actions
against Hamilton.
{W0236466.1} 3
The Employee Defendants
11. The second category of individual defendants are those District employees who,
personally and/or collectively, sought to ingratiate themselves with the Board Defendants and/or
the Board by committing tortious, unethical and malicious acts toward Hamilton and others in
bad faith to assist the Board Defendants in their efforts to terminate the employment of said
individuals. In exchange for such collaboration, these District employees were rewarded with
taxpayer supported employment, and/or promotions, and/or increased compensation and benefits.
These rewards were bestowed by the Board without concern for equity or any rational
compensation 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 retired
from the District on September 7, 2012. As hereinafter discussed, Gorton was a "friend" of the
Board 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 that
position. In her efforts to ingratiate herself with the Board Defendants and the Board, Gorton
wrongfully contrived grounds to terminate the employment of Hamilton and others.
13. VanMinos was the District's Director of Operations from October 6, 2008 until
she 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 the
Board suspended Hamilton in July 2010, it put VanMinos in charge of the District's Business
Office 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
the favor of the Board Defendants by committing several malicious and devious acts to assist
them in their efforts to terminate Hamilton's employment.
14. Zacher was the District's Interim Superintendent of Schools from November 5,
2010 until he was fired by the Board in disgrace on May 16, 2011. During the period of his
employment by the District, Zacher had an illicit affair with VanMinos and, upon information
and belief, allowed his judgment and actions to be unduly influenced by that relationship. In an
apparent effort to impress VanMinos and/or the Board Defendants, Zacher took several
malicious, unwarranted and illegal acts against Hamilton and others.
15. Froio has been the District's Superintendent of Schools since July 1, 2011. Upon
information and belief, he was appointed as Superintendent despite the fact that he had no prior
experience in that position, mediocre academic credentials and limited professional
accomplishments. Upon further information and belief, he obtained that appointment in
exchange for promising the Board Defendants that he would assist them in their efforts to
terminate the employment of Hamilton and other employees irrespective of the merits of doing
so. Since his appointment, Froio has been responsible for a series of malicious acts against
Hamilton and has committed extensive District resources to pursue several charges against
Hamilton and others in multiple forums despite actual or constructive knowledge that said
charges are completely unfounded.
The Consultant Defendants
16. The third category of individual defendants are those consultants hired by the
Board who abandoned professional standards and committed a continuing series of unethical and
tortious acts to assist the Board Defendants and Employee Defendants in their efforts to
terminate the employment of Hamilton and others. In the process, these individuals were paid
{W023 6466.1} 5
enonnous and unwarranted fees by the District. These individuals are Danny Louis Mevec
("Mevec") and Alicia Mattie ("Mattie") (collectively, the "Consultant Defendants").
17. Mevec is an attorney admitted to practice in New York. He was the fonner
attorney for the Board at all times relevant hereto until he was fired by the Board in disgrace on
October 6,2010. Mevec is a resident of Madison County, New York.
18. Mattie is the Internal Auditor for the District appointed by the Board in July 2008
pursuant to New York Education Law 2116-b. The Board has re-appointed her to this position
since then. Mattie is a resident of the Cayuga County, New York.
Hamilton's Status
19. Hamilton holds three pennanent New York State certifications: Mathematics
Teaching 7-12, School District Administrator ("SDA") and School Business Administrator
("SBA"). He also completed the SUNY Oswego Superintendent Development Program.
Hamilton is certified to hold any administrative position in the District, including the position of
Superintendent of Schools.
20. Hamilton was initially appointed by the Board on June 18, 2003 to a probationary
appointment as a School District Administrator assigned to the position of Assistant
Superintendent of Business and Finance. On April 5, 2006, the Board voted unanimously to
grant him tenure in the Administrative Tenure area, effective June 18,2006.
21. The Board suspended Hamilton on July 7,2010 pursuant to Section 3020- a of the
Education Law. However, it did not serve disciplinary charges on him until seven weeks later on
August 25, 2010. On February 15, 2012, the Board approved a second set of charges filed by
Froio. After a Hearing Officer was finally appointed, the Board withdrew 75 of the 129 charge
specifications (58%) of the first set of charges and one complete charge of the 12 charges alleged
{W0236466.1} 6
in the second set of charges. The remaining charges are the subject of an on-going hearing being
conducted pursuant to Education Law 3020-a.
II
NATURE OF THIS ACTION
22. In this action, Hamilton asserts the following causes of action and seeks the
following relief:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
{W0236466.1}
As requested in the First Cause of Action, an Order and Judgment pursuant to
CPLR 3001 and Article 78 declaring that the purported abolishment of the
position as Assistant Superintendent for Business and Finance is null and void as
being conceived and implemented in bad faith for the sole purpose of
circumventing Hamilton's statutory tenure rights, and ordering Hamilton's
reinstatement with back pay and benefits.
As requested in the Second Cause of Action, an Order and Judgment pursuant to
CPLR 3001 declaring that the agreement between Madonna and the Board
(Exhibit "G") that purports to retroactively change her tenure area at the end of
her probationary period so as to deprive Hamilton of his statutory rights under
Education Law 2510(2) is null and void.
As requested in the Third Cause of Action, an Order and Judgment of this Court
pursuant to CPLR 3001 and 2510(2) declaring Hamilton's rights under
Education Law 2510(2) and annulling the Board's determination to terminate
his employment while continuing to employ Madonna, together with an
appropriate award of back pay and benefits.
As requested in the Fourth Cause of Action, an Order and Judgment pursuant to
CPLR 3001 and 2510(1) declaring Hamilton's rights under Education Law
2510(1) and requiring the Board to appoint Hamilton to any position created to
perfonn the duties of his fonner position of Assistant Superintendent for Business
and Finance, together with an appropriate award of back pay and benefits.
As requested in the Fifth Cause of Action, an Order and Judgment pursuant to
CPLR Article 78 and Public Officers Law 107(1) voiding the so-called
"reorganization" plan that was illegally discussed and approved by the Board in
executive session(s) in violation of the Open Meetings Law, voiding all
7
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
{W0236466.1}
subsequent actions taken by the Board pursuant to that plan including the
abolition of Hamilton's former position, and ordering the Board is to refrain from
any further violations of the requirements of the Open Meetings Law, together
with an appropriate award of back pay and benefits and attorneys' fees to
Hamilton pursuant to Public Officers Law 107(2).
As requested in the Sixth cause of Action, an Order and Judgment granting a
preliminary injunction pursuant to CPLR Article 63 enjoining defendants from
continuing the abolition of Hamilton's position and termination of his
employment on the ground that he has demanded and is entitled to a judgment
rescinding the abolition of his position and termination of his employment, which,
if continued during the pendency of this action, would produce injury to
Hamilton.
As requested in the Seventh Cause of Action, an Order and Judgment pursuant to
Education Law 3028-d rescinding defendants' abolition of Hamilton's position
and termination of his employment in retaliation for his reporting inappropriate
and illegal acts, together with an award of compensatory damages sufficient to
compensate him for all harms and injuries suffered as a result of the defendants
retaliatory actions.
As requested in the Eighth Cause of Action, an Order and Judgment awarding
compensatory and punitive damages for the several adverse employment actions
committed by the defendants in retaliation for Hamilton's exercise of his right of
Free Speech under both the Federal and New York State Constitutions.
As requested in the Ninth Cause of Action, an Order and Judgment awarding
compensatory and punitive damages for the unconstitutional restraint upon
Hamilton's right of free speech in violation of the First Amendment to the United
States Constitution and Article I, 8 of the New York State Constitution by
threatening him with further disciplinary charges if he did not cease and desist
from making public comments on the proposed budget.
As requested in the Tenth Cause of Action, an Order and Judgment awarding
compensatory and punitive damages against all defendants for the intentional
abuse of the Education Law 3020-a process by filing and continuing to
prosecute charges that they knew to be false and without any factual basis.
As requested in the Eleventh Cause of Action, an Order and Judgment awarding
compensatory and punitive damages against the Board and Froio for the
intentional abuse of the 8 NYCRR Part 83 process by filing charges that Froio
8
knew or should have known to be false and by failing to notify the State
Education Department as information came to his attention that the Part 83
charges he had filed seeking to revoke Hamilton's certifications were not
supported by the facts.
(1) As requested in the Twelfth Cause of Action, an Order and Judgment awarding
compensatory and punitive damages from the relevant defendants in their
individual capacities for the defamatory comments made by said defendants,
individually and collectively.
(m) As requested in Thirteenth Cause of Action, an Order and Judgment awarding
compensatory and punitive damages for the intentional concerted infliction of
emotional distress and psychological harm that Hamilton has suffered as a
consequence of defendants' actions.
(n) As requested in the Fourteenth Cause of Action, an Order and Judgment awarding
compensatory and punitive damages to Hamilton for the tortious actions
committed by defendants against Hamilton, without legal justification, and with
the intent to cause him pecuniary harm.
(0) As requested in the Fifteenth Cause of Action, an Order and Judgment awarding
compensatory and punitive damages to Hamilton for the malicious and tortious
interference with prospective contract rights.
(p) As requested in the Sixteenth Cause of Action, an Order and Judgment awarding
compensatory and punitive damages to Hamilton for defendants' malicious and
tortious interference with Hamilton's present and future economic relations.
III
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
23. Hamilton has complied with all applicable notice of claim requirements under
New York law, including the General Municipal Law, by serving the Board with a timely and
adequately detailed statement of his claims as they were known to exist on or about August 12,
2011.
{W0236466.1} 9
24. Hamilton submitted to an oral examination regarding his Notice of Claim
pursuant 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 no
adjustment or payment thereof has been effectuated by the District.
26. This action has been commenced within all applicable time limits in light of the
continuing, ongoing nature of the tortious actions and schemes alleged herein.
27. Venue is proper pursuant to CPLR 503(a) and 504(2).
IV
THE BACKGROUND FACTS
28. For an extensive period of time, the Board Defendants controlled the Board and
governed the District as if it was a private enterprise, rewarding "friends" and punishing
"enemies" and squandering taxpayer money and resources in the process. District employees
were hired, promoted and fired on the basis of their personal standing with the Board
Defendants, rather than on the basis of merit and fitness. During this period, the Board
Defendants bestowed unwarranted financial benefits on "friends" and indiscriminately wasted
District funds in efforts to manufacture and, if necessary, prosecute charges against employees
who 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 information
and belief, some Elbridge Elementary School teachers who were unhappy with Schue's efforts to
{W0236466.1} 10
change the culture of that school began a campaign to have her removed as Principal of the
school. Pieklik and Feeney ran for election to the Board on the promise that, if elected, they
would terminate Schue's employment. Schue was dogged by these people for nearly a decade.
30. Pieklik, Feeney and others were active participants in a concerted campaign of
rumors, anonymous charges and innuendo designed to undermine Schue's authority with her
staff and to discredit her among the school community with the goal of terminating her
employment. This campaign was well known throughout the District, and was carried out over
an extended period oftime, including the 2007-08 and 2008-09 school years. Upon information
and belief, Mevec was instrumental in planning and implementing this effort to terminate
Schue's employment.
31. In a highly publicized act near the end of the 2008-09 school year, the Board
removed Schue from her position as the Principal of the Elbridge Elementary school and
transferred her to a make-work position in the District's central office. At that time, the Board
publicly announced that Schue was "under investigation," intentionally creating the inference
that she was guilty of unspecified misconduct. The Board announced that this investigation
would be conducted by Mevec.
32. Upon information and belief, the Board Defendants knew that there was no
legitimate basis for charges against Schue and, upon further infonnation and belief, the then
Superintendent of Schools, Marilyn Dominick ("Dominick"), advised the Board against taking
such action. The so-called "investigation" conducted by Mevec was perfunctory and a pretext to
remove Schue from her position as Principal of the Elbridge Elementary school. In fact, almost
two years later (in the 2011-12 school year), the Board returned Schue to a building Principal's
position without having filed a single charge against her.
{W0236466.1} 11
33. In January 2010, Hamilton informed Dominick that he believed it was a waste of
District money and Schue's talents to assign her to the make-work position and he suggested that
she be transferred to work with him in the Business Office. In several conversations with
Dominick and others, Hamilton also expressed his opinion that the treatment of Schue by the
Board and Mevec was a senseless waste of her talents and District money and likely to embroil
the District in litigation.
34. Upon information and belief, the Board Defendants were paranoid about the
possibility that any District employee might be a supporter of Schue. Upon further information
and belief, they were aware of Hamilton's opinions regarding the situation with Schue and
interpreted this to mean that he was her "friend" and supporter. For that reason, they considered
him to be a persona non grata.
Hamilton's Perceived Association 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 based
on who was in their good graces and who was not. In the process, they ignored
recommendations of the Superintendent and other individuals who, by virtue of their educations
and professional experiences, had knowledge and expertise in educational matters. The resulting
dysfunctional relationship between the Board Defendants and the District's administration was
contentious 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. Upon
information and belief, she intended to serve out the full term of her employment.
{W0236466.1} 12
37. However, the Board Defendants sought to terminate Dominick's employment
prior to June 30, 2012. Upon further information and belief, Dominick had informed them that
she did not believe that there was a legitimate basis for any disciplinary action against Schue and
other District employees who had been targeted by those individuals.
38. Upon information and belief, the Board Defendants resented Dominick's
ongoing efforts to educate them as to their proper role in relation to the administration, staff and
school community. They wanted Gorton to be Superintendent of Schools because she would do
their bidding without question, and they did not want a superintendent who exercised
independent judgment.
39. The Board Defendants effectively controlled the Board and Dominick was unable
to prevent their rogue and reckless conduct. Dissatisfied with Dominick's reluctance to do their
bidding no matter how improper or unwarranted it may have been, the Board Defendants began
an intensive and mean-spirited campaign to undermine Dominick's authority, usurp her
responsibilities and force her to resign. Their overt actions to sabotage Dominick included
micromanaging the District, circumventing the established chain of authority to exclude her from
the exchange of information, publicly attacking her competency, and ultimately threatening her
with disciplinary proceedings if she did not agree to an early termination of her employment
contract.
40. Mevec and Mattie assisted the Board Defendants in their campaign to force
Dominick to retire, and were both paid handsomely for their efforts. Gorton also committed
several malicious and devious acts to ingratiate herself with the Board Defendants and to assist
them in their efforts to terminate Dominick's employment. Gorton was to report directly to
Dominick under the established chain of command. However, she intentionally bypassed
{W0236466.1} 13
Dominick and secretly communicated directly with Alley and other Board Defendants on
significant issues and, in the process, often distorted and misrepresented the facts to feed the
Board Defendants' obsession with terminating Dominick's employment. The Board Defendants
also unsuccessfully attempted to recruit Hamilton to assist them in their campaign against
Dominick but he refused to join this cabal.
41. During the time period that the Board Defendants and others were abusing
Dominick in an effort to force the early termination of her employment, she kept a written
timeline 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 Defendants
commenced against the District's High School Principal David Zehner ("Zehner") and, under
compulsion of the subpoena, was required to produce a copy of her timeline. A copy of that
timeline is annexed as Exhibit "A."
42. Upon information and belief, the Board Defendants, Mevec and Mattie had
previously used threats to cause other employees who were not in their good graces to resign
their employment. Their standard tactic was for Mattie to attempt to find some basis for a
potential charge against an employee, no matter how tenuous, and for Mevec to then threaten the
employee with disciplinary charges unless they resigned their position. Mevec would also claim
that the Attorney General's office was ready to criminally prosecute the employee unless he or
she resigned. To make the situation seem even more serious to the employee involved, Alley
and sometimes another Board Defendant would attend the meeting at which Mevec delivered the
ultimatum to resign or face disciplinary charges and/or prosecution by the Attorney General's
office. It did not matter to Mevec, Mattie or the Board Defendants that there was absolutely no
merit to any such charges.
{W0236466.1} 14
43. Upon further information and belief, Mevec and Alley used these same tactics
against Dominick. With the Board Defendants' knowledge and approval, Mevec and Alley
threatened to file disciplinary charges against her and to cause the Attorney General's office to
prosecute 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 time
that there was absolutely no validity to any assertion of improper expense reimbursement by
Dominick.
44. In the face of persistent demeaning and threatening conduct, Dominick eventually
agreed to terminate her employment early. She and the Board entered into a severance
agreement, dated May 5, 2010, in which she committed to retire twenty (20) months early on
November 1, 2010. A copy of the settlement agreement between Dominick and the Board is
annexed as Exhibit "B."
45. The Board Defendants' plan was to replace Dominick with Gorton as the
District's Superintendent of Schools, and they appointed Gorton as Interim Superintendent as
soon as Dominick agreed to retire early. The Board Defendants' plan to appoint Gorton, like so
much of their scheming, had been illegally presented to and rubber-stamped by the rest of the
Board in a secret executive session behind closed doors.
46. Gorton would have become the District's permanent Superintendent of Schools
but for the fact that Zehner successfully sued to set aside the action of the Board appointing her
as Interim Superintendent on the ground that it violated the Open Meetings Law. A copy of the
decision of Supreme Court Justice Donald Greenwood that rescinded Gorton's appointment is
annexed as Exhibit "C."
{W0236466.1} 15
47. Hamilton was critical of the fact that the Board Defendants regularly usurped the
authority of the Superintendent of Schools, as well as the cruel manner in which Dominick was
treated by the Board, Gorton, Mattie and Mevec. The Board Defendants perceived that Hamilton
was a supporter of Dominick and, consequently, viewed him as someone who was not a "friend."
Upon information and belief, the Board Defendants believed that anyone who questioned their
conduct, including Hamilton, was an "enemy," who should be replaced.
Hamilton's Escalating Concerns Regarding Mevec 's Performance and Billing
48. 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 to
inform the Superintendent and the Board in the event a service provider was not perfornling
competently 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 with
Mevec's lack of competence and his questionable billing practices. Throughout May and June
2010, Hamilton informed Dominick of his concerns regarding Mevec. He also recommended, in
writing, that the District consider terminating its relationship with Mevec and retaining new
counsel. One of Hamilton's recommendations to Dominick regarding Mevec is annexed as
Exhibit "D."
50. Unbeknown to Hamilton, at that time, Mevec and Pieklik were involved in an
illicit romantic relationship and, for this reason, Hamilton's well-intended criticisms of Mevec's
performance and billing practices brought about the wrath of Pieklik and eventually other Board
Defendants. Upon information and belief, Mevec and Pieklik decided that they had to get rid of
Hamilton in order to protect Mevec's position as the Board's attorney. To that end, they began a
{W0236466.1} 16
senes of actions III conceli with other Board Defendants III an effort to end Hamilton's
employment.
51. These actions were primarily carried out by VanMinos, Mevec and Mattie.
VanMinos' motivation was the promise by the Board Defendants that she would replace
Hamilton once his employment was tenninated. Mevec had an obvious personal and retaliatory
motivation as discussed above, and he was also paid significant fees for the time he allegedly
spent in efforts to terminate Hamilton's employment. 1 Mattie also greatly profited monetarily
by doing the bidding of the Board Defendants. In the process, she abandoned all concern for
professional ethics and disregarded the obligations imposed on an Internal Auditor by applicable
auditing standards.
The Board Defendants Determine to Replace Hamilton with VanMinos
52. Upon infonnation and belief, in retaliation for Hamilton's perceived association
with Schue and Dominick and his criticisms of Mevec's poor perfonnance and questionable
billing practices, the Board Defendants decided to end Hamilton's employment and replace him
with VanMinos. VanMinos was a willing participant in this plan and aggressively attempted to
thereafter find some basis to force Hamilton to resign.
53. As the District's Director of Operations, VanMinos was to report directly to and
be supervised by Hamilton. However, after she became an active participant in the Board
Defendants' 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 paid
immediately, ahead of the nonnal payment cycle, and without proper audit. In fact, after both
Dominick and Hamilton continued to question Mevec's bills, Alley began to personally
authorize payment of those bills without proper audit.
{W0236466.1} 17
frequently ignored Hamilton (and Dominick) and circumvented the established chain of
command 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 door
whether 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 official
at 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 him
as being incompetent, immoral and/or insubordinate. A transcript of Alley's voicemail message
to VanMinos is annexed as Exhibit "E."
The Board Defendants Begin Overt Action against Hamilton
55. 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 other
perceived "enemies." Toward that end, they set out to find some basis they could use for such
threats.
56. For example, Mattie and VanMinos demanded that staff members at the Cayuga-
Onondaga BOCES Central Business Office ("CBO") in Auburn, New York spend countless
hours, at the expense of the other school districts that participated in the CBO, to pour through
payroll 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 by
Dominick or by the BOCES administration to use CBO staff members to conduct such an
extensive investigation.
57. Foote assisted in this effort by calling a CBO staff member after hours to ask that
she help "dig up dirt" on Hamilton. Apparently, Foote assumed that this CBO staff member,
{W0236466.1} 18
who was a resident of the District, would assist her because she, like Foote, had previously been
the School District Treasurer and reported directly to Hamilton.
58. The District's Audit Committee was comprised solely of Board members,
including Alley, Foote and Drake. Under the guise of the Audit Committee, these defendants
went on a "witch-hunt" looking for financial irregularities. Toward this end, they directed the
District's external auditors to examine irrelevant and immaterial matters in an attempt to find
some misconduct by Hamilton.
59. Prior to June 2010, Hamilton had not received a single negative evaluation of his
work for the District. In fact, throughout his employment, he had received praise for his
innovative strategies and efficiency in developing and implementing the District's fiscal budget.
As a reflection of the high quality of his work, the external auditors gave the District unqualified
audit reports every year that Hamilton was in charge of the District's finances. In addition, the
examiner who conducted a nearly year-long audit for the State Comptroller's Office said at the
exit interview in December 2008 that the result of the District's audit was one of the best he had
seen.
60. Despite these positive facts, immediately after Hamilton recommended that the
Board consider replacing Mevec, the Board Defendants caused several adverse employment
actions to be taken against him.
61. For example, Hamilton received three written reprimands regarding his job
performance over an eight-day period in June 2010. Upon information and belief, Dominick did
not author these reprimands. Rather, Mevec wrote these reprimands with the knowledge,
concurrence, and at the insistence of the Board Defendants.
{W0236466.1} 19
62. On June 2,2010, Hamilton was ordered to attend an "ambush" meeting at which
Alley confronted him regarding alleged improprieties with respect to discussions that he and
another District employee had recently had with an arborist regarding possible tree removal work
at a school site. Upon information and belief, VanMinos had previously informed Alley that
there was some impropriety in that interaction, although none existed.
63. As hereinafter described, the Board Defendants, with the active assistance of
Mevec, Mattie and VanMinos, thereafter undertook a series of actions with the intent and
purpose of creating bogus charges against Hamilton. In the process, they cajoled and at times
threatened District employees and service providers to provide false and slanted information
against Hamilton and/or to withhold exculpatory information relative to Hamilton.
Mattie Abuses her Position as Internal Auditor to Assist the Board Defendants
64. 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's
financial policies, procedures and internal controls, and (b) recommend changes for
strengthening financial controls and reducing identified risks.
65. The statute permits the District to retain an independent contractor to fulfill the
internal audit function. In this regard, the Board has reappointed Mattie as the District's Internal
Auditor since July 2008 despite the fact that, upon information and belief, she lacks the
substantive knowledge and skills required to properly perfonn the duties of the position and is
not qualified by training, experience or ethical foundation to properly perform the internal audit
function for a public school district in the State ofNew York.
66. Mattie professes that she conducts her audits III compliance with Generally
Accepted Government Auditing Standards ("GAGAS"), which would require that she be
{W0236466.1} 20
independent and objective in perfonning an audit. GAGAS also requires that Mattie be unbiased
so that no quality compromises are made and/or she does not subordinate her judgment to others
in making findings and recommendations. Upon infonnation and belief, however, Mattie
abandoned any pretense of independence and violated all professional auditing standards by
becoming a partisan tool of Alley and other Board Defendants in their efforts to tenninate the
employment of any individual who had fallen into disfavor with them, including Hamilton.
67. Upon further infonnation and belief, Mattie acting out of economic self-interest,
has grossly abused the authority of the position of Internal Auditor and violated applicable
GAGAS provisions in her on-going partisan attempts to "dig up dirt" that the Board Defendants
could possibly use against Hamilton and others. The apparent motivations for such
unprofessional conduct were to increase her fees, ingratiate herself with the Board to ensure that
she would be annually reappointed as the District's Internal Auditor, and acquire a reputation
that would catapult her career.
68. Upon infonnation and belief, Mattie has conducted "investigations" of Hamilton
and others on a helter-skelter basis without first developing and obtaining Board approval of a
proper audit plan, with no concern for the cost to the District, and with no interest in achieving
the Legislative objectives that underpin Education Law 2116-b. To the contrary, Mattie has
spent countless hours at District expense chasing and promoting unfounded, baseless rumors as
they arose. She has acted as an instrument of the Board Defendants with their pennission to do
whatever she can to "get" Hamilton and others. The Board essentially gave Mattie a blank check
and allowed her to charge the District unbudgeted fees for conducting unrestricted and
unsupervised witch-hunts.
{W0236466.1} 21
69. Moreover, in April 2012 Froio rejected a Board member's suggestion that the
District 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 is
willing to perpetuate the questionable arrangement with Mattie because he believes that she
would 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 and
others that, on or about May 2, 2012, Froio and the Board agreed to pay her an additional stipend
for "time spent on legal/litigation assistance," and to do so at a premium rate of $65 an hour
although her contract rate was then $50 an hour. Also, the Board gave Mattie this 30% rate
increase and committed to pay her an additional $9,750 for her help with "litigation" without
having issued an RFP for such services.
71. As hereinafter alleged, Mattie also made malicious and unsupported allegations to
law enforcement authorities that Hamilton and others had committed criminal or other actionable
misconduct. These allegations were either known to Mattie to be false at the time they were
made, or were maliciously or recklessly made with utter disregard for the truth thereof. In
summary, Mattie's entire body of work for the District makes it clear that she has operated as a
partisan advocate for the Board Defendants and not as an independent, unbiased and competent
auditor.
72. Shortly after Hamilton was suspended on July 7,2010, the District requested that
the local Comptroller's office perform another audit of internal controls over the Treasury
function. This followed the Comptroller's audit on "Internal Controls Over Selected Financial
Operations" that covered the period from July 1, 2006 to December 31,2007. Upon information
and belief, Mattie and the Board Defendants convinced the Comptroller to conduct this highly
{W0236466.1} 22
unusual audit immediately following a prior audit by informing their office that Hamilton had
ignored the recommendations 2006-2007 audit report. These allegations were false and known
to be false when made.
73. In September 2010, Mattie informed Brent Kremeneck ("Kremeneck"), an auditor
with the Comptroller's office that Hamilton had "gone in and set up raj super user account for
himselfin BudgetSense" after he had met with her and the Treasurer in February 2009 and agreed
upon guidelines for access to the District's BudgetSense accounting system. This statement was
false and known to be false when made.
74. Since Mattie was initially appointed in July 2008, the Board has issued only one
RFP for internal audit services (on August 2, 2012). Upon information and belief, Mattie's was
the only proposal submitted in response to this RFP because it was drafted and published so as to
guarantee that she would be reappointed.
75. In almost every other school district in New York State, the appointment of an
internal auditor is made annually for a one-year term. However, the Board rewarded Mattie for
her efforts to create charges against Hamilton and other District employees by appointing her to
a three-year term beginning July 1, 2012. At the same time, the Board gave her a 30% increase
in the hourly rate she is paid for her services.
76. Moreover, as of July 1, 2013, the Legislature amended Education Law 2116-b
to provide that school districts with a student enrollment of less than 1,500 pupils are no longer
required to have an internal auditor and to exempt these small school districts from the
requirements of that statute. Upon information and belief, this amendment was in recognition of
the fact that the value derived from such service did not generally justify the cost. That was most
certainly the case with respect to Mattie's employment by the District.
{W0236466.1} 23
77. In light of this amendment, the Board had the option to eliminate the cost of, and
problems associated with, Mattie's services. However, upon Froio's recommendation, the Board
decided to continue to employ Mattie. Upon information and belief, this decision was based on
Froio's belief that she was ''paramount'' to the District's efforts to terminate the employment of
Hamilton and others.
78. From a cost/benefit perspective, Mattie's sell out to the Board Defendants has
mired the District in incredibly costly and distracting disputes with CUlTent and former
employees. Moreover, from a comparative cost basis, her fees far exceed the fees for internal
audit services typically paid by other school districts. Upon information and belief, the Board
has also paid Mattie more than the budgeted amount for internal audit services approved by the
voters.
79. Upon information and belief, the bestowal of such largesse upon Mattie is a "pay
off' for her partisan and biased efforts to help the Board Defendants and Froio find some way to
terminate the employment of Hamilton and other employees.
Mevec and Alley Threaten Hamilton with Prosecution
80. On June 29, 2010, Hamilton was ordered to attend a meeting with Mevec and
Alley. Dominick was also present but did not make any comments during the meeting. The
ostensible purpose of that meeting was for Hamilton to respond to the recent and concentrated
flulTy of reprimands allegedly authored by Dominick but actually written by Mevec.
81. Upon information and belief, however, Mevec and the Board Defendants planned
to use their standard threat tactic to intimidate Hamilton into resigning. For example, when told
that there was no validity to any of the reprimands, Mevec's reply was: "That's not what the
{W0236466.1} 24
2
Attorney General says" and, further, that the Attorney General was prepared to prosecute
Hamilton.
82. At this confrontation on June 29, 2010, Hamilton denied any wrongdoing and
made it clear to Alley and Mevec that he had no intention of resigning.
The Board Suspends Hamilton without Filing Charges
83. On July 7, 2010, the Board suspended Hamilton pending the outcome of
disciplinary charges. However, no charges were filed against him before or within a reasonable
period after he was suspended as required by Education Law 3020-a. In fact, it took the Board
another 49 days to conjure up charges against Hamilton.
84. It is apparent that Hamilton's refusal to succumb to threats caught the Board
Defendants flat-footed without any legitimate basis for charges. As a consequence, they
floundered for several weeks without filing any charges against Hamilton. In fact, the charges
were not filed until after Hamilton commenced an Article 78 proceeding to compel the Board to
either end his suspension or file 3020-a charges against him as required by law. Disciplinary
charges signed by Alley were finally served on Hamilton on August 25, 2010, the day before the
parties were scheduled to appear before the Court on the Article 78 Petition.
85. Upon information and belief, Alley and Mevec tried to compel Dominick to sign
the charges that Mevec had cobbled together against Hamilton. However, she refused to do so
because she believed that any such charges would be completely unfounded and she did not want
to be a part of any such attack on Hamilton. 2 At the direction of the Board Defendants, Mevec
In fact, Dominick completed a Summative Administrative Performance
Evaluation for Hamilton on July 19, 2010. This evaluation recited his multiple positive
contributions to the District and praised him for his performance as Assistant Superintendent of
Business and Finance. A copy ofthe evaluation is annexed as Exhibit "F".
{W0236466.1} 25
then issued a memorandum to Dominick admonishing her for refusing to bring charges against
Hamilton.
86. Upon information and belief, the Board Defendants and Mevec prepared the
charges with actual malice in retaliation for Hamilton's support of Schue and Dominick and his
criticisms of Mevec's performance and billing practices. Moreover, they were recklessly
prepared without an adequate preliminary investigation to confirm whether there was a factual
basis for such charges.
87. Upon further information and belief, the defendants never had any intention of
prosecuting the charges before a neutral hearing officer as required by Education Law 3020-a.
Rather, these charges were cobbled together solely so that the Board could continue Hamilton's
suspension. The defendants were also aware that, even if there was some factual basis for the
allegations, the substance of the charges was not sufficient to justify terminating Hamilton's
employment.
Defendants Set Out on an Intentional Course of Conduct Using Public Funds to Search
fOr Some Basis fOr Additional Charges and/or to Force Hamilton to Resign
88. As soon as it became apparent that Hamilton intended to defend the charges, the
defendants began a series of actions intended to stall the prosecution of those charges and to find
some basis for additional charges. In the process, the defendants blatantly violated statutory and
administrative provisions governing 3020-a proceedings.
89. For example, in December 2010, the attorneys for Hamilton and the District
notified the State Education Department ("SED") that they had mutually selected a Hearing
Officer and an alternate Hearing Officer, Robert Rabin, in the event the initial choice was unable
to serve. After SED notified the parties that the initial choice could not serve, Hamilton's
{W0236466.1} 26
attorney asked SED to notify Mr. Rabin of his selection. However, the Board's attorney then
reneged on the agreement to appoint Mr. Rabin and advised SED that "1 am writing to inform
you 1 cannot go along with the alternative selection of Mr. Rabin as Hearing Officer any
longer. "
90. Thereafter, the Board did virtually nothing to move along the appointment of a
Hearing Officer. In fact, every subsequent contact with SED was initiated by Hamilton's
counsel. As a consequence of the defendants delay, a 3020-a Hearing Officer was not
appointed until almost twenty-nine (29) months after the initial charges had been filed against
Hamilton.
91. The defendants also systematically withheld material and relevant documents that
Hamilton was entitled to receive under Education Law 3020-a and ignored requests for
relevant documents that had been made by or on behalf of Hamilton pursuant to the Freedom of
Information Law ("FOIL"). This conduct not only delayed the proceeding but also cost
Hamilton money for legal fees to respond to the Board's delaying tactics. Upon information and
belief, the defendants recklessly spent taxpayer funds on unnecessary litigation to cause
Hamilton to incur additional legal costs with the transparent goal of beating him into economic
submission.
92. Rather than timely prosecute the initial charges against Hamilton in compliance
with Education Law 3020-a, the Board spent hundreds of thousands oftaxpayer dollars on fees
for lawyers, Mattie, private investigators, external auditors, interim employees and District staff
in a massive effort to find some microscopic basis for charges related to Hamilton's job
performance. Upon information and belief, the Board also devoted substantial District assets in
an unsuccessful effort to find some substantive reason for charges against the High School
{W0236466.1} 27
Principal, David Zehner, who similarly decided to defend himself rather than resign in the face
of defendants' threats.
93. The defendants' malicious efforts to end Hamilton's employment also included
making false allegations of criminal conduct to law enforcement authorities with the hope of
convincing them to commence criminal proceedings against him, making patently false claims of
misconduct to SED in an effort to have his professional certifications revoked, and filing
additional 3020-a charges against him. None of these law enforcement agencies have
commenced any type of proceeding against Hamilton.
94. The net effect of the defendants' actions toward Hamilton has been to make it
impossible for him to obtain another position in public education. As of the date of this
complaint, he has submitted over thirty-five (35) applications for equivalent positions in other
school districts. The universal response has been that these school districts will not touch him
unless and until he is exonerated of all charges that have been levied against him by the
defendants.
95. Upon information and belief, defendants' initial plan was to force Hamilton to
resign out of economic necessity with the belief that he could not afford to match public funds to
defend the charges and respond to other actions of the defendants. Some of the other more
egregious actions of the defendants intended to beat Hamilton into economic submission are as
follows:
(aJ The Board Hires Kessler After Hamilton is Charged
96. Some two months after the charges were finally filed against Hamilton, the Board
retained a private investigator, Kessler International, Inc. ("Kessler"), to investigate those
charges. Upon information and belief, Kessler was actually retained to try and find some basis to
{W0236466.1} 28
support the charges already filed against Hamilton and/or to bring additional charges against
him. At that time, Alley misinformed the public that the cost of Kessler's services would be
$2,500. That statement was false when it was made, and Alley knew or should have known that
the contract the Board had before it for approval that evening expressly stated that the District
would be obligated to pay up to $30,000 for Kessler's services.
97. Upon infoffilation and belief, the District has actually paid Kessler more than
$100,000 for his unsuccessful efforts to find some support for charges against Hamilton.
Moreover, this expenditure of more than $70,000 over the authorized contract price was made
without Board approval and no RFP was ever issued for such services.
98. Kessler delivered at least ten (10) written summaries of his findings to the Board
befOre the Amended Charges were filed by Froio in February 2012 and befOre Froio filed a Part
83 complaint against Hamilton on April 10, 2012. Upon information and belief, Kessler's
conclusions in several instances do not support the charges and in other instances actually refute
those charges. Upon information and belief, however, this fact did not deter Froio from filing
accusations that he knew or should have known were false.
99. Froio testified in a related 3020-a proceeding that he had not read a report from
Kessler that set forth the results of an investigation he had conducted for the District because a
District employee had criticized Kessler's manner and methods. In that proceeding, the District
did not call Kessler as a witness and, in an effort to keep his report from review by the arbitrator,
Froio testified that he "was not interested in Mr. Kessler's work based on the feedback [he]
received from the teachers." Upon information and belief, this testimony was intentionally
misleading, if not outright false.
{W0236466.J} 29
100. As the Superintendent of a school district that had spent more than $100,000 for
Kessler's investigation, he certainly knew or should have known whether the information
gathered by Kessler supported or belied the charges being prosecuted by the Board at significant
taxpayer expense. Upon information and belief, the reason for such an incredulous claim by
Froio was that Kessler's investigation conclusively demonstrated that the charges were without
merit.
101. Upon information and belief, the bad faith and utter hypocrisy of Froio and the
Board with respect to Kessler is clear from the fact that they thereafter did produce Kessler as a
witness in the Hamilton 3020-a proceeding without raising a single question as to his tactics or
the reliability of his conclusions. In fact, Froio sat by Kessler's side throughout his testimony as
if to vouch for his credibility.
102. Upon further information and belief, the malice and bad faith of Froio and the
Board is evident from their efforts to withhold exculpatory information from the Hearing Officer
in a 3020-a proceeding in violation of Education Law 3020-a, the due process rights of
District employees, and fundamental ethical principles that govern the conduct of proceedings
before a tribunal.
(b) Zacher and VanMinos Collude to Manufacture Charges Against Hamilton
103. 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 of misconduct by
Hamilton in an effort to wrongfully secure Hamilton's job for VanMinos. Zacher's romantic
fWD236466.1} 30
relationship with VanMinos provided malicious motivation for him to attempt to wrongfully
terminate Hamilton and to commit the acts and make the public statements hereinafter alleged.
(c) False Allegations are Made to Law EnfOrcement Authorities.
105. Upon information and belief, Alley, Mevec, Mattie, Zacher and Froio have, at
various times, filed or been responsible for the filing of complaints with law enforcement
authorities that have maliciously and wrongfully accused Hamilton of committing criminal
conduct.
106. At the time said complaints were filed, these defendants did not actually believe
that Hamilton had committed any criminal conduct or, if they had such a belief, it was not
reasonable under the circumstances. Rather, the defendants acted maliciously and in bad faith in
trying to convince criminal authorities to prosecute Hamilton and others so that they would finish
the attacks on these employees that the Board Defendants, Mattie, Mevec and VanMinos had
started. As a consequence, Hamilton has suffered injury as hereinafter alleged.
107. Upon information and belief, such false reports were filed with the New York
State Police, the New York State Attorney General, the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation, the New
York State Comptroller's Office, the New York State Commissioner of Education, the Office of
Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Education, and the Onondaga County Sheriffs
office.
108. It appears that law enforcement authorities may have initially given Mattie's
allegations some credibility due to the presumption of validity that might typically be afforded
the findings of an Internal Auditor. However, upon information and belief, law enforcement
authorities soon discovered that Mattie's findings and conclusions are not entitled to any such
presumption in light of her incompetent and biased investigations.
{W0236466.1} 31
109. Hamilton has freely answered any questions put to him by these agencies and
authorities and no criminal or other charges have been levied against him by any of these
agencies and/or authorities. Upon information and belief, every agency and law enforcement
authority that has investigated these complaints has determined they were unfounded and
decided to take no further action. It has been almost four years since the defendants attempted to
convince law enforcement authorities that Hamilton and others had committed criminal acts, and
no proceedings have been commenced against anyone as a consequence of such false and
malicious allegations.
110. Upon information and belief, these criminal allegations were maliciously filed by
the defendants in an effort to intimidate Hamilton and to cause him to incur additional legal and
other costs in order to respond to such allegations.
(d) The Public DefGmation o[Hamilton
111. On June 7, 2010, the Board held a special meeting at which the only item of
business was a resolution to adjourn to an executive session. After 58 minutes, the Board
returned from the executive session. At that time, Alley publicly read aloud the following
bizarre statement from a sheet of paper she was holding, and then she adjourned the meeting:
"The Jordan-Elbridge School District is out of compliance with certain
policies, procedures and laws. The Board does not agree with how the District is
handling specific issues. The Board does not agree with, nor does it condone,
certain actions that are retaliatory in nature against its employees. If retaliation
does not stop, the Board will consider taking further action with the State
Comptroller or Attorney General."
112. Alley's remarks were effectively ratified by the Board since no member took
issue with it that evening or thereafter. Moreover, the minutes of the meeting and Alley's
{W0236466.1} 32
statement were thereafter published on the District's website. Upon information and belief,
everyone in attendance at that Board meeting and everyone who read the statement posted on the
District's website knew that Alley's statement referred to Hamilton.
113. On October 6, 2010, Alley made several defamatory comments at a public press
conference held in the High School library prior to the Board meeting that was held later that
evening. During her remarks, she stated that 128 charges had been filed against Hamilton, that
he was unfit to be around children, and that he was responsible, in part, for the District's low
student test scores on standardized tests. These statements were untrue and known by Alley to
be untrue when they were made. Moreover, they were made despite the fact that none of the
3020-a charges filed against Hamilton alleged misconduct related to children or to the instruction
of children.
114. At the Board meeting held later in the evening on October 6, 2010, the Board
orchestrated a PowerPoint presentation in front of approximately 800 members of the public.
During that presentation, Alley, Drake and Foote criticized the competency of Hamilton and the
recently fired School District Treasurer, Anthony Scro, and accused them of financial
mismanagement.
115. At public budget meetings in February and March 2011, Zacher told the public
that the District's financial accounting software that had been used by Hamilton "did not work,"
and that it was impossible to run accurate financial reports using that software. This statement
was meant to imply, and was understood by those who heard it to mean, that Hamilton had not
produced accurate financial statements during his employment.
116. At that time, Zacher also stated to the public that the Chart of Accounts developed
by Hamilton was all wrong and that Hamilton had not budgeted enough money for debt service.
{W0236466.1} 33
Again, the clear import of Zacher's statements was that Hamilton was incompetent. These
statements were false and malicious, and known by Zacher to be false when made.
117. Upon information and belief, Zacher and his paramour VanMinos sought to
ingratiate themselves with the Board by publicly claiming on several occasions that the
employees who preceded them, including Hamilton, were to blame for all the financial and other
problems facing the District (instead of their own incompetence). Upon information and belief,
anyone hearing these comments knew that they referred to Hamilton.
118. Zacher sent Hamilton a letter on April 12, 2011 that threatened legal action in the
event that Hamilton continued to speak out as a citizen on issues related to the District's 2011-
2012 budget. Upon information and belief, this letter was sent with the prior approval of the
Board and was a clear prior restraint on Hamilton's right to comment on matters of public
interest.
119. At a Board meeting in April, 2011, the Board's consultant, Rick Timbs, stated
that (a) the District's capital construction fund was "missing" $500,000, (b) this amount had been
missing for "years," and (c) the District would be facing bankruptcy within 18 months. Zacher
then stated to the audience that the "missing money" was simply gone, implying that it was due
to years of financial mismanagement. These statements were false and, intended to publicly
impugn Hamilton's professional reputation. Upon information and belief, Timbs' comments
were orchestrated in advance and made with the prior knowledge and approval of the Board,
VanMinos and Zacher.
120. In response to claims that the District was "missing" $500,000 from the Capital
Construction project, Hamilton submitted a FOIL request for the District's financial reports so he
could show that this claim was false. However, the defendants illegally withheld the requested
{W0236466.1} 34
documents until Hamilton commenced an Article 78 proceeding to compel production of these
documents. Once produced, the financial statements showed that no money was "missing" and
that defendants' contrary statements alleging or implying impropriety by Hamilton were
completely false and inaccurate.
121. During a public Board meeting on April 28, 2011, Zacher criticized Hamilton, by
name, for submitting FOIL requests. Zacher's comments implied that Hamilton's exercise of his
statutory right to request public records was improper and harmful to the District. Upon
information and belief, Zacher knew that Hamilton had a statutory right to inspect records under
FOIL at the time he accused him of impropriety in doing so.
122. On July 7, 2010, the Board appointed VanMinos to replace Hamilton as the
District's Purchasing Agent. Almost a year later, on May 25, 2011, the Board Defendants voted
at a public board meeting to terminate "the appointments of William Hamilton and Paula
VanMinos as purchasing agent, deputy purchasing agent, records access officer, records
management officer, asbestos coordinator, pesticide coordinator, Medicaid compliance officer,
and representative or deputy representative on the Board ofDirectors ofthe Cayuga-Onondaga
Area School Employees' Health Care Plan". Upon information and belief, the Board knew at
the time that these were annual appointments and that Hamilton had not been appointed to such
positions. This resolution injured Hamilton's professional reputation because it implied that he
was responsible for several errors made by VanMinos in these positions and it was intended to
associate Hamilton with VanMinos in the eyes of the public.
123. On or about July 11, 2011, Froio was quoted by television and radio station YNN
as stating that there was "a lot ofmerit " to the 3020-a charges against Hamilton.
{W0236466.1} 35
124. On July 8, 2011, while responding to questions regarding Hamilton's suspension,
Froio was quoted in The Auburn Citizen as stating that a report by Kessler had been referred to
the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to "safeguard the funds
and reputation of the District." Froio thereby implied, falsely, that the Kessler findings had
uncovered illegal conduct on Hamilton's part.
(e) Froio Files Further Unwarranted Charges Against Hamilton
125. Upon information and belief the Board and Froio knew that the initial charges
were bogus and, in many instances, outright false and could not be proven at a 3020-a hearing.
Thus, beginning as early as August of 2011, they began an intense search for additional charges
to file against Hamilton. On February 15, 2012, Froio filed a second set of 3020-a charges (the
"Amended Charges") against Hamilton.
126. The Amended Charges withdrew five (5) specifications and amended four (4)
specifications contained in the initial charges. Otherwise, the Board reaffirmed the initial
charges. In other words, in making its finding of probable cause on the Amended Charges in
February 2012, the Board reviewed the initial charges and decided to continue prosecuting them
as amended.
127. This determination was made by the Board after Kessler conducted an
investigation at great cost to the District and issued several written reports which showed that
there was no basis or insufficient evidence for several of the charges. Thus, in making the
determination to approve the Amended Charges and to continue prosecuting the initial charges as
amended, the Board knew or should have known that several of the charges were not supported
by the evidence and did not justify the further expenditure of public funds to pursue.
fW0236466.1} 36
128. Upon information and belief, the Amended Charges were brought for the same
malicious 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 his
employment, and (c) retaliate against him.
(f) Froio Files a Part 83 Complaint Against 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 complaint
against Hamilton pursuant to 8 NYCRR Part 83..
130. Upon information and belief, Froio presented a draft of a Part 83 complaint to
Zabin, which alleged that Hamilton had ''poor moral character unbecoming of an Assistant
Superintendent ofBusiness and Finance." At that time, Froio knew or should have known that
this draft contained several allegations that were false.
131. Froio filed his Part 83 complaint seeking to revoke Hamilton's administrative
certifications on April 10,2012. This was two months after Amended Charges were filed, some
five months after he met with Zabin, and after Kessler had submitted at least ten (10) reports to
the Board which illustrated that many of these allegations of misconduct against Hamilton were
without merit.
132. Froio filed the Part 83 complaint in bad faith and with malice, after he knew or
had reason to know that the allegations in that complaint were without merit. Upon information
and belief, he did so in an attempt to bludgeon Hamilton into submission in the pending 3020-a
proceeding.
(g) The Board Abolishes Hamilton's Position to Circumvent his Tenure Rights
{W0236466.1} 37
133. Upon information and belief, Froio and others came to the realization in the
summer or early fall of 2012, that they would not be successful in their efforts to terminate
Hamilton's employment based on the bogus 3020-a charges. For that reason, they began to
scheme on how to reorganize the District in a way that would abolish Hamilton's position so that
he would not have a job to return to when he prevailed in the 3020-a proceeding. Specifically,
the Board, upon the recommendation of Froio, first changed Madonna's tenure area and then
abolished Hamilton's position in a malicious, illegal and transparent attempt to circumvent his
tenure rights and to increase economic pressure on him to give up defending himself.
134. At a Board meeting on August 15, 2012, Froio made his first vague reference to a
"plan" to reorganize the District, The minutes of that meeting contain the following notation
regarding his comments:
Mr. Froio shared his concerns over the district being too top heavy in top level
administration positions. In November of 2012, he will recommend the board
eliminate the positions of Assistant Superintendent of Business and Finance,
Director of Operations, and Director of Special Education, and Interim Business
Manager.
135. At the August 15, 2012 Board meeting, Froio did not specify who would perform
the duties of the Assistant Superintendent for Business and Finance position. Instead, he stated
that, beginning with the 2013-2014 school year, all District level administrative duties would be
carried out by "the remaining administrative staff' as spelled out in an organizational chart that
he gave the Board members. However, that organizational chart has never been made public and
Froio has refused to provide a copy of the same to the public or to Hamilton. Moreover, this so-
called organizational chart has never been approved by the Board.
136. On January 2,2013, the Board held an executive session for the stated purpose of
"Discussing litigation strategy for 3020-a versus Hamilton." Upon information and belief,
{W0236466.1} 38
however, the Board actually discussed Froio's plan to "reorganize" Hamilton out of a job. This
discussion was illegal because the resolution calling the executive session did not identify
proposed administrative reorganization as a subject to be discussed and because a plan to
reorganize the administrative structure of a school district is clearly a topic for public discussion
in an open meeting.
137. Stated differently, the "litigation strategy for 3020-a versus Hamilton" that was
eventually agreed upon by the Board in executive session was to circumvent Hamilton's tenure
rights by abolishing his position. The strategy was to make it futile for him to continue to defend
the disciplinary charges.
138. At its next meeting on January 16, 2013, the Board adopted the following
resolution to abolish certain positions, including Hamilton's, effective June 30, 2013:
Motion by Mr. Gallaro and Seconded by Mrs. Zelias, upon the
recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools, that the Board of
Education of the Jordan-Elbridge Central School District adopt the
following resolution:
Section 1
BE IT RESOLVED, upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools,
that the Board of Education of the Jordan-Elbridge Central School District adopt
the following resolution: abolish positions as follows for the reasons of economy
and efficiency effective June 30, 2013:
Position Number
{W0236466.1}
Director of Operations 1.0 full time equivalent
Director of Special Education 1.0 full time equivalent
Assistant Superintendent for Business & Finance L.Q full time equivalent
Total 3.0
39
Section 2
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that whereas William E. Hamilton is the sole
occupant of the Assistant Superintendent for Business and Finance position, there
are no current incumbents in the other positions being abolished, and there are no
other positions available within the District that encompass work that is "similar"
to the work previously performed by the Assistant Superintendent for Business
and Finance, William E. Hamilton is hereby excessed from his position of
employment with the District effective June 30, 2013.
139. Hamilton's position (Assistant Superintendent of Business and Finance) was the
only abolished position that was then encumbered. The Board resolution incorrectly stated that
there were "no other positions available within the District that encompass work that is 'similar'
to the work previously per:formed by [Hamilton}" and that Hamilton would be excessed from
employment effective June 30, 2013. A copy of the Board resolution is attached as Exhibit
"G."
140. Before it abolished the former Assistant Superintendent for Business and Finance
position, the Board failed to approve any administrative reorganization plan that reallocated the
duties and responsibilities of that position. Rather, the Board simply left it up to Froio to figure
out who would thereafter perform those duties and responsibilities. Accordingly, the Board
never made any determination as to whether the abolition of that position would achieve any
efficiencies and/or economies for the District.
141. In fact, essential functions of the business office which were formerly perfonned
by Hamilton were ignored and/or overlooked by the District after he was suspended. Rather than
develop and implement a rational alternative plan, Froio simply overloaded existing personnel in
his misguided effort to terminate Hamilton's employment.
{W0236466.1} 40
142. Upon information and belief, the sole reason for Froio's recommendation to
abolish Hamilton's position was to set up a situation where there would be no position for him to
return to when the 3020-a charges against him were dismissed. This tactic is a blatant bad faith
effort to circumvent Hamilton's statutory rights as a tenured employee.
(h) Froio's "Plan" was to Create a Civil Service Position for Mahaney
143. 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 was
made retroactive to July 1, 2012. Upon information and belief, this agreement and the
significant increase in Mahoney's compensation was part of Froio's "plan" to reorganize
Hamilton out of a position in circumvention of his tenure rights.
144. Upon information and belief, Froio's unannounced plan was to have Mahaney
pass an open competitive test for the position of Director of Accounting that was scheduled to be
administered by the Onondaga County Civil Service Commission, and then reassign the duties of
Hamilton's position to Mahaney as a Civil Service rather than a certified employee. This was an
effort by Froio to create a position that would not be "similar" to Hamilton's position within the
meaning of Education Law 2510(l).
145. However, on February 26, 2013, the Onondaga Civil Service Commission
published the eligibility list based on the results of the Open Competitive test it had administered
for the position of Director of Accounting. Upon information and belief, Mahaney failed that
test.
146. Consequently, Froio had to develop a different plan. Upon information and
belief, under this revised plan Froio would be personally responsible for the District's business
{W0236466.1} 41
operation and he would supervise the District Treasurer, an account clerk, two administrative
aides and a personnel aide who would collectively perform Hamilton's duties.
147. Even if Froio's so-called "administrative reorganization" had been conceived in
good 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 or
certification in school district finance and is eminently unqualified to supervise a $27 million
dollar school district business operation. Second, an account clerk, two administrative aides and
a personnel aide are not legally qualified to perform the essential duties of Hamilton'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, the
responsibility for business operations. Specifically, Froio represented to the public and to the
Board in August 2012 that he would "be hardpressed to find a school district of 1,400 kids with
two assistant superintendents," implying that the District was overstaffed since it had an
Assistant Superintendent for Business and Finance and an Assistant Superintendent for
Curriculum and Instruction.
149. Upon information and belief, the claim that most school districts with similar
enrollments do not have a dedicated school business official responsible for business and finance
helped convince the Board to eliminate Hamilton's position. However, for the reasons set forth
below, 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 not
employees of a BOCES, private school, or other agency). Within that membership, there are at
{W0236466.1} 42
least 118 different job titles for positions other than the superintendent or the treasurer that are
dedicated to overseeing school district finances.
151. With respect to student enrollment, 265 of these 565 school districts have an
enrollment that is less than the District's student enrollment. Over three-fourths of these smaller
districts (i.e., 201 school districts, or 76%) employ an administrator who is dedicated to
supervise the school district's business operations as follows:
Total
54
38
22
18
11
9
8
8
5
5
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Title
Business Manager
Business Administrator
School Business Administrator
School District Business Leader
Director of Finance & Operations
Director of Finance
School Business Executive
School Business Manager
Director of Business Administration
Director of Finance & Administrative Services
Administrator of Business Services & Student Accountability
Director of Finance and Instructional Technolog
Business Official
School Business Official
Business Executive
Director of Finance and Operations
Senior Director of Business, Finance & Operations
Business Administrator
Chief Financial Officer
Grand Total 201
{W0236466.1} 43
152. As shown by the position titles highlighted above, 36 of the 201 (18%) of those
school districts that have fewer students than the District employ an Assisting Superintendent as
the administrator whose sole or primary responsibility is to oversee the school district's finances.
These smaller school districts recognize the obvious fact that they are multi-million dollar
enterprises that require dedicated financial management oversight.
153. Moreover, there are seventy-one (71) school districts in the Central New York
region (i.e., in Cayuga, Cortland, Herkimer, Madison, Oneida, Onondaga, Oswego, Otsego and
Tompkins Counties). Forty one (41) of these school districts have student enrollments that are
smaller than the District's. Thirty (or 73%) of these smaller school districts employ a dedicated
school business administrator.
154. Also, every school district that borders the District (i.e., Baldwinsville, Cato-
Meridian, Weedsport, Auburn, Skaneateles, Marcellus and West Genesee) has a dedicated school
business official. In five of these seven school districts, that position is an Assistant
Superintendent (i.e., Baldwinsville, Cato-Meridian, Weedsport, Skaneateles and West Genesee).
The Cato and Weedsport school districts have lower enrollments than the District (994 and 873
students, respectively).
155. Everyone of the other eight school districts in the Cayuga-Onondaga BOCES
(i.e., Skaneateles, Moravia, Southern Cayuga, Union Springs, Auburn, Port Byron, Weedsport
and Cato-Meridian) and the Cayuga-Onondaga BOCES has a dedicated school business official.
Except for Skaneateles (1,547 students) and Auburn (4,245 students) these school districts have
fewer students than the District.
156. Only ten members of NYSASBO (i.e., 1% of the 862 school district titles) have
administrative set ups similar to what Froio has implemented. The average student enrollment of
{W0236466.1} 44
these ten school districts is 565 (they range from 310 to 950), which approximately one-third of
the 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 1
Business Manager/Treasurer 696 1
Business Manager/District Treasurer 353 1
School Business Official/Treasurer 609 1
School Accountant/Business Manager 950 I
School Business Manager/Treasurer 651 1
Business Official/District Treasurer 576 1
Superintendent/Business Administrator 310 I
Business Official/Treasurer 394 1
District Treasurer/Business Manager 508 1
Grand Total 10
157. Finally, the District is the only school district among its enrollment peers in the
entire State of New York that has abolished its chief financial officer's position. Of the 565
school districts that are NYSASBO members, 31 had student enrollments for 2012 in the range
of 1,400 to 1,500 students. As shown in the following table, every single one of these districts
has a dedicated business official. In fact, ten out of the 31 districts (32%) employ Assistant
Superintendents as their chief financial officer.
BEDS District Name
Akron Central School District
Attica Central School District
Blind Brook-Rye Union Free School District
Carle Place Union Free School District
Cheektowaga-Sloan Union Free School
District
Coxsackie-Athens Central School District
{W0236466.1}
EJu:!!l! tJ.
1,480 School Business Administrator 1
1,467 Business Administrator 1
1,488 Assistant Superintendent Finance & Facilities 1
Treasurer 1
1,408 Assistant Superintendent for Business 1
Assistant Business Administrator 1
1,415 Director of Finance & Administrative 1
Services
1,490 Assistant Superintendent for School Services 1
Treasurer 1
45
Dobbs Ferry Union Free School District 1,435 Assistant Superintendent for Finance,
Facilities, and Operations
District Treasurer
Floral Park-Bellerose Union Free School 1,461 Assistant Superintendent for Business
District
Fonda-Fultonville Central School District 1,415 Business Manager 1
Hannibal Central School District 1,468 Business Administrator 1
Jordan-Elbridge Central School District 1,449 Interim Business Administrator 1
District Treasurer 1
Mattituck-Cutchogue Union Free School 1,413 Business Manager 1
District
Onteora Central School District 1,446 Assistant Superintendent for Business 1
Treasurer 1
Royalton-Harland Central School District 1,431 District Business Administrator, District 1
Treasurer, Director of Operations and
Facilities
Rye Neck Union Free School District 1,491 Assistant Superintendent for Business 1
Treasurer 1
Salmon River Central School District 1,446 Business Executive 1
Solvay Union Free School District 1,487 Business Manager 1
Southampton Union Free School District 1,482 Assistant Superintendent for Business 1
Southwestern Central School District at 1,403 Assistant Superintendent for Business 1
Jamestown
Taconic Hills Central School District 1,473 Business Manager
Valley Stream 30 Union Free School District 1,427 Assistant Superintendent for Business
Wayland-Cohocton Central School District 1,440 Business Manager
District Treasurer
Whitney Point Central School District 1,483 Business Executive
Grand Total 31
The District is the only school district among its enrollment peers in the State of New York that
has abolished the chief financial officer's position.
0) The Board Retroactively and Illegally Changed Tenure Areas to Circumvent
Hamilton's Rights under Education Law 2510
158. Froio and others also schemed to deprive Hamilton of his statutory rights to claim
another position in the event his Assistant Superintendent position was abolished. In this regard,
whenever a board of education abolishes a position, Education Law 2510(2) requires that "the
services of the teacher having the least seniority in the system within the tenure of the position
abolished shall be discontinued."
{W0236466.1} 46
159. Hamilton was appointed to tenure in the tenure area of "Administrative," as were
several other administrators employed by the District, including the interim High School
principal, Mary Madonna ("Madonna"). Because Madonna had far less seniority than Hamilton,
the next step in Froio's scheme was for the Board to enter into an agreement with Madonna in a
transparent and illegal attempt to prevent her employment from being discontinued as the least
senior person in the Administrative tenure area.
160. On September 19, 2012, the Board held an hour long executive session for the
stated purpose of discussing: "The Tenure recommendation for Interim High School Principal
(Madonna)." Other stated purposes for that executive session were a "3020-a update vs. Zehner
and a 3020-a update vs. Hamilton." Upon information and belief, Froio and the Board illegally
decided during that executive session that they could prevent Hamilton from returning upon
completion of the 3020-a hearing if they crafted an agreement to change Madonna's tenure
area.
161. On October 3, 2012, the Board adopted a resolution to approve an agreement with
Madonna relative to her tenure. A copy of the agreement with Madonna is annexed as Exhibit
"H." It illegally purports to grant her tenure in the tenure area of Assistant Principal although
she never received a probationary appointment and never served a day in that tenure area.
162. The fact is that on September 28, 2009 the Board granted Madonna a three-year
probationary appointment "in the Administrative tenure area." This recent agreement with
Madonna (Exhibit "H") was entered into on the eve of being appointed to tenure and three years
after her probationary appointment to change her tenure area. It is a grotesque and obvious effort
by Froio and the Board to circumvent Hamilton's tenure rights under the tenure statutes of New
York State.
{W0236466. I} 47
(k) The District Belatedly Withdraws Specifications in an Attempt to Avoid the
Consequences ofProsecuting "Frivolous" Charges
163. Education Law 3020-a(4)(c) provides as follows:
The hearing officer shall indicate in the decision whether any of the
charges brought by the employing board were frivolous as defined in
section eighty-three hundred three-a of the civil practice law and rules.
If the hearing officer finds that all of the charges brought against the
employee were frivolous, the hearing officer shall order the employing
board to reimburse the department the reasonable costs said department
incurred as a result of the proceeding and to reimburse the employee the
reasonable costs, including but not limited to reasonable attorneys' fees,
the employee incurred in defending the charges. If the hearing officer
finds that some but not all of the charges brought against the employee
were frivolous, the hearing officer shall order the employing board to
reimburse the department a portion, in the discretion of the hearing officer,
of the reasonable costs said department incurred as a result of the
proceeding and to reimburse the employee a portion, in the discretion of
the hearing officer, of the reasonable costs, including but not limited to
reasonable attorneys' fees, the employee incurred in defending the
charges.
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 (approximately
6%). In total, eighty-two (82) or 33% of the specifications in the Original and Amended Charges
against 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 hope
that the 11th 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
167. The defendants acted in bad faith by intentionally waiting until the 11th hour to
withdraw charges. Upon information and belief the obvious purpose for such delay was to cause
Hamilton to spend the time, energy, money and other resources necessary to prepare and present
defenses to such charges at a hearing.
IV
CAUSES OF ACTION
FOR A FIRST CAUSE OFACTIONAGAINST THE BOARD
-BAD FAITHABOLITIONOFHAMILTON'S POSITION-
168. Hamilton hereby incorporates all previous paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully
set forth herein.
169. On April 6, 2006, the Board appointed Hamilton to tenure, effective June 18,
2006. He was a tenured employee from that date until his position was abolished effective June
30, 2013, and his tenure rights have not been waived or rescinded by any proceeding or other
legal action.
170. Education Law 3012 provides that a tenured employee "shall not be removed
except for [statutorily specified] causes, after a hearing, as provided by section three thousand
twenty-a of such law." Education Law 3020(1) provides that "[n]o person enjoying the
benefits of tenure shall be disciplined or removed during a term of employment except for just
cause and in accordance with the procedures specified in" Education Law 3020-a.
171. Thus, as a tenured employee Hamilton could not legally be terminated from his
employment except for just cause established in a 3020-a due process proceeding.
172. However, in a transparent attempt to circumvent Hamilton's tenure rights, Froio
recommended and the Board adopted a bogus reorganization plan in which the only occupied
fW0236466.1} 49
position to be abolished was Hamilton's position. This plan was conceived to circumvent
Hamilton'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 and
belief, Froio and the Board agreed during that executive session or at an earlier executive session
that the Board would thereafter abolish Hamilton's position as a means to prevent his return from
suspension in the event he prevailed in the pending 3020-a proceeding.
174. Pursuant to Froio's recommendation, the Board adopted a resolution on January
16,2013 that abolished Hamilton's position, effective June 30, 2013.
175. Under New York law, a tenured position may not be abolished as a subterfuge to
circumvent the tenure rights of an employee. However, upon information and belief, the Board
abolished Hamilton's position in bad faith in order to circumvent his tenure rights and not for
any 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 to
continue to defend the 3020-a charges against him.
176. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' conduct, Hamilton has suffered
actual and special damages including monetary damages, loss wages and benefits, emotional and
psychological damages, embarrassment, humiliation, emotional distress, mental anguish and
suffering, and damage to his professional reputation and career.
{W0236466.1} 50
FOR A SECOND CAUSE OFACTIONAGAINST THE BOARD
AND FIRST CAUSE OFACTIONAGAINSTMADONNA
FOR DECLARATORYJUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3001
- ILLEGAL CHANGE OF TENURE AREAS -
177. Hamilton hereby incorporates all previous paragraphs of this Complaint as iffully
set forth herein.
178. As stated above, when a position is abolished, Education Law 2510(2) requires
that the services of the teacher with the least seniority in the tenure area of that position be
discontinued. As alleged above in Hamilton's second cause of Action, that statute required that
the Board discontinue Madonna's and not Hamilton's employment.
179. Acting with apparent awareness of the requirements of Education Law 2510(2),
In September 2012 the Board, upon Froio's recommendation and with the collaboration of
Madonna, entered into a written agreement with Madonna to change her tenure area. (Exhibit
"H"). This was approximately one month before her three-year probationary period was about to
expire. Although that agreement is vaguely drafted, it illegally purports to change Madonna's
tenure area from the "Administrative" tenure area to that of "Assistant Principal."
180. On October 3,2012, the Board approved a resolution to adopt the agreement with
Madonna and authorize the Board President to sign the same. It does not appear that the Board
ever expressly approved a resolution to grant Madonna tenure in the "Assistant Principal" tenure
area but, instead, assumes that this was accomplished by virtue of the October 3,2012 resolution
(Exhibit "I").
181. This agreement purports to change Madonna's tenure area from
"Administrative" to "Assistant Principal." This sham agreement is illegal and void SInce
Madonna never received a probationary appointment to the Assistant Principal tenure area and,
consequently, has never served a day in that tenure area.
{W0236466.1} 51
182. The Board illegally created a special tenure area for Madonna who was appointed
to and served a probationary period in the "Administrative" tenure area, and had far less seniority
than Hamilton did in that tenure area. Upon information and belief, the reason for defendants'
actions in this regard is to create a situation where Hamilton will not have a position to return to
within the District when he is acquitted of the 3020-a charges.
183. The Board's actions in this regard were a transparent and illegal attempt to avoid
discontinuing Madonna's employment as the least senior person in the Administrative tenure
area and are in clear violation of New York tenure statutes.
184. Based on the foregoing, Hamilton respectfully requests that the Court issue a
declaratory judgment pursuant to CPLR 3001 declaring that the agreement between Madonna
and the Board (Exhibit "H") is null and void as being in violation of the tenure statutes of the
State ofNew Yark and awarding Hamilton attorney's fees and costs incurred in commencing this
action and such other relief as this Court deems appropriate under the circumstances.
FOR A THIRD CAUSE OFACTIONAGAINST THE BOARD
AND SECOND CAUSE OFACTIONAGAINSTMADONNA
-VIOLATIONOFEDUCATIONLAW 2510(2)-
185. Hamilton hereby incorporates all previous paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully
set forth herein.
186. New York Education Law 2510(2) mandates that "[wJhenever a board of
education abolishes a position under this chapter, the services of the teacher having the least
seniority in the system within the tenure ofthe position abolished shall be discontinued."
187. Hamilton was appointed to tenure in the tenure area of "Administrative," as were
several other administrators employed by the District, including Madonna.
{W0236466.1} 52
188. Madonna had far less seniority in the Administrative tenure area than Hamilton
and, upon information and belief, was the least senior person serving in the District's
Administrative tenure area as of June 30, 2013. Thus, when the Board abolished a position in
the Administrative tenure area, Education Law 2510(2) required that it terminate Madonna's
employment before it terminated Hamilton's employment.
189. However, the Board illegally terminated Hamilton's employment and retained
Madonna as an employee. Accordingly, Hamilton should be reinstated with back pay and
benefits and such other relief should be granted as this Court deems appropriate under the
circumstances.
190. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' improper termination of his
employment, Hamilton has suffered actual and special damages including monetary damages,
loss wages and benefits, emotional and psychological damages, embarrassment, humiliation,
emotional distress, mental anguish and suffering, and damage to his professional reputation and
career.
FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OFACTIONAGAINST THE BOARD
-VIOLATIONOFEDUCATIONLAW 2510(1)-
191. Hamilton hereby incorporates all previous paragraphs ofthis Complaint as iffully
set forth herein.
192. New York State Education Law 2510(1) mandates that when a position is
abolished and a new position is created "for the performance ofduties similar to those performed
in the office or position abolished," the person holding the abolished position is to be appointed
to the new position without any reduction in salary or increment.
{W0236466. I} 53
193. The Board abolished Hamilton's position, and on information and belief,
thereafter, in bad faith, created (or agreed to create in the near future) a new position to perform
the duties and responsibilities of the abolished Assistant Superintendent of Business and Finance
position. The Board has refused to appoint Hamilton to the new position.
194. As a direct and proximate result of this conduct, Hamilton has suffered actual and
special damages including monetary damages, loss wages and benefits, emotional and
psychological damages, embarrassment, humiliation, emotional distress, mental anguish and
suffering, and damage to his professional reputation career.
FOR A FIFTHCAUSE OFACTIONAGAINST THE BOARD
-VIOLATION OF THE OPENMEETINGS LAW-
195. Hamilton hereby incorporates all previous paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully
set forth herein.
196. Upon information and belief, the Board and Froio repeatedly and willfully
violated the New York Open Meetings Law by discussing and eventually agreeing upon Froio's
plan to abolish Hamilton's position in one or more executive sessions that were called to discuss
matters other than administrative reorganization issues. Upon information and belief, Froio's
"plan" was illegally discussed and agreed upon by the Board during an executive session, or
sessions, conducted in or about January 2013.
197. Upon information and belief, the topic of reorganizing the administrative structure
of the District is a matter of public concern that is not an appropriate topic for discussion in
executive session. All matters related to a proposed administrative reorganization should have
been discussed and voted on in open public session.
{W0236466.1} 54
198. Upon information and belief, the reason why the Board and Froio discussed the
"abolishment" and "reorganization plan" in executive session was to keep this information from
the public, which had been critical of several Board personnel actions in the past. In fact, if
Froio's "plan' had been presented to the Board and discussed in a public meeting as it should
have been, it would have been obvious to anyone in attendance at the Board meeting(s) that this
"reorganization plan" was no plan at all, but was instead a scheme to cut off Hamilton's pay and
benefits by targeting his position for abolishment.
199. Froio and the Board are familiar with the requirements of the Open Meetings Law
by virtue of the decision of Onondaga County Supreme Court dated October 1,2010 (Index No.:
2010-4926) that rescinded a prior board action based on the Board's violation of the Open
Meetings Law. The Appellate Division affirmed that decision on an appeal commenced by the
Board.
200. Pursuant to CPLR Article 78 and Public Officers Law 107(1), Hamilton seeks
an order of this Court voiding the so-called "reorganization" plan that was illegally discussed and
approved in executive session(s) and all subsequent actions taken by the Board pursuant to that
plan, including the abolition of Hamilton's former position, and ordering the Board is to refrain
from any further violations of the requirements of the Open Meetings Law.
201. Hamilton also requests the costs and reasonable attorney fees incurred ill
prosecuting this action in accordance with Public Officers Law 107(2).
FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OFACTIONAGAINST THE BOARD
-PRELIMINARYINJUNCTIVE RELIEF-
202. Hamilton hereby incorporates all previous paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully
set forth herein.
{'r0236466.1} 55
203. Based on the foregoing actions of defendants, Hamilton has suffered harm and
will continue to suffer harm during the pendency of this action, including a denial of his tenure
rights, illegal prior restraint upon his right of free speech and personal financial loss.
204. Such harm includes damage to Hamilton's reputation, honor, integrity, career,
position and ability to earn a living and continue in his profession.
205. Such haml is irreparable and cannot be adequately remedied by an award of
damages. Therefore, Hamilton has no adequate remedy at law. Hamilton has endured and will
continue to endure, such punishment, discipline, harassment, embarrassment, humiliation, and
damage to his professional reputation as a result of the wrongful actions of defendants unless his
prayer for relief is granted and the abolishment of his position is enjoined and the termination of
his employment is rescinded.
206. Furthermore, the balance of equities favors Hamilton in light of the obvious bad
faith of defendants in taking the actions described above.
207. Based on the foregoing, Hamilton respectfully requests that this Court grant a
preliminary injunction pursuant to CPLR Article 63 enjoining defendants from continuing the
abolition of his position and termination of his employment on the ground that he is entitled to a
judgment restraining the Board from the continuance of its actions to abolish his position, which,
if continued during the pendency of this action, would produce injury to Hamilton.
FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OFACTIONAGAINST THE BOARD
-VIOLATIONOFEDUCATIONLAW 3028-d-
208. Hamilton hereby incorporates all previous paragraphs ofthis Complaint as if fully
set forth herein.
(W023 6466.1) 56
209. Hamilton has, in good faith, reported illegal and/or inappropriate financial
practices including the wrongful transfer of Schue to a "make work" position while paying a
second salary for a substitute to administer her building and the payment of District funds to
Mevec for questionable services and without proper audit by officials of the District.
210. Education Law 3028-d prohibits the District and any officer or employee
thereof from taking, requesting or causing retaliatory action to be taken against Hamilton for
making such reports. However, in response to Hamilton's good faith reports, the defendants
have committed ongoing retaliatory actions against him as alleged herein. These retaliatory acts
include the abolition of his position and the termination of his employment with the district.
211. As a result of the aforementioned retaliatory actions by the defendants, Hamilton
has suffered severe harm and injuries, including humiliation, emotional distress, mental anguish,
injuries to his professional reputation and good name, injury to his future employability and
employment prospects, and other financial harm.
212. Hamilton seeks an Order of this Court rescinding the retaliatory action of
abolishing his position and terminating his employment, together with an award of compensatory
damages sufficient to compensate him for all harms and injuries suffered as a result of the
defendants' retaliatory and abusive actions.
FOR ANEIGHTHCAUSE OFACTIONAGAINST THE BOARD
AND FIRST CAUSE OFACTIONAGAINSTZACHER
-PRIOR RESTRAINT ONRIGHT OF FREE SPEECH-
213. Hamilton hereby incorporates all previous paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully
set forth herein.
214. At the request of resident taxpayers and various citizen organizations, on April 7,
2011 Hamilton made a public presentation to explain how a board of education develops an
{W0236466.1} 57
annual budget and to discuss the annual budget that the Board had proposed for the fiscal year
2011-12. This presentation was made by Hamilton on the basis of his expertise and publicly
available information and was made for the purpose of helping the public to better understand
the budget process.
215. The "bottom-line" of Hamilton's presentation was that the District should be able
to function appropriately with a tax levy increase of 3.00% rather than the 7.30% proposed by
the District administration and approved by the Board. In addition, Hamilton calculated that the
District could achieve this level of funding with the elimination of less than 10 positions as
opposed to the elimination of 29.7 positions as proposed by the District.
216. The preliminary budget approved by the Board and presented to voters on May
17,2011 was soundly defeated by a vote of 323 votes for and 1,282 votes against. On June 21,
2011, the District's voters approved a revised budget that called for a 4.2% tax levy increase.
217. Upon information and belief, the defendants were furious that Hamilton had been
able to accurately construct an annual budget without access to inside information that was
available to the District administration and the Board. Upon information and belief, the District
administration and the Board were embarrassed that Hamilton's analysis proved the
incompetency of those District employees who were then in charge of the District's finances.
218. On April 12, 2011, after Hamilton's public budget presentation, Zacher threatened
Hamilton with additional disciplinary charges if he did not "cease and desist" publicly
discussing the District's proposed budget. A copy of Zacher's threatening letter to Hamilton is
annexed as Exhibit "J." This directive from Zacher was clearly an unconstitutional prior
restraint on Hamilton's right to Free Speech under the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the New York State Constitution.
{W0236466.I} 58
219. Upon information and belief, Zacher's threat to Hamilton that he cease and desist
from making public comments on the proposed budget or face possible charges was made with
the prior approval of the Board and the members of the Board knew or should have known that
such a threat violated Hamilton's clearly established rights.
220. Zacher's unconstitutional restraint upon Hamilton's right of free speech was
clearly intended to, and did, cause Hamilton to cease making public comments for fear of further
disciplinary proceedings as threatened by Zacher.
221. Hamilton seeks an award of compensatory and punitive damages sufficient to
compensate him for all harms and injuries suffered as a result of said defendants' violation of his
right to free speech.
FORA NINTHCAUSE OFACTIONAGAINST THE BOARD, SECOND CAUSE OF
ACTIONAGAINSTZACHER, AND FIRST CAUSE OFACTIONAGAINST THE
BOARD DEFENDANTS, VANMINOS, GORTONAND MATTIE, INDIVIDUALLY
-RETALIATIONFOR FREE SPEECH-
222. Hamilton hereby incorporates all previous paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully
set forth herein.
223. As alleged above, Hamilton's expertise in budgetary matters made the defendants
appear incompetent in the manner in which they developed the initial budget. The individual
Board members resented the fact that his presentation to the public disclosed their incompetency
in fiscal matters and, as a consequence, they retaliated against Hamilton.
224. In blatant retaliation for Hamilton's exercise of his right to free speech, the Board
and other defendants took several retaliatory actions against him as previously described herein,
culminating in the illegal abolition of his position and termination of his employment.
{W0236466.1} 59
225. Hamilton seeks an award of compensatory and punitive damages sufficient to
compensate him for all harms and injuries suffered as a result of said defendants' retaliatory
actions in violation of his right to free speech.
FOR A TENTH CAUSE OFACTIONAGAINST THE BOARD
-ABUSE OFPROCESS UNDER EDUCATIONLAW 3020-a-
226. Hamilton hereby incorporates all previous paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully
set forth herein.
227. Defendants have intentionally distorted the Education Law 3020-a legal process
to a purpose other than that for which it was intended. The process established by Education
Law 3020-a is intended to provide a fair procedure in which a qualified neutral decision maker
determines whether a tenured employee is fit to perform his or her duties in light of charges that
have been filed in good faith and on which a board of education has made a good faith
determination of probable cause.
228. However, at the urgings of Mevec, Mattie and the Board Defendants the
defendants belatedly filed 3020-a charges against Hamilton that they knew at the time were
false and unfounded. The Board filed the charges in bad faith with the knowledge that Hamilton
possessed the requisite fitness to perform the duties of his position and that there were no valid
grounds for such charges. Despite this knowledge, the Board perverted the 3020-a process by
using it as a weapon in an attempt to force Hamilton to resign his employment.
229. The Board Defendants, Zacher and Froio with the assistance of Mevec and Mattie
abused the statutory processes in multiple ways in an effort to exhaust Hamilton's financial
resources solely to gain the collateral objective of forcing him to resign his employment with the
District. These abuses include, but are not limited to, the following actions:
{W0236466.1} 60
a. On July 7, 2010, without properly filing charges, the Board Defendants
used 3020-a as a pretext to suspend Hamilton from his position of
employment on the mistaken assumption that he, like other employees
they had threatened, would resign rather than face 3020-a charges;
b. On August 18, 2010, Alley filed frivolous disciplinary charges against
Hamilton after Hamilton refused to resign his position. These charges
were signed by Alley and approved by the Board despite the fact that
Dominick had informed them that there was no legitimate factual basis for
such charges and that the District would not be successful in prosecuting
them;
c. Because of intentionally delaying tactics by the Board, the hearings on the
disciplinary charges filed against Hamilton did not begin until June 10,
2013, some thirty-five (35) months after he had been suspended by the
Board;
d. With the knowledge and consent of the Board, the District administration
and the Board's counsel have continuously delayed the 3020-a process
by refusing and failing to fully and fairly disclose evidence against
Hamilton as required by 3020-a, by withholding exculpatory information
from Hamilton, and by withholding emails and other relevant documents
that they are required to provide to Hamilton under the discovery rules
applicable to 3020-a proceedings; and
e. On February 15, 2012, Froio filed additional frivolous disciplinary charges
against Hamilton that he knew or should have known were false based on
written reports that had been provided to the District by its private
investigator, Kessler. These charges were filed solely because Hamilton
had persisted in his refusal to resign his position.
230. The absence of any factual basis for the 3020-a charges makes it clear that the
statutory processes were abused for the sole purposes of exerting financial pressure and bringing
public humiliation as part of a plan to force Hamilton to resign. Upon information and belief,
these processes were abused by the defendants because there simply was no basis in fact to prove
misconduct as they had to do in order to legitimately terminate Hamilton's employment using the
3020-a processes.
{W0236466.1} 61
231. Upon information and belief, Froio never asked Hamilton for any information
regarding 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 further
information and belief, Froio abused the aforementioned processes in exchange for financial
rewards from the Board in the form of future employment contracts and increased salary and
benefits.
232. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' conduct, Hamilton continues to
suffer 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 opportunities
will continue to accrue for the remainder of his professiona11ife.
233. The defendants' conduct has also directly and proximately caused Hamilton to
incur significant attorneys' fees to defend against the various charges and complaints brought
against him and in order to retain his employment with the District.
234. Hamilton requests monetary and punitive damages from the Board for the harm
and injuries suffered as a result of this abuse of process in an amount to be determined by the
trier of fact.
FOR ANELEVENTH CAUSE OFACTIONAGAINST THE BOARDAND FOR A
CAUSE OFACTIONAGAINST THE DEFENDANTFROIO, INDIVIDUALLY
-ABUSE OFPROCESS UNDER 8 NYCRR PART 83-
235. Hamilton hereby incorporates all previous paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully
set forth herein.
236. Upon information and belief, Froio obtained the position of superintendent of
schools by committing to assist the Board Defendants in their campaign against Hamilton,
regardless of the merits of that campaign.
{W0236466.1} 62
237. On April 10, 2012, Froio filed a complaint against Hamilton with the Office of
Teaching of the New York State Education Department ("SED") pursuant to 8 NYCRR Part 83
based on events that are alleged to have occurred as early as 2005, with the most recent event
alleged to have occurred in 2010. Froio was not employed by the District until July 1, 2011 and
he has no firsthand knowledge of any of the alleged events that were the subject of his Part 83
complaint.
238. Froio filed the Part 83 complaint against Hamilton although he had no reasonable
basis whatsoever to suspect that Hamilton lacked the requisite moral character to possess his
SED certifications. Upon information and belief, Froio filed that complaint without conducting
any investigation as to the validity of the factual basis for such allegations. Instead, his
complaint merely repeats selected portions ofthe 3020-a charges against Hamilton.
239. Froio filed his Part 83 complaint seeking to have SED revoke Hamilton's
professional certifications on the grounds of alleged "poor moral character" without having any
reasonable basis to believe that the allegations contained in that complaint were true and accurate
and, in fact, with information that would cause any reasonable person to conclude that several of
the allegations were false and unwarranted.
240. A Part 83 proceeding is a serious matter, since the revocation of his certifications
would prevent Hamilton from working for a public school district anywhere in the State of New
York. It is obvious that a Part 83 complaint should only be filed after thoughtful consideration of
the facts and it is not intended to be a substitute proceeding when a school district is unable to
prove unfounded allegations of misconduct against a tenured employee in a 3020-a proceeding.
Upon information and belief, however, that is precisely what has occurred in this instance.
{W0236466.1} 63
241. Froio intentionally abused the Part 83 processes for a purpose other than that for
which they were intended. He filed the Part 83 complaint against Hamilton without adequate
preliminary investigation into the truth or falsity of his allegations and, further, failed to
withdraw or to modify that complaint in light of facts that subsequently came to his attention
which would demonstrate to any reasonable person that several allegations of his Part 83
complaint were false and unfounded. However, Froio has not acted reasonably or in good faith
and, to the contrary, has continued to pursue his Part 83 complaints in bad faith.
242. Upon information and belief, Froio filed the Part 83 complaint in a bad faith
attempt to put additional financial pressure on Hamilton to resign. Upon further information and
belief, he did so with the foreknowledge and approval of the Board and the Board has approved
his failure to withdraw or modify the Part 83 complaint.
243. Hamilton requests monetary and punitive damages from Froio and the Board for
the harm and injuries suffered as a result of this abuse of process in an amount to be determined
by the trier of fact.
FORA TWELTHCAUSEOFACTION
-DEFAMATORY COMMENTS-
244. Hamilton hereby incorporates all previous paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully
set forth herein.
245. Defendants made several untrue comments regarding Hamilton which harm his
reputation in his profession and which were spoken with reference to his character or his
professional conduct in the presence of others as alleged in paragraphs "lOS" through "124" of
this complaint. Those who heard these comments reasonably understood from the words and
thoughts conveyed that Hamilton was incompetent, insubordinate, and immoral in his profession.
{W0236466.1} 64
246. In making these defamatory public statements, the defendants individually and
collectively 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 Hamilton
because they either referenced him by name or were made in a context that clearly implied they
were referencing Hamilton.
248. The above-referenced defamatory and slanderous statements were patently false
and 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 malice
towards 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, his
professional and personal reputation and physical and emotional well-being, and to expose him
to 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 access
to and were privy to information that refuted the statements. Consequently, the defendants knew
that there was a complete absence of any evidence to support these false accusations.
251. The above actions by the defendants, individually and collectively, directly and
proximately caused Hamilton special harm including, but not limited to, monetary damages,
damage to his reputation, humiliation, physical and emotional distress, mental anguish and
impacted his ability to obtain new employment.
{W0236466.1} 65
252. Hamilton seeks monetary damages from all liable defendants for the defamatory
statements in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact.
FOR ANTHIRTEENTH CAUSE OFACTION
-INTENTIONAL INFLICTIONOFEMOTIONAL DISTRESS-
253. Hamilton hereby incorporates all previous paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully
set forth herein.
254. The defendants have, intentionally taken several actions against Hamilton as
described in this Complaint in a manner so shocking and outrageous that they exceed all
reasonable bounds of decency and cannot be tolerated in a civilized community. Said conduct
was designed to and did cause Hamilton severe mental distress and anguish.
255. For more than three years, the defendants have acted recklessly in a campaign to
terminate Hamilton's employment and with utter disregard of the consequences that might
follow.
256. The Board Defendants, Zacher and Froio intentionally subjected Hamilton to
public charges and accusations that were false, including claims of endangering children,
accusations that Hamilton was incompetent, and the filing of unfounded accusations of criminal
conduct law enforcement authorities.
257. The defendants' intentional defamatory statements, as set forth in paragraphs
"105" through "124" of this Complaint, were an integral part ofa malicious, deliberate, ongoing,
and cOlnJIllU()US campaign of harassment mtllmldatlon agamst Hatml1:on, and public nature
of statements was so ou1:rm!eo,us. extreme
bounds of del:;enlCY as mt::as'ure:d
{W0236466.1} 66
258. These intentionally wrongful acts also included the filing and continued
prosecution of an unfounded Part 83 complaint by Froio filed after Kessler's investigation
established that the alleged factual basis for such charges was either non-existent or highly
suspect. If they had been acting in good faith, the results of the Kessler investigation should
have caused Froio and the Board to abandon such charges, but they refused to do so.
259. The aforesaid conduct was part of a malicious and deliberate campaign to cause
Hamilton severe emotional distress and anguish by harassing him in the community in which he
worked and impugning him in his profession. This conduct constituted extreme and outrageous
behavior that exceeded all bounds of decency as
member and should not be tolerated in a civilized community.
260. Hamilton has suffered and/or continues to suffer severe, ongoing emotional
distress, as well as physical and psychological harm as a direct and proximate result of this
conduct. He has suffered physical symptoms, anxiety and sleeplessness as a consequence of the
untrue, heinous and offensive public statements made about him in the small community in
which he works and within the broader public school community.
261. As a direct and proximate result of this conduct and intentional infliction of
emotional distress, Hamilton has suffered and will continue to suffer monetary damages due to
the damage to his professional reputation and the illegal termination of his employment with
attendant loss of pay and benefits as June 30, 2013.
262. Hamilton seeks monetary damages from all defendants for this concerted
infliction of emotional distress and psychological harm in an amount to be detemlined by the
trier of fact.
{W0236466.1} 67
FOR A FOURTEENTHCAUSE OFACTIONAGAINSTDEFENDANTS
-PRIMA FACIE TORT-
263. Hamilton hereby incorporates all previous paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully
set forth herein.
264. The defendants conceived and implemented a continuous and ongoing course of
conduct and intentionally committed the actions alleged in this Complaint without justification
and with the sole intent and malevolent motive of causing pecuniary harm to Hamilton.
265. The defendants used means that are authorized to be used for proper purposes and
in legitimate ways under Education Law 3020-a and 8 NYCCR Part 83 against Hamilton for
improper purposes and in illegitimate ways. They did so without justification or any basis in
fact, and solely to cause significant pecuniary loss to Hamilton.
266. The numerous actions described in this Complaint clearly indicate that the Board
Defendants filed the initial 3020-a charges against Hamilton in retaliation for his support of
Schue and Dominick, his legitimate concerns over Mevec' s professional services and billing
practices, and his criticisms of how the Board Defendants were abusing their publicly held
positions. Also, the Board defendants filed the initial charges with the intent to cause Hamilton
pecuniary harm in having to defend said charges.
267. The defendants' actions described in this Complaint were not justified because
they were conducted and continued after the Board, Zacher and Froio had actual and
constructive notice that there was no legitimate basis upon which to charge and continue to
prosecute Hamilton under 3020-a or to file a Part 83 report against him.
268. VanMinos willfully and intentionally abused her position as Director of
Operations by maliciously aiding the other defendants in their campaign to wrongfully remove
Hamilton from his position as Assistant Superintendent of Business and Finance. VanMinos'
{W0236466.1} 68
actions in this regard were without justification and were perfonned to cause Hamilton pecuniary
hann with the expectation that such hann would force him to resign his position and that she
would then obtain that position.
269. Zacher abused his position as Interim Superintendent to aid VanMinos in
obtaining Hamilton's position as Assistant Superintendent of Business and Finance. Toward this
end, he took the actions against Hamilton described in this complaint to cause him pecuniary
hann with the expectation that such hann would force him to resign his position.
270. As a direct and proximate result of this conduct, Hamilton has suffered special
damages, including the cost of medical treatment through his primary care physician and
counseling for the emotional distress and depression that he has suffered as a result of
defendants' wrongful acts. Hamilton has also incurred travel expenses related to his care and
treatment and his search for alternate employment. Such special damages are ongoing and will
continue to be paid out of Hamilton's pocket.
271. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' conduct, individually and
collectively, Hamilton has also incurred significant attorney's fees and related costs to defend
against the wrongful actions taken against him by defendants as herein alleged.
272. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' conduct, individually and
collectively, Hamilton has suffered and/or continues to suffer monetary damages and damage to
his professional reputation, and other damages, including his ability to earn a living in the future.
Upon infonnation and belief, it is difficult, if not impossible, for a public school administrator to
obtain employment in public education after 3020-a charges and Part 83 charges have been
filed against him, even after such charges have been proven to be false and frivolous. Therefore,
it is reasonably anticipated that special damages in the fonn of future loss wages, benefits and
{W0236466. I} 69
professional opportunities will continue to accrue for the remainder of Hamilton's professional
life.
273. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' conduct, individually and
collectively, Hamilton has suffered and will continue to suffer monetary damages, including loss
of all compensation and benefits as of June 30, 2013, damage to his contractual relationship with
the District, and damage to his protected property interests in his continued employment as a
tenured administrator. Hamilton's position has been wrongfully eliminated effective June 30,
2013 because of Defendants' malicious and tortious actions described herein.
274. Hamilton seeks monetary damages from all defendants for this prima facie tort in
an amount to be determined by the trier of fact.
FOR A FIFTHTEENTHCAUSE OFACTIONAGAINSTDEFENDANTS
-TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITHPROSPECTIVE CONTRACTRIGHTS-
275. Hamilton hereby incorporates all previous paragraphs of this Complaint as iffully
set forth herein.
276. Hamilton possessed legal rights inherent in his employment with the District as a
tenured administrator. These rights arose not only by contract, but also under New York statutes
that confer basic employment rights that give rise to implied contracts of good faith dealings
between tenured educators and their employer boards of education.
277. Defendants knew or, with the exercise of reasonable care, should have known that
Hamilton had contractual rights that were inherent in his employment as a tenured administrator.
278. Had it not been for defendants' intentional and malicious tortious actions as
alleged in this Complaint, Hamilton fully intended to and would have continued his employment
{W0236466.1} 70
with the District as a tenured administrator, enjoyIng all the contractual rights associated
therewith.
279. Defendants knew or should have reasonably known that Hamilton had prospective
contract and economic rights in his future employment as a tenured administrator. They were
aware that Hamilton had been employed in his position since 2003 and had received tenure in
2006 and had never taken any affirmative action evincing any intent to leave his employment
with the District.
280. At all times alleged herein, all defendants knew or should have reasonably known
that there was no factual basis to support the 3020-a charges, Part 83 complaint, or any other
claim of misconduct to third-party governmental agencies against Hamilton.
281. Mattie intentionally interfered with Hamilton's contractual rights when she
abused her position as Internal Auditor to conduct so-called audits for the sole purpose of aiding
the Board Defendants in their campaign to terminate Hamilton's employment and associated
contract rights.
282. Mattie acted intentionally, at the Board Defendants' direction, and for the sole
purpose of harming Hamilton when she unfairly singled him out in so-called audits intended to
manufacture charges that the Board could use to terminate his employment and eliminate his
contractual rights. Such acts of misconduct by Mattie interfered with Hamilton's potential
employment and corresponding contractual and economic rights when he was suspended and
3020-a charges were filed against him seeking to terminate his position. Specifically, Mattie
committed the following actions that interfered with Hamilton's prospective contract rights:
a.
{W0236466.1}
Mattie's so-called "audits" were conducted in violation of 8 New York
Code, Rules, and Regulations 170.12 because she failed to comply with
professional auditing standards for independence between the auditor and
the District, to follow generally accepted auditing standards, to be
71
independent of the District's business operations, and to have the requisite
knowledge and skills to complete the work.
b. Upon information and belief, Mattie's investigation and abuse of power as
an auditor violated N.Y. Penal Law 135.60(5). Mattie used her position
as an auditor to manufacture evidence of misconduct by Hamilton in a
coercive effort to induce him to refrain from continuing on in his capacity
as a tenured administrator and speaking out on matters of public concern,
both of which he has a legal right to do.
283. Mattie completely abandoned her independent auditor role and all professional
integrity to carry out the plan of the Board Defendants to improperly terminate Hamilton's
employment. Although her ultimate goal may have been to ingratiate herself with the Board
Defendants, the sole immediate purpose of Mattie's misconduct was to harm Hamilton.
284. The Board Defendants and Mevec also intentionally interfered with Hamilton's
employment in an effort to terminate his employment and thereby interfered with his future
contract and economic rights.
285. The wrongful actions committed by the Board Defendants and Mevec included,
inter alia, bringing baseless charges against Hamilton pursuant to 3020-a, suspending him
from his employment, and delaying the 3020-a process in order to prolong the suspension
process as long as possible. Said acts were done for the sole purpose of prohibiting Hamilton
from securing future employment with the District and terminating his future economic and
contractual rights with the District.
286. The Board Defendants and Mevec had motive to harm Hamilton because he had
expressed dissatisfaction with Mevec' s services and billing practices and because of his
professional associations with colleagues who were in disfavor with the Board Defendants.
{W0236466.1} 72
287. The Board Defendants' and Mevec's interference directed toward Hamilton was
culpable and done with means that were independently tortious and criminal, including, inter
alia:
a. They misused and misappropriated District funds to carry out their
malevolent plan, abused their authority as agents of the District to inflict
financial injury upon Hamilton through the 3020-a process in retaliation
for his associations with Schue and Dominick and the fact that he
questioned Mevec's services and bills for legal services.
b. They acted with improper means by maliciously and wrongfully
suspending, initiating and continuing prosecution against Hamilton under
3020-a. Defendants knew that the allegations against Hamilton were
false, but continued with these prosecutions and suspensions nevertheless.
c. They wrongfully abused their positions of public trust when they
instructed Mattie to manufacture evidence that could be used to terminate
Hamilton, thereby denying the District the services of a key administrator.
d. Upon information and belief, they unfairly abused their positions in a
manner that violated N.Y. Penal Law 135.60(5), since they
manufactured evidence of misconduct by Hamilton in a coercive effort to
induce him into refraining from continuing on in his capacity as a tenured
administrator and speaking out about matters of public concern, both of
which he had a legal right to do.
288. Zacher wrongfully interfered with Hamilton's contractual rights when he
intentionally colluded with the Board Defendants in their improper attempts to remove Hamilton
and terminate his employment with the District.
289. Zacher's actions included, inter alia, fabricating alleged misconduct by Hamilton
to be used as a basis for 3020-a charges, writing disciplinary letters reprimanding Hamilton for
publicly speaking out on matters of public interest, and aiding the Board Defendants in their
malicious prosecution of 3020-a charges.
{W0236466.1} 73
290. The following acts of interference with Hamilton's contractual rights by Zacher
were 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 public
criticism of Zacher and the Board.
b. Zacher acted with improper means because his retaliatory actions
constituted independently tortious actions referenced herein, including
prima facie tort, abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional
distress, and defamation.
c. Zacher acted with improper means because he maliciously and wrongfully
continued to prosecute Hamilton under 3020-a. Zacher knew or should
have known that the allegations against Hamilton were false, but
nevertheless continued to aid the Board Defendants with their costly
prosecution of Hamilton under 3020-a.
291. Furthermore, upon information and belief, the Board and Froio knew that the
initial charges were bogus and, in many instances, outright false and that they could not be
proven at a 3020-a hearing. Thus, they began an intense search for additional charges to file
against Hamilton. On February 15, 2012, Froio filed a second set of 3020-a charges against
Hamilton. The Board made a finding of probable cause with respect to this second set of charges
and, in the process, reaffirmed and realleged the initial charges as amended. They did so despite
knowledge that there was no factual basis for several of those charges.
292. The Board made the determination of probable cause on the second set of charges
and decided to continue prosecution of the initial charges as amended, despite actual or
constructive knowledge that several of the charges were not supported by the evidence and did
not justify the further expenditure of public funds to pursue.
{W0236466.1} 74
293. Froio intentionally interfered with Hamilton's contractual rights when he colluded
with the Board Defendants' in attempts to remove Hamilton and terminate his future
emploYment with the District and when he filed the factually unfounded Part 83 report against
Hamilton.
294. Froio's interference with Hamilton's contractual rights was culpable,
accomplished by wrongful means, and done with the primary purpose of inflicting financial
injury upon Hamilton. Froio acted with malevolent and improper intentions when he filed the
Part 83 report in an effort to further the Board Defendants' improper and retaliatory attempts to
remove Hamilton.
295. Defendants' filed the 3020-a charges and Part 83 report with a reckless
disregard for the truth and despite actual or constructive knowledge that there was no factual
basis for such allegations. Such reckless conduct further evinces defendants' malicious
intentions to harm Hamilton.
296. Defendants have engaged in a continuous and ongomg course of conduct,
including actions alleged herein, that has impaired and continues to impair Hamilton's future
economic rights in his tenured administrative position. As a consequence, Hamilton has been
unable to return to work at the District and has been unable to obtain emplOYment in public
education elsewhere despite diligent efforts to obtain alternate emplOYment.
297. Hamilton fully intended to and would have continued on with his employment as
an administrator in the District and would have enjoyed various contractual rights over time but
for Defendants' intentional and malicious tortious actions as described in this Complaint.
298. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Hamilton has suffered
and will continue to suffer monetary damages and damage to his professional reputation, and
{W0236466.1} 75
other damages, including his prospects for future employment, since it is difficult, if not
impossible, for a public school administrator to obtain a job in public education after 3020-a
charges and Part 83 charges have been brought against him, even after such charges have been
proven to be false and frivolous. It is reasonably anticipated that special damages in the fonn of
future lost wages, benefits and professional opportunities will continue to accrue for the
remainder of Hamilton's professional life.
299. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, individually and
collectively, Hamilton has suffered and/or continues to suffer monetary damages, including loss
of all compensation and benefits as of June 30, 2013, damage to his contractual rights with the
District, and damage to his protected property interests in continued employment as a tenured
administrator.
300. Hamilton has also spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorneys' fees in an
effort to preserve his contractual rights in employment with the District, and would not have had
to spend these funds but for defendants' wrongful suspension, initiation and prosecution of
3020-a charges and amended 3020-a charges, and the filing of a Part 83 report.
301. Hamilton seeks monetary damages from all defendants for this tortious
interference with prospective contract rights in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact.
FOR A SIXTEENTHCAUSE OFACTIONAGAINSTDEFENDANTS
-INTERFERENCE WITHECONOMICRELATIONS-
302. Hamilton hereby incorporates all previous paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully
set forth herein.
303. Hamilton had legal rights inherent in his employment with the District as a
tenured administrator which arose by statute and by contract. Defendants engaged in wrongful
{W0236466.1} 76
conduct that precluded Hamilton from fulfilling the duties required of him by wrongfully
suspending 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 83
complaint, and the fact that the defendants knew or should have known that there was no factual
basis to support such allegations. Defendants filed the 3020-a charges and Part 83 report with
a reckless disregard for the truth and for the District's fiscal well-being. Such reckless actions
further evince defendants' malicious intention to harm Hamilton.
305. Defendants' malicious intention to harm Hamilton is further evinced by their
animosity towards Hamilton because of his professional relationships with colleagues as
described in this Complaint and his justified criticisms of Mevec's competency and billing
practices.
306. As a direct and proximate result of the defendants' conduct, Hamilton has
suffered and will continue to suffer monetary damages, damage to his contractual relationships
with the District, and damage to his protected property interests in his employment as a tenured
administrator.
307. Hamilton has also spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorneys' fees in an
effort to preserve his contractual rights in employment with the District, and he would not have
had to spend these amounts but for defendants' wrongful suspension of him from his
employment 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
Dated: October 10, 2013
308. Hamilton seeks monetary damages from all defendants for this tortious
interference with prospective contract rights in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact.
v
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
309. Based on the foregoing, Hamilton respectfully requests appropriate relief from
this Court, including an award of attorneys' fees, and an award of damages in the amount of
Seven Million Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($7,250,000.00) or such other sum as is
sufficient to compensate him for the multiple injuries caused by the defendants' violations of
statute (including those New York State Education Law provisions related to the abolition of his
position, the New York Open Meetings Law, and Education Law 3028-(d), their violations of
his Constitutional right of free speech and their tortious conduct as alleged herein. Hamilton
further respectfully requests punitive damages again mt -Tefreta)ts.
/
/'
/ . ~
Delmis G. O'Hara, Esq.
O'HARA, O'CONNELL & CIOTOLI
Attorneyfor Plaintiff
7207 East Genesee Street
Fayetteville, New York 13066
(315) 451-3810
{W0236466.1} 78
VERIFICAnON
State of New York )
) ss.:
County of Onondaga )
William E. Hamilton, being duly sworn, deposes and states that he is the Plaintiff in the
within action; that he has read the foregoing Complaint and knows the contents thereof; that the
same is true to his own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on
{W0236466.1} 79
EILEEN M. MALAY
Notary. ~ u b l i c State of NewVork
Qualified In CorUand County
No. 01 MA6043076
Commission Expires June 12, 20 Lff
EXHIBIT "A"
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 a
letter acknowledging that I was not going to accept the increase offered to other administrators.
While their generosity was much appreciated, I just felt it was too much for the taxpayers. New
5 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 dissatisfaction
with Elementary Principal Janice Schue. Sue, Noel and Mary felt that Janice had lied to the
Board during a report on student academic performance when she stated that all children in her
building 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 20
th
It was decided that
Dan would interview Elbridge staff to determine if:
Janice had manipulated CSE proceedings, blocking parent requests for evaluation, and
bullying CSE members and teachers.
Janice had acted inappropriately in her relationships with fellow ALT members.
Janice had discriminated against a student in 2
nd
grade.
Dan Mevec was asked to formulate a timeline for his investigation and to present a summary
report to the Board when he had completed the investigation, complete with his
recommendations.
5/11/09 I met with Elbridge Elementary Principal, Janice Schue to review concerns about student
performance 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 is
Janice's direct supervisor.
5/20/09 I requested, via e-mail, the timeline from Dan to present to the Board at the Board
meeting that evening. I received a document that summarized Mevec's findings, but saying that
he felt there was more investigation that needed to be done. He had found that much of the
parent complaint about discrimination revolved around things that had happened in the
classroom and did not conclusively point to Janice. He wanted to find out if the teacher was
acting based on direction from Janice. In the letter, he did recommend that the Board act on June
10,2009. He was not clear as to what the Board should do, but I understood it to mean that
Janice should be reassigned during the remainder of the investigation. Dan also told me that his
interview with the parent representative on the CSE committee only raised issues that were
several years old.
5/27/09 I asked to meet with Mary and Dan for a strategy planning meeting. I just felt that I
didn'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 into
the conduct of Janice Schue. I put into writing my recommendation that she not be reassigned at
this time and should finish the school year to cause minimal disruption to the staff, students and
families of Elbridge Elementary. This was not received well. Board reassigned Janice Schue
against my recommendation on 6/8/09.
6/5/09 French teacher accused of cheating on Regents. Mary very upset with me for contacting
Randy Ray - BOCES Labor Attorney, instead of General Counsel Dan Mevec. (e - mail)
6/8/09 Dan Mevec and I met with David Shafer who was standing in for Brad Hamer as Union
Leader to let him know that the board would take action on Janice that night during a special
board meeting. Principal Janice Schue was reassigned by Board resolution (special meeting) to
position of Special Projects Administrator, against my recommendation.
6/9/09 Staff meeting held at Elbridge. Mary addressed the staff and told them their building was
sick. 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 staff members, 2 parents and
3 ALT members. I did so. Mary wanted to have a meeting with Sue, Dan and I before
interviews began, but it was not possible. We were able to get together on the 16
th

6/14/09 Board President leading the band to investigate - Mevec doing interviews for days and
days, no written summary report ever given to Board. He promised that he would proceed with
3020A 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 Sue
Gorton and Beth Russ more than Janice. Charges never spoken of again to this day. Janice is
assigned as Special Projects Administrator doing busy work at the tune of nearly $100,000 per
year.
6/16/09 I let Mevec' s legal assistant know that we would need an additional day to schedule all
of the interviews he had requested.
6/17/09 3020A charges filed by me after discovering that a French teacher allegedly cheated
when administering the French III Regents Exam.
6/23/09 Board President, Mevec and I were debriefing about his investigation. Board was to
meet to review my evaluation that night and then review it with me an hour later. Before that
meeting, Board President informed me that the Board would not be extending my contract, due
to trust issues. I was shocked! Trust issues were never clarified. I had never had a negative
evaluation nor had any complaints made to the Board been reduced to writing as my contract
requires. I had prepared a reflection on my evaluation, and handed it to Mary. I could not meet
with them to review it - too emotionally distressed to do so. By the way, the evaluation itself
was 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 the
Janice 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. I
would get late night e - mails with very little if any detail and would spend the rest of the night
awake 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 Vice
President, 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 contract
extension.
7/6/09 Board member Jeanne Pieklik micromanages our preschool FOSPA program. She has
expressed her dislike of the teacher on many occasions. In all instructional issues, the Board
leaves 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 broker
and could benefit from the District changing plans. Pressured me to sign a letter releasing our
information 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 give
the board an update.
7/13/09 Mevec and Michele had a conversation. Mevec said the Board wanted me gone as soon
as possible and would file charges and move to terminate if I did not cooperate. He was beyond
rude to Michele.
7/15/09 Two Board members openly criticized me for the poor math regents results in open
session. In Executive Session, Dan Mevec let the Board and I know that Janice's attorney had
petitioned the Commissioner for a stay, allowing her to be returned to her position as Principal.
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 is
losing 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 leaving
messages, she's not heard from him.
8/19/09 I requested an update from Mevec on the Janice Schue investigation. Meeting with
Janice and her attorney had not been held, so no update. Many hours and even days of
interviews, but to no avail.
8/20/09 Michele again expresses concern as to why Mevec is so difficult to reach. She had even
left 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. I
found out after the fact and e - mailed Rick, who is a friend as well as a colleague. Mary got
upset because she had told me Rick was very busy right now. (Sue Gorton not criticized at all for
this problem with higher level math scores.)
9/6/09 Mevec let the Board know that Commissioner decided not to grant a stay in the Schue
matter, finding that the District had a right to reassign her. (Date is 9/6/10 on the memo, but is
incorrect.).
9/7/09 Mevec recommends that the Board award the Food Service bid to AdvancedMeals. This
has recently become an issue in the Internal Audit. (Bill Hamilton on the hot seat.)
9/7/09 Board member Diana Foote very critical of Bill 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 give
an 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 meet
with me about my contract.
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 was
about my contract.
9/24/09 I had a private consultation with the Retirement System. I communicated with Michele
that if the Board forced me out right away, it would cost me $41,000 per year, as opposed to my
finishing out my 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 when
they came out of the meeting and not one ofthem was even going to acknowledge me. I called
after Mary as she started down the hall and asked if she'd like to talk, but she said she was not
prepared to do that. Another sleepless night for me! None of the other members even
acknowledged my presence. Dan Mevec also walked by without a word.
My husband is very concerned that, if the board files charges and I lose, I would lose all of my
retirement benefits guaranteed in my contract. He feels that I need to prevent them from filing
charges, even if they are bogus.
9/24/09 Michele again expresses concern that Mevec does not return calls. She had left another
message today.
10/12/09 Mary e - mailed me and expressed her intention to talk to the BOE about my
intentions. She hoped I had had a chance to discuss with my husband. I answered that I thought
I had another week, until the next regular meeting. I said she could tell them that I am willing to
negotiate an earlier exit than my contract date. She then said they would wait and talk about it on
the 21 st.
10/14/09 I requested Dan Mevec's assistance in setting up a QUIP committee to assist SED in an
assessment of the health of our Special Education practices at Elbridge and to perhaps glean
information as to how Janice Schue has governed the area of Special Education.
10/21/09 As requested by Board officers, I put my thoughts into writing regarding circumstances
under which I might consider retirement. The letter was clearly of a confidential nature.
10/22/09 The Board had an initial discussion of my letter in executive session.
11/1/09 The Board president allowed her husband to scan my confidential letter into his personal
e-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 of privacy and contacted Michele who had
advised that it was definitely a breech.
11/3/09 Board micromanages a bus driver situation, begins to rely on Paula Van Minos (Dir. Of
Op.), 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 they
were that my letter requested so much money to retire. I explained that it was consistent with
language in my contract about a "no - fault" exit. If my contract was no good, then over 700
others may not be good. They asked me to reconsider the amount, since my letter had resulted in
sticker shock. I said to them that all of this was unnecessary, since I had told them months ago
that I intended to retire in June 2011. The payment oftaxpayer dollars instead ofletting me
leave as I would have anyway is an unnecessary waste of money.
11/18/09 Board again discusses my exit in executive session.
11/19109 Board micromanages a student issue - parents and school disagreed about math
placement. (Sue Gorton not involved at all.) Mary is critical of me 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 a
difficult situation. I began working with Randy Ray from BOCES on the matter, but Mary
worked with Dan on it instead of using BOCES. Another example of her micromanagement and
creation of expense to the taxpayers. (e-mail 11/20 from Sharon)
11/23/09 Mary Alley told me that the board had decided to let me choose my date of departure
and would like to know that before February break.
1/13/10 I met with the Board Officers. They told me that they had discussed my contract before
the Holidays with the rest of the Board and had decided to offer me a sum of money to leave at
the end of September or early October. I told them I had planned to stay until June 30, 2011, and
the amount they were offering ($40,000) was not enough to change that plan. They pressured me
to 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
talked with Michele on the phone and told her that I was afraid oflosing my health insurance
benefit 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. She
expressed the same at the hands of the District's attorney, Dan Mevec, who had continued to be
rude and threatening to her.
2/26/10 Another meeting with Board Officers. We discussed a tentative exit date of 10/31/10
with a provision to access Article XIII of the Principals' contract that provides a 50% of final
salary payment upon retirement, and the protection of all retirement benefit that are in my current
contract.
3/1/10 I faxed Mevec a contract with Department of Social Services to review. It took months
and was done only after I received a very abrupt e-mail from DSS saying we were one of only
three districts that had not returned it.
3/3/10 The Board officers requested (insisted really) that I have some form of document ready
for the Board meeting that night regarding my intentions and what I would accept as an exit
agreement. They asked if we could leave it in the hands ofthe attorneys to finalize. I told them
that I was not pleased at all with the way Dan had treated Michele. I told them that I would only
agree to that if Michele could draft the document. I sent Michele a copy of the retirement
incentive out of our Principals' contract along with several other points that would protect my
benefits in retirement. We also discussion a section on a mutually binding release of any and all
claims that either party may have against the other. I put all of this in a list of bulleted items that
would be included in an agreement for the board to consider in executive session without me
present. I asked Mary Alley if she wanted me to stay and wait outside. She said no and that she
would call me the next day.
3/5/10 After two sleepless nights and hearing nothing from either board officer, I e - mailed
Mary to ask if we needed to talk. I communicated with Michele by e-mail, telling her that it
sure 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, so
they needed to discuss the matter further. They planned to hold a special meeting on 3/10/1 0 to
do 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 the
weekend. I still had several parts that Michele and I were working on.
3/15/10 Michele expressed concern about a Public Officers Law that says a resignation is
effective 30 days after the delivery of the letter, no matter the date on the letter. She asked for
time to research it. Dan became irate and called Mary Alley, who then called me. She was very
irritated.
3/16/10 Michele Handzel sent Dan Mevec a letter outlining her concerns about my retirement
letter 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 they
did 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 of Michele's concern that the
Board could force me out 30 days after accepting my retirement letter, instead of November 1,
Mary expressed willingness to add wording to the agreement that states if the board tries to
terminate me before November 1, except for gross negligence or the commission of a major
crime, I would be paid one year's salary in addition to what the agreement already provides.
Also during that phone call, Mary made it very clear that the Board wanted to act on my
retirement 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 opinion
as to whether or not such added wording would protect me.
3/17/10 Letter from Michele to Mevec summarizing a conversation which she acknowledges as
heated 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 of Michele via email as to whether she had seen a revised agreement with
the newly agreed upon wording in it. She replied that she had not, and was surprised, given
Mevec's push to finalize my resignation.
3/27/10 I received an e-mail regarding a message that had been sent to Assistant
Superintendent Bill Hamilton by Dan Mevec on Saturday, March 27 about a business deal. He
stated to Bill that he wanted to talk to him before talking with me (Marilyn) on Monday. Bill
asked if I knew what it was about. I did not. I forwarded it to Michele with a message that I
believed 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 she
had 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 any
response 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 me
know he plans to retire earlier than he had hoped. Mary sent an e-mail critical of him
obviously wanting him gone.
Mary and I talked and agreed to remove my retirement letter from the agenda, as we had heard
nothing from Mevec about finalizing the separation document.
4/12/1 0 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 my
exit. I told Mary that I hoped Dan would get back to my attorney and that we would have the
agreement in time to include in the board packets for next week. She said that she may not be
willing to sign the document. I asked for a reason. She replied that the HS Principal, who was
being investigated, had implicated me. She went on to say that if she signs my agreement, she
was concerned that I may not be supportive of the investigation. I said that I didn't see how the
two were related. I asked if she was questioning my integrity. She finally said, "OK, OK, I'll
sign it." I let her know that Dan has had it for two weeks and has not returned any messages left
by Michele. She also told me my mileage claims for certain school related events were being
denied. Mary said that the board does not require me to attend events, etc. Interestingly, my
visibility at events has been applauded in all of my evaluations over the years, and even the
brochure 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, I
wrote a letter to her summarizing our discussion. She expressed reluctance at signing my
agreement because she believed I would cease to cooperate with the Board's investigation into
the conduct of David Zehner, HS Principal, who had been accused by the Internal Auditor, Alicia
Mattie of changing grades during the 2008 - 09 school year. I did not send the letter, as Michele
advised that it would be a good summary ofthe situation with mileage and other issues
surrounding my exit.
4/20/1 0 Michele expresses concern that Dan is not reachable by phone.
4/26/10 I sent an e-mail to Christine King, our Claims Auditor, asking for clarification on
mileage issue. I copied it to Mary Alley, Bill Hamilton and Alicia Mattie.
4/27/10 Michele received a letter from Dan Mevec recommending many substantial changes to
the already agreed upon separation agreement. Among them a change of the word "Conviction"
of a criminal offense, to "charged with". Not only did he rewrite so that the agreement wouldn't
be honored, he also voided all of my other retirement benefits secured in my contract. He
recommended major changes to a press release, including acknowledgement of my work and my
desire to volunteer for the district as community member. He gave Michele a deadline of April
28
th
- one day later! Michele e - mailed Mevec' s office that she would be unable to make the
changes so quickly and would be out ofthe office until Friday. (This was a Tuesday.)
4/2811 0 I had a heated discussion with Mary Alley when she tried to exclude me from executive
session with an announced topic of the Superintendent Search. I spoke to her about the wording
changes Dan had tried to make, the recent questioning of my mileage claims - different than had
been the practice for many years - and the illegality of excluding me from executive session for
unacceptable topics. I told her that I was being harassed. She went in and adjourned the
meeting.
4/29/1 0 Mary e mailed me to let me know she had asked Dan to change the wording back to
"conviction" but the Board was okay with the other changes. I wrote back to her wondering why
Dan would have made changes without getting direction from the Board and after there had been
agreement on the document. She clearly stated in our conversation the night before that she had
not directed him to make changes. I fear that Mevec' s association with another board member
drove the proposed wording changes. I told her that I was tired of being made to feel worthless.
That the board was attempting to make me look incompetent and was destroying the career I'd
worked so hard to build.
I communicated with Michele and she expressed concern about sudden exclusions from Board
meetings. She saw this as retaliatory for not submitting my letter of resignation prior to the
finalization ofthe separation agreement. She also questioned me about whether or not I felt my
duties had been diminished. She noted the attempt to prevent me from returning to the district
and to refer to my successes as simply "work." All evidence of retaliation, according to Michele.
Michele also expressed a desire to make a list of all of the issues we've had with Mr. Mevec and
memorialize them in a letter.
4/30/10 Finally received review of DSS contract from Mevec, over a month after being notified
by DSS on 3/29/10 that we were one of only a few districts who had not returned the contract.
5/4/10 Mevec communicated via his assistant that he had been waiting for Michele to put the
document in a final fonnat. He directed Michele to do so and have me sign it.
5/5/10 My Separation Agreement was approved and my retirement letter accepted by Board.
(Dennis O'Hara foiled, as did three others. There will be a NYS Supreme Court Article 78
hearing on 9/14 on denial of request.) Documents were signed and notarized at the conclusion of
the meeting.
5/6/1 0 Confirmation letters received from District Clerk notifying me that the Board had
accepted my retirement/resignation and had authorized Mary Alley to sign my Separation
Agreement on the Board's behalf. .
5/7/10 Sent counseling memo to HS Principal on matter of signing off on the controversial
hypnotist issue. He had told me he did not sign it. Board president was furious at him.
5/7/10 I e - mailed Marya message asking if it would be okay to use an expert attorney in
Capital Projects for guidance on a few issues. She answered that it was.
5/16110 Alicia Mattie's Grade Audit - obviously intended to frame HS Principal David Zehner.
5/17/10 Transportation Supervisor Bruce Walters is accused by Board and Paula Van Minos of
several infractions. I conducted a Conflict Resolution between Bruce and a subordinate who had
accused him. It turned out well, but Bruce felt chastised by the Board and wrongly accused. He
decided to retire.
5/18/1 0 Alicia met with Board's Audit Committee without any administrators present. Many
accusations were made concerning the integrity of David Zehner.
5/19/1 0 Mary e - mailed me after I had informed her that I had investigated the alleged grade
changes and had teacher signatures as to the changes. She also requested the NovaNet records I
had reviewed based on Alicia's report. When I met with the Board and Alicia, I began to explain
my work, they didn't want to know anything about it. Instead, they accused me of coercing the
teachers into signing. They seemed to trust the one teacher who wrote that Mr. Zehner had told
the staff they could not give 62,63, or 64's. (Partial truth.) Mary, Dan Mevec, and Alicia Mattie
(internal auditor) took the matter to the Attorney General and I had no knowledge of that until it
was brought up at this meeting. After the Board came back into public session, they accepted the
Grades Audit Report but not the Management Responses.
Also at the 5/19/10 meeting, Sue Gorton and I were to make a recommendation for tenure for an
Elementary Principal, Eric Varney. Eric had received stellar evaluation from Sue and we had
met with him a few weeks previous to let him know we were recommending him. There were
two board members who had very negative feelings about Eric. But, imagine my shock when
Sue said she was not recommending him! It was the first I had heard about her decision - at the
BOE table!!! My assumption is that someone promised her something.
5/24/10 Mary Alley requested a special board meeting for May 26
th
. Her message came at 10:20
p.m. and Jeanette was directed to post the meeting.
5/25/1 0 10:26 p.m. e-mail - Dave Zehner's wife is accusing a board member of unprofessional
conduct.
5/26/10 The Board had a special meeting and agreed to a JUUL agreement for Eric with a 5 - 4
vote. I had to really fight for this. There is no negative information in his file.
5/27/10 Board member questions the RFP process for a certain contract. I innocently answered,
not realizing that two employees had gone directly to the board to complain about Bill Hamilton.
This was the beginning of the Board digging into Bill Hamilton's conduct. Paula Van Minos and
Sue Gorton were providing the Board with a great deal of information on other employees.
5/28/10 Mary Alley e - mailed me that she had gone to Paula because Bill was not available.
Paula provided a lot of information/documentation to Mary, but did not include me.
6/2/10 Mary was quite upset about what she perceived to be a long wait for payment of Mevec' s
and Mattie's bills. Actual turnaround time is within a week once they are reviewed by Mary.
6/2/10 Mary e - mailed asking if Bill and I could meet with her and Kelly that afternoon. I asked
for a topic. She was evasive and said that if we couldn't meet, the questions would come to the
full board that night. We did meet, and she accused Bill of bid tampering. It was the first I knew
of the allegation. Since then, it has been found that two employees went to Alicia Mattie and
accused Bill. They did not report it to me, as directed in Board Policy.
6/6/10 Mary e mailed on Sunday afternoon asking that a Special Executive Session Board
meeting be held on 6/7/10 to discuss the 6/2 meeting.
617/10 Board meeting held and a statement about how the board disagreed with how the
district was being run was entered into the minutes. Posted to the web site on 6/18/10.
6/8/1 0 Mary reviewing and making recommendations for my counseling memo. Dan actually
rewrote it, splitting it into three memos. I had stated that no real investigation had been done and
that writing him up was premature. She wanted instead to add another accusation, about
something she had actually approved -legal services for the capital project. (6/9/1 0 e-mail
from Dan's office is proof of who wrote the memos - Dan did!)
6/8/1 0 I brought to Mary's attention the 517/10 e-mail in which she said go ahead with the legal
services for capital project.
6/10/10 Mary wanted Paula to be the Purchasing Agent. She said that Alicia had recommended
that Bill's position shouldn't serve as PA. This was not true, in fact, in all Districts in our
BOCES, the Business Administrator serves in this capacity.
6/1 0/10 Mary requested Paula's job description without my knowledge.
6/14/1 0 Mevec sent a very inappropriate letter to attorney Jim Hughes who had been asked to
advise us on Capital project matters. Mary had approved this in an earlier e-mail.
6/14/10 I react to Mevec's letter to Hughes.
6/14/1 0 Mary is playing with job descriptions - my job to do that - and planning to restructure
our Business Department.
6/14/10 Board meeting. Board decided not to pay for food Eric Varney had bought for staff
development meetings. I reimbursed the district for that. ($70.07) They also decided that they
would personally pay for retirement plaques. Even after they were reminded, they did not
produce any money, so I paid for them personally. ($185.00)
6/17/1 0 Mary leading the way in disciplining Bill Hamilton. She sent an e-mail to Dan Mevec
and myself directing us to meet with Bill, along with her. I had also planned a conflict mediation
with two employees. Mary directed that Paula VanMinos (Director of Operations) be present
during the facilitation. Mary asked Paula to send documentation on one of the issues to Dan.
Mary continues to work around me. I've been directed not to meet with any administrators by
myself.
Mary was very impatient when Bill Hamilton was unable to set a time for a meeting with his
counsel present. When the meeting could not be set up within 48 hours of her request, she
directed me to tell Bill there would be no meeting and that the Board had decided to go in a
different direction. I asked for clarification of what that meant, but did not received a response.
6/18/10 Letter from Dennis O'Hara representing Bill. Mevec really mishandled everything with
this issue.
6/24/10 Dan Mevec wrote a letter to Dennis O'Hara setting up a meeting and mentioning the
letters of reprimand. We would later have to defend his use of that term, rather than "counseling
memos".
6/28/10 Mary questioning why Paula was left out of a meeting. We just needed to give Marya
heads up on a legal matter on the Capital project.
6/30/10 Mary and I discussed the need for a second legal opinion on a matter. I communicated
this to the Board. Mary let me know that we would not be seeking a 2
nd
opinion later that day.
Why?
7/1/1 0 Mary requests that Paula be at all meetings regarding Capital Project. Leaving Bill
Hamilton out ofthe picture.
7/2/10 In planning for Reorg meeting, Paula came and talked to me about agenda items. About
30 minutes later, Mary contacted me with same items. Direct conversations constantly between
Paula, Sue and Mary.
7/2/1 0 Mevec sent a letter to me stating that he had recommended suspension of Bill Hamilton
based on four alleged offenses and I had not done that. He stated that access was a concern. (He
had never recommended suspension.)
7/7/10 I contacted Mevec's office about two matters I had sent to him for review, one on 6/16
and the other on 6/24. Sent another reminder on 7/19.
7/7/10 0 'Hara sent a letter directing JE to preserve all e - mails relating to Bill Hamilton. Dan
responded, including a directive to O'Hara to send all correspondence to Mevec, and not to me.
7/7/10 I sent a letter to Mary Alley and Dan Mevec regarding his letter stating he had
recommended the suspension of Bill Hamilton. I went on record that I did not understand that to
be his recommendation. I outlined my thoughts on the allegations and expressed concern that an
investigation had not been completed. I had told them that would not be willing to file 3020A
charges unless I believed the charges were valid. Up to this point, I had not received adequate
information to form a belief. Many of the allegations came from an audit by Alicia Mattie. She
seems to be doing the "dirt digging" the board is requiring of her.
7/7/1 0 During Executive Session, Board hears potential charges that could be filed against Bill. I
surmise these are based on work of Internal Auditor, Alicia Mattie. I had not heard most of these
things. Board decides Bill should not be allowed to return to work and that all access should be
cut off. I communicate with Bill after the meeting and tell him not to report to work until he
meets with me on Friday, July 9
th

7/9/1 0 Board requires that I give Bill a choice between taking voluntary leave and putting him on
administrative leave pending an investigation with Sue Gorton present. He told me he would let
me know on Monday. I summarized meeting in an update e-mail to BOE. Unfortunately, I
made an error and sent to the previous board, leaving out the three new members. Mary was
very critical and believes I continued to meet with Bill without Sue after placing him on leave. (e
- mail)
7/13/1 0 Bill had not contacted me on Monday, so Mary directed me to put him on leave. I
thought I had been directed to suspend him pending the filing of charges on 7/21. By the time I
heard from Dan, I had already written a letter placing him on administrative leave.
7/15/1 0 Mary micromanages disposal of auditorium seats in Capital Project, as scrap metal. The
district lost almost $2000 by doing this.
7/15/10 Communication from Brad Hamer, administrator, that the community was ready to go to
the press.
7/19/1 0 I inquired of Mevec and Cognetti as to the status of a custody inquiry I had asked them
to handle on 6/24/10. Sharon, the legal assistant requested that I send the documents again. I
still never heard anything. I ended up acting on it myself with no legal counsel involvement.
7/23/1 0 Mary e - mailed a request to meet and discuss personnel issues. No specificity.
Meeting set up for 3:30 on Friday, 7/24/10
7/26/10 Mary critical of use of NOVA NET, again Sue Gorton not involved. Mary made many
accusations, but I have documentation proving them to be unfounded.
7/27/10 Mevec sent me a letter. One directed me to make sure Bill Hamilton did not attend any
meetings as a representative of JE, and to collect all of his school owned equipment, etc. This
was three weeks before the board formally filed charges or acted on his suspension. The District
had taken steps to assure Hamilton and O'Hara (Bill's attorney) that he was not being disciplined
and that he was asked not to report to work while an investigation was being conducted into his
alleged behavior on several matters.
7/29/1 0 Mevec sent me a letter asking what I knew about a consulting company owned by Bill
Hamilton.
7/29/10 Mary had finished negotiating a new contract with Sue Gorton who will serve as Interim
Superintendent, effective November 1st. Public information bulletin released. Dennis O'Hara
has since asked for a NY Supreme Court Article 78 hearing on 9/28 because the board allegedly
conducted this business behind closed doors.
7/30/10 Board received a letter from community member/staff member expressing concern about
Board's perceived witch hunt. Board did not acknowledge it.
8/5/10 Two of our High School staff members were asked to report to the Attorney General's
office to speak to Nick DiMartino about alleged grade changes by HS Principal David Zehner.
8/811 0 Mary micromanaging textbook presentation by HS Principal. I had already handled the
matter.
8/911 0 We had received word that we were going to be audited again by State Comptroller on the
same areas as two years ago.
8/11/1 0 State Comptroller's entry meeting was held and management was excused for about two
hours.
8116/10 Mary cancels meeting with DS Bill Speck about Bill Hamilton's involvement in the
ROFS grant. Allegations need to be discussed, but our counsel advised against it.
8118/10 Board meeting - we spoke of the Policy Committee meeting scheduled for 8/25. Mary
stated she couldn't be there. I was asked to send an e-mail to all who were involved to see if
there was a better date. I did so, and only heard from Mary, who said to proceed without her. In
executive session, Sue shared her plan to hire someone to replace her. She entitled it a
Curriculum and Professional Development Coordinator. When Mary presented the idea of
appointing Sue as interim Superintendent, she supported it by saying we would not replace her,
but would give many of her duties to Janice Schue. I'm not sure what happened to that idea??
8119/10 Board acknowledged my request that my salary be frozen in this difficult economy.
8/23/10 Mary micromanaging a teacher certification issue.
8/25/10 On the afternoon of the 25
th
, VP Foote cancelled the Policy committee meeting.
Department Chairs and administrators had been invited and planned to attend.
8/26/10 I attended a NYS Supreme Court Article 78 hearing about whether or not Bill Hamilton
should be allowed to return to work. President Mary Alley, Internal Auditor Alicia Mattie, Dan
Mevec, and myself had signed affidavits and were prepared to testify. The proceeding did not
have a clear winner, and the judge asked for more documentation. We were not called upon to
testify. As we exited, Mary Alley began yelling at me saying that if I had filed the 3020A
charges, all of this could have been avoided. I had written a letter to Mary and Dan stating that I
did not have enough information on any of the issues and felt that a thorough investigation
needed to be completed before charges were decided upon. I had little or no direct information
on most of the issues in the charges, as the "investigation" had been done without my knowledge
or input. She continued her rampage until Frank Miller, our NYSIR attorney escorted her down
the hall. I still feel that many ofthe allegations are trumped up with no real evidence to back
them up. My moral compass would not allow me to file bogus charges and possible ruin an
innocent person's career. (See summary of this incident.)
9/1110 Board hired an additional attorney, Frank Miller, to handle all litigation. See minutes.
9/3/10 I was on family sick leave due to my daughter in -law's surgery. I was called by Dan
Mevec in the morning, and asked to meet him at Elbridge to discuss Dave Zehner. When I
arrived, Dan told me that Frank Miller, Mary Alley, and himself had met that morning and Frank
had encouraged Mary to direct me to suspend Dave Zehner immediately pending the filing of
3020A charges at the next board meeting. I was shocked that this would come with no warning
just before school was to open. The thought was that Mary Madonna could take over running a
500 student high school all by herself. We've previously had three administrators in that
building. And, there would be no time to work with the staff in a very complex situation. I said I
would not do it. Certainly I would have to know the charges, believe that they were valid, and
that we would have a chance of winning the case. I would not agree to put yet another
administrator on paid leave. Weare spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on this nonsense!
My assumption is that the charges they took to the Attorney General without telling me have
been found to have no merit. Why else would this happen now? I had already looked into the
charges and found no evidence of wrongdoing. Zehner does some objectionable things, but
nothing we could win a 3020A on. I also asked why they wouldn't want to wait and have the
interim superintendent, who would be in place in just a few weeks, do that?
Other notes:
All three district level administrators now live over an hour away.
Board seems to have it's own slate of replacements for administrators they don't like.
Romantic involvement of school attorney and a board member.
EXHIBIT "B"
AGREEM:ENT
BY A1\1]) BETWEEN THE
BOAlID OF EDUCATlONOF THE
CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
AJ>ID
1YJARIL\TN J. DOMINICK
SEVERANCE EVENT: Mrs. Maril1ln ], Dominick. (hereiJlafter referred to as Mrs.
Dominick" or "Superintendent") is employed as the Sup.erintendent of Schools by the Board of
Education of the Jordan-Elbridge Central Schoo] District (hereinafter referred to as the
"District".,. or the "Board", or "ReJeasec"),
WHEREAS., Mrs, Dominick and the District arc parnes to an employu1crlt agreement, covering
the period from july 1, 2DD5 tQ June 30, 2DIQ,amJas further atnended toe:Xlc11'd the 'period from
July 1,2007 throtigh June 30,2012 ("Employment Agreement"), and;
WHEREAS, certain irreconcilable differences have arisen between. the Board and Mrs.
Domini.cl<;,and;
WHEREAS, the DistricLandMrs. D0l'l11Jiickhuve m'Tived at ,a mutual understanding that it is ill
the best interests of the District and Jvirs. Dominick that the aforesaid Emplqyment Agremuentbe
tenninatedeffect'ive November 1,2010, certain terms and conditi.ons, and.;
WHEREA.S, the District has acted OJl .May E.-, 2010. to aocept Mrs, Dominick's resignatIon faI'
purposes of retirement,effectiveNovember t 2010; and
V\THEREAS, (1) ivfrs, Dominick has be:en represented by and has consulted with theappropiiaie
legalcounse1. of her choice;; (i1) has been given axeasonableperiod within which roconsider this
Agreement and general release ("Agreenlent"); and (ii1)understands that in executing this
Agreetnent she is,iitter alia, giving up any andaltrights and claims which she had or mf\Y have
had iIi Law or in .equity' under all federal, state, county or local statutes, laws,rules ann
regulations pertaining toernplo)'111erit,as well 'as any and all claims under tort law" or which were
or could have been alleged by her pursuant to l:heEm,ployrnent Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, in cbnsiderati0n of i,11e said mutual undei1:akings and promises contained
in this Agreernem and other good and valuable considerations. the parties agree and covenant as
foHows:
1. The above recitations of facts and circumstances set forl:bin all of the preceding "Whereas"
c1ausesare exprMsly incorporated herein and fonn a part of the terms afthis Agreement.
2, Mrs, Dominick hereby retires from the District effective November 1, ~ 10, Her irrevocable
letter of resIgnation, for purposes of retirement, is attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
3. In the event that the Board acts to terminate Mrs, Dominick's emplOylTlent prior to
November l, 2010, the effective date of her attached letter of resignation, the Board shan,
within thirty days of the date of Mrs. DomInick's separation from emp.loymcnt with the
District, make a lump sum payment to Mrs, Dominick in the amount of One Hundred Sixty
Fom Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Seven. DoHars ($164,,887).
The Board shall not be obligated to compl.y with the terms of this paragraph upon a finding
of:
a.Gross NegHgence; or
b,Col1viction ofcamajor criminal offense,
If the Boar,clofEducatioli reasonably and with good cause believes that Mrs. Dominick hasbecn
grossly negIigent in11er duties, as defined in the Employment AE,rreement, the Board .may
convene an expeditedarbitTation before a mutually agreed upon arbitl:ator, who shall make a
final and binding decision regarding Whether or no!: Mrs, Dominick has been grossly negligent in
performing her duties as Superintendent of Schools for the District, as defined in110r
Employment Agreement UpOl1 a finding that Mrs, Dominick has grossly neglected her duties
defined .In her Emp!0ytnel1t Agreement, the District's obligations under this paragraph shaH be
extinguished in ali r.egards.
4. In consideration of her retirement &omemployment, the tenninatioD of her Employment
Agreement. effective November 1/ 2010 and the l'eleaseof an clai.'Us by her against the
District and other consideration recited in this Agreement, Mrsc Dominick shaH receive the
fonowing
B, Salary: For the year July 1, 2010, throllgh June 30, 2011, payments equivalent to
her salary at the rate of One Hundred Sixty Four Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty
Seven Dollars ($l64,887), pro-rated through November 1, 2010, paid 011 a bi-
weekly basis;
b. Retirement Incentive: The District shall make apayrl1ent of $82,444..00 into the
Superintendent's 403(b) IRe tax sheJtere.d annuity as a non-elective direct
employer contribution, without cash option, The payout for the Retirement
2
Incentive shall be made in installments, on a schedule created by Mrs, Dominick,
beginning on the first day of her dfective retirement, and to be concluded no later
than January 15, 201 I into the; Superintendent's Section 403(b) IRe Tax
Sheltered Annuity as a non-elective direct employer contribution. In the event the
District's contributions referenced herein should exceed the applicable annual
contribution limitation imposed by law, the excess amount shall be paid directly
to the Superintendent as cash subject to ordinary deduction 011 or after the
Superintendent's effective date of retirement
c. Payout: Upon retirement, the Superintendent shall be paid $25.00for each
accunmlate:d sick leave day.
d. Vacation Leave Payout: Upon retiremorit, the Superintendent shall be paid at the
rate: of 1I240
th
Cif her ourrent salary for each day she has accumulated at the time
her employment with the District terminates.
e, . Health Insurancei]) Retirernent: The Board will provide health and dental
insurance coverage under either an individual or family 11eal:t11 and dontal
.insurance plan (based on indiVidual/family statuli) for the Superintcl1dentand her
spouse, for the remainder of their lives; however the Superintendent's spouse
shaIJonfy be eligibleforsinglecovera.geshould hesuniveher. The District will
pay 100% of thepremiulD ,cost of the 'lppropriateinsurance plan for the
SupeJ:il1tende11tand85% ofthe premium costofthe,appropriate insurance plan for
the SuperintemLent:s spouse,
5. The parties agree that a mutua.l pubHcstatement, as attached hereto as Ex.hibit "B", shall
be released to the media and that neither the Board (individually and collectively) nor Mrs.
Dominick at that time or 1nfue future shaH make 01' cause to be made any damaging or
disparaging statements or comments, whether verbal or written, about the other party or Mrs.
Dominick's employment with the DIstrict or her retirement fwm employment. This shall not in
any way prevent Mrs, Dominick or the Board from explaining to her prospeotive or future
employers ina manner thesitttatiort leading to her separation. This section shan
notl.'\pplyto or in any way limit a party's obligation to respond to questions pClsed in a legal
proceeding or required to begivel1<in response to subpoena or other tega! process.
6. Th(j Board .acknowledges and will insure that there are no derogatGry materials or
documents relating to Mrs. Dominick in its personnelfik about Mrs. Dominick and that no such
comments or documents wUlbe placed in suchpe,rsonnel file in tbe future. Except in the nonnal
oow:se ofbnsiness.
7. The Board specifically agrees to continue to indemnify Mrs. Dominick, both individually
and in bel' capacity as anernployee of the Di.strict,lls required by her Employment Agreement
and by' law in any pending lawsuit, action, claim, complaint or Commissioner of Education
appeal against her andlor the DistTict in which she is named in her officialandlor individual
capacity for aotion taken as an employee ofthe District, within the scope of her duties or at the
direction offhe Board. Further, the Board agrees to indemnify Mrs, Dominick as required by her
Employment Agreement and/or the law in uny future lawsuit, action, claim, complaint or
Conunissioner of Education appeal filed against the District in which she is named in her official
anellor individual capacity for actions taken 1<S an employee of the District, withiu the scope of
her duties or at the direotil3u of the Board. Mrs, Dominick acknowledges her obligation to, and
agrees to, fully and completely cooperate in the defensedf any and an claims against the District
andlor subject to this defense and indemnity provision and agrees that she will voluntarily
answetllllquestionsand provide any and all testimonY,documents and other evidence she has in
cont1ection with any sudhc1aims.The DrstrictshaIl reimburse Mrs. Dominick for an reasflnable
and necessary expenses 1"01' trave1and lodging incurred in relation toanyolaim for which her
attendance is required. Mrs, Dominiok wiD he paid ifshe .Il1ust return to the District as necessary in
the defense of any daim, suit, action or legal proceeding bronght againstlVirs. Dominick or the District,
arising out of 11lcidents which occurred while Mrs. Dominick was acting within the scope of her
employment or under the direction oftne Board, at a per diem rate of 1f240
th
of her annw,II 20102.011
salary, Mrs.. Dominickaffmnatively represents that she has no knowl.edge of any threatened or
pending lawsuit, action, claim, com,plaint or Commissioner of Education appeal filed against the
Distriot in whiCh she is narned in her .official and/or individual capacity for actions taken as an
employee of the District, and that she has no knowledge of an.ything that she has done or fail.ed
to do that would result in sucbJawBuit, action, Claim or (;omplaint except that which the Board of
Education is aware of as of the date ofthisagreement.
8, 1v.l:r8, Dominick and the Board agree that this Agreement is subject to the.laws ofthe. State
of New York and may be enforced in any w'Urt, federal, state or local, having jurisdiction in New
York State, 1D the event either party commences an action to enforce this agreement and is
successful in such action, the prevailing party shall be reimbursed for reasonable attorney's. fees
and reasonable expenses the losing party.
4
9, Mrs, Domi.llick agrees that by signing this Agreernent,she will give up her right to bring
any legal claim against the DistTict of any nature, of which she is cUlTently aware. The daims
that she is giving up include, but are llOt limited to, claims related in any way, directly or
indirectly, to her employment relationsh1p with the District, including ber separation from
employment and the Employment Agreement. 1'h1'S Agreement is intended to be interpreted in
the broadest possible manner to include all actual or potential legal claims t11at she may have
against the Dist1l.ct, except as specifically provided otherwise in this Agreement.
Specifically, she agrees to and hereby does lully and forever release and hold the District
halTIlless from all afhor: legal rights and claims against the District, whether or not presently
known to her and including future legal rights and claims ifbased in whole or in part on acts or
omissions occurring berore s'he delivers this signed Agreement to the District. She agrees that
the legal rights and claims that she is' giving up include, but Erc not Iimiled ta,hor rights, f'any,
under the Employment Agreement and all State and federal statutes thatproteot her from
discrimination in employment. She alsoE\grees that the legal rights andc1aims that she is g;iving
/ up .indude her rights, if any, for unpaid wages or benefits under allState and federal statutes,
311e ,tgrees that the legal rights and claims that she is giving up 111cludeall common law right,
and claims. She also agrees that she is giving up and forever releasing any right she may have to
attorney's fees for any of the foregoing rights and claims.
Nothing in this release .shallbe construed to constitute a waiver of anyc1aims Mrs.
Dominick may have against the District and/or Board that arises from acts or omissions that
occur after t11e effective datoOfthisrelease.
She agrees that the release described in this paragraph applies 11oton1y to the District,hut
also to the DistrJct's related entities, Board members, officers, director$., agents, attorneys,
employees, Sllccessors,or assigns. She also agrees that this Agreement may he used as a
oomplete defense i.n the future if she brings any claim that she has released in the paragraph.
claims that she is giving 'UP al1d rdeasingdonotinclude her vested rights, if any,
unde.r any qualified retirement plan in which she.participates, her vested retiree benefits, if any,
arid her COBRA, unemployment compensation, disabIlity insurance and Worker's
Compensation rights, any. Nothing in this release shan be construed to constitute a waiver of
(i') any claims she may have .agaim:nhe Distdot that arise from acts of omIssions that occur after
th.e effective date Oft11is Release, (in her right to file al1ttdministrative charge with any
s
governmental agency concerning the termination of that employment or (iii) her right to
participate !J1 any administrative or oomt investigation, hearing or proceeding, She agrees,
however, to waive and release any right to receive any individual remedy or to recover any
ind-ividual monetary or non-monetary damages as a result of any such administrative charge or
proceeding. In addition, this release does not affect her rights as expressly created by this
Agreement, and does 110t limit her ability to enforce thisA.. grcernenL
10. Similarly, theBoard of Education, individually, collectively and on behalf oithe District,
agrees that by signing this Agreement it will and hereby does give up its right to bring any legal
claim against Mrs. Dominick of any nature, of which it is currently aware. The claims that it is
giving up include, but are notlimited to, claims related in anyway, directly or indite.otly, to Mrs.
Dominick's employment relationship with the District, including her separation from
enlployment, provided she was acting within the scope of her duties or at the direction aLtne
Board. 111is Agreement is intended to be interpreted in the broadest-possible manne-n to include
all actual or potential legal claims that it may have against Mrs, Dominick.
Specifically, the Board hereby releases and holds Mrs. Dominick, her heirsi successors
and assigns harmless from any ancial! claims, suits, actions or proceedings against Mrs,
Dominick, in regard to her employment with the District or the separation from employment
with the District, whicihit may now have against Mrs. Dominick, provided she was acting within
the scope orher duties oratthe direction of the Bo:ard.
Nothing in this release shall be construed to constitute a waiver ()'f any claims the District
and/or Board may have against Mrs. Dominick that arises from acts or omissions thritoccur after
the effective date oft1118 release,
] 1. Incompliance with the Older Workers BeneEt Protection Act, the parties expressly agree
tha:tthe following statements are t!!ie:
a.. The payments to Mrs, DominiCk are in addition to the standard employee benefits
and anything else of value which the District owes to Mrs. Dominick in connection with
her with the District on hel'separation from employment;
b.Mrs, Dominick hereby specifically and affirmatively waives her right of twenty
one (21) days to decide whether or not tosi6'11 this Agreement;
6
c, Mrs, Dominick will have seven (7) days after signing this Agreement in which to
revoke it, and this Agreement will not became effective or enforceable until that seven
(7) day period has expired; and,
d. Mxs. Dominick was advised in writing of b.er right to consult with her attorney
before signing this Agreement.
12, Mrs. Dominick acknowledges and agrees that she .has, prior to signit\g this Agreement,
consulted with an attorney ofherchoosingconcemingal1 of the temTS of this Agreement.
13. Whenever possible, each provision of this Agreement wm be interpreted in such manner
as to be effective and valid under applicable New York lam, but if any provision of this
Agreement is held to be prohibited by or invalid under applicable law, such provisions wUl be
ineffective only to the extent of suoh prohibiti011 or invalidity, v,ljthoutinvalidating the remainder
of such provision or the. remainingprovisions ofthis Agreement
14. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of alia beenfoToeable by
the parties heretnand their respective legal representatives, heirs,Bucccssorsandassigns.
NOTARIZED SIGNATURES ON THE FOLLOIi1INGPAGE
SUPERINTENDENT BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
JORDAN-ELBRiDGE
CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
STATE OF NEW Y0Rt- )
COUNTY OF @n!1M,,!f,fJL )
--.rh v
On the .;6 day of May, 2010, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said
State, personally appeared Mrs, Marilyn J. Dominick,.persona11yknown to me or proved to me
on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the .individuaj whose name is subscribed to the within
instrument and ackn.owledgedto me that she executed the same in her capacity, and that by her
signature 011 the instrument, the individual, or the person upon behalf ofwhich the individual
acted,executed the instTU1Ilcnt,
STATE OF
COONTY OF IJf)afj dJ;.jdo../
,tel';..,
On t'l-re .bdayafMaY, 2010, p,et'Qre me, a Notary forsaid,
State, personallyappearedrt1(kl:''1 /1.t!f:J1, personaI1y knO\\'!l to me orpl'Oved to me on the baSIS
of satisfactory evidenoe to whose'name is subscribed to the within instrument
and aokn.owledged to me that he executed the same in his capacity, and thatby his sigmlture on
the instrument, the individual, or t110 person upon behalf of whi.ch the individual acted, executed
the instrument. n ..' ...12 h

I
i 'Notm;y Public
.' . dE/liNITt&; [\Ie BROCK
Nat1lf}t Pabtie, State of Nevu' '1m'1<
No. (J1t1R5049071
.). ...,
C,r:>lJ1mISSfon E",pwes::;0pL 5.d&L:/
EXHIBIT "C"
10/01/2010 13:24 315-571-1187 HON DONALD GREEH(,IOOD PAGE 02/10
At 9. Motion Tenn of the Supreme
Court of the State of New York,
held in and for the County of
Onondaga on September 29, 201.0.
PRESENT: HON. DONALD A. GREEN'\VOOD
Supreme Court Justice
STATE OF NEW YORK
SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF ONONDAGA
STEPH.EN CrOTOLI, ESQ., OF O'HA...t:tA, O'CONNELL & CIOTOLI
For Petitioner
In the Matter of DAVID ZEHNER,
Petitioner,
v.
THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE JORDAN-
ELBRIDGE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT and
SUE GORTON in her capacity as Assismnt
Superintendent of Instruction and as the purported.
Interim
Respondents:
Pursuant to Civil Practice Law$ and Rules, Article 78
APPEt;.RANCES:
DECISION AND ORDER
ON MOTION
Index No.: 2010-4926
RJI No.: 33-10-4203
FRA.NK W. MILLER,ESQ.\ OF THE LAW FmM OF FRANKW.
MILLER
For Respondents
This petition is brought pursuant to CPLR Article 78 and alleges that the
Board of Education of the Jordan-Elbridge Central School District (hereinafter "the Board"),
violated the Open Meetings Law on July 21,2010 when it appointed respondent Sue Gorton as
Interim Superintendent in Exec.utive Session. According to the petition, the agenda published for
that meeting did not make any reference to the topic of <!t Superintendent search or the
appoint:l:'rient of an Interim Superintendent of schools, On July 30, 2010, the Board issued a
10/01/2010 13:24 315-E,71-1187 HON DOHALD PAGE 03/1[1
public infonnati011 bulletin to the schc:>ol community, stating that "[t]he Board has decided to
appoint as Interim Superintendent, Ms, Sue Gorton effective November 2010. In order to
ens.ure a seamless transition, Ms. Gorton will begin working this summer on District-wide
matters with :Mrs. Domimck." Marilyn Dominick is the current Superintendent, who is
scheduled to retire on November 1, 2010. Thereafter on August 3, 2010, petitioner's counsel
notified the Board by letter that the appointment of Gorton was in violation of the Open Meetings
Law and that it was not property noticed on the meeting age:nda or discussed in open session. No
response was received and the Board's minutes from August 4, 2010 and August 18, 2010 show
that no discussion was held at either meeting "With respect to this issue.
The petitioner seeks an order of tbis Court declaring that the Board
l
s actions to appoint
Gorton as Interim Superintendent while in Executive Session violated the Open Meetings Law
and is therefore null and void; that there is no statu.tory basis for the Board's action purporting to
appoint an employee to the position ofInterim Superintendent 'lVitbout a public vote or
discussion and that the acnon is therefore null and void as being ultra vires, arbitrary, capricious
and an abuse of discretion; and that the Board is to refrain fn,:ml any further violations ofthe
conditions and requirements of the Open Meetings Lawand Public Officers Law. In addition,
the petitioner seeks casts and reasonable attorney's fees,
I. Standing
The Board argues that the petitioner lacks standing to bring this action inasmuch as he
does not fall within. the zone of interest protected by the statute. See, Society ofPlastics Indus, ",
Coun(ya/Suffolk, 77 NY2d 761 (1991), The standing of a party to seek judicial review of a
claim or controversy is a threshold matter which must be resolved by this Court before the merits
2
10/01/2010 13:24 315-571-1187 HON DONALD GREENWOOD PAGE 04/10
of the appHcation may be considered, See, id. The Court of Appeals has noted that the Public
Officers Law states in part that"[eJvery meeting of a public body shaH be open to the general
public." Gordon v, Village q(Monticello, Inc., 87 NY2d 124 (1995), quoting, Public Officers
La14' 103. It further emphasized the Legislative preamble to the statute \vhich states "[iJt is
essential to the maintenance of a democrat.ic society that the public business be performed in. an
open and public manner and that the citizens of this state be fully aware of and able to observe
the performance of public officials." Id, This mLlst be di.fferentiated from cases involving
environmental harm, where the Court of Appeals has acknowledged the imposition of standing
barriers because such litigation "can generate interminable delay and interference with crucial
government projects:' Save the Pine Bush, Inc, v, Comma!'; Council ojCity ajAlbany, 13 NY3d
297 (2009\ quoting, Society ofPlastics, supra, In the present case, the petitioner, a member of
the general public, a district ta,'\{payer, and employee of the sohool district, clearly has established
that he is in the zone of interest that the Open Meetings Law is d.esigned to protect. Moreover,
and most he was in attendance at the meeting in question when the Executive
Session was called and the public. was excluded and he is a member of the citizenry aggrieved by
the alleged violation, See, Sanna v, Lindenhurst Board ofEducation, 85 l\.D2d 157 (2d Dept.
1982). As a lawful attendee of the meeting in question, the petitioner is an aggrieved part)' and
has standing to challenge the school Board's activities. See., id.
l
Inasmuch as the petitioner has
standing to challenge the Board's actions, the merits ofthe petition may be considered.
t Moreover, where a oourl:'s decision to deny standing would effectively insulate the
government's action from judicial review, a court has discretion to find that standing exists. See, Rudder
1
J
Pataki,93 NY2d 273 (1999), citing, Boryszewski v. Brydges, 37 NY2d 361 (975),
:3
10/01/2010 13:24 315-571-1187 HOH DOHALD GREEHlJ.)OOD PAGE 05/10
II. The Motion to Adjourn to Executive Session
The Open Meetings Law "was intended as its very name suggests - to open the decision
making process of elected officials to the public while at the same tim.e protecting the ability of
the government to carry out its responsibilities." Gordon v, Village ofMonticello" Inc., 87 NY2d
124 (1995); see also, Public Officers Law 100 et seq. The Legislature stated in its preamble to
the statute that "[i]t is essential to the maintenauce of a democratic society that the public
business be performed in an open and public manner and that the citizens of the state be fully
aware of and able to observe the perfonnance of public officials." 1d, quoting, Public Qf(icers
Lavp 100. The provisions ofthe law are to be liberally construed in accordance with the
statute's purposes. See, Matter ofOrange County Publications v. Council ofCit)! ofNewburgh,
45 NY2d 947 (1978).
Pursuant to the Education Law, meetings of the board of education must be open to the
public, but boards may hold Executive Sessions at which sessions OnI)T the members of such
boards or the persons invited shall be pre..<;.ent, See, Education Lar!! 1708(3). The procedure and
substance ofthose sessions is subject to the limitations of the Open Meetings Law. See, Previdi
v. Hirsh, 138 Misc.2d 436 (199&), citing, Public Officers Law 100 to 111. In fac4, pursuant to
the Open Meetings Law, a public body may conduct an Exec:utive Session only for certain
limited purposes and the enumerated instances for convening an Executive Session. represent
exceptions to the general rul.e of opermess; these topics are circumscribed by statute and must
therefore be narrowly scrutinized. See, Public Officers Lmv 105(1); see also, DaiZv Gazette Co.,
Inc, v. Town Board, T(.lwn ofCobbleskill, 111 Misc.2d 303 (! 981). Eight purposes arc
enumerated in the statute, See, id, As this Couti has previo'Ulsly noted, the thrust of the, Open
4
10/01/2010 13:24 315-E,71-1187 HON DONALD GREENWOOD PAGE 05/10
Meetings Law is "the performance of pUblic business in an open and public manner with the
public able to attend and listen to the deliberations and decisions that go into the maldng of
public policy." See, Brander v. Town o.fWarren Board; 18 .'Misc.3d 477 (2007), quoting, Matter
L?fSciolino v. Ryan, 81 AD2d 475 (4
th
Dept. 1981). This Court therefore i,s requixeo to
I'scrutinize the propriety of executive sessions lest, the...mandate be thwarted by thinly veiled
references to the areas delineated thereunder." Id, citing, Gematt Asphalt Products, Inc. v. Town
afSardinia, 208 AD2d 139 (4
th
Dept. 1995).
The Board violated the Open Meetings Law in several ways. First, the Board failed to
give a sufficient reason for adjourning to Executive Session. The minutes from the July 21, 2010
Board meeting indicate that the Board adjourned to Executive Session for four of the eight
enum.erated purposes, as copied verbatimfrom the statute. See, Public Officers La:v,J 10S. No
further information was provided. However, this is insufficient. VVhile any motion to go into
Executive Session must identify the general area to be considered, it is insufficient to "merely
regurgitate the statutory language...this boHer plate recitation does not comply with the intent of
the statute." Daily Gazette, su-pra. Instead, to validly convene an Executive Session for
discussion. the public entit'y must identify with particularity the topic to be discussed, since- only
through such identification will the purposes of the Open Me:etings Law be realized. See, id.
Therefore, the Board was required to be more specific in its resolution and its failUre to do $6
constituted a violation of the Open Meetings Law.
5
10/01/2010 13:24 315-571-1187 HON DOI'-iALD GREENI;JOOD PAGE 07/1B
In. Discussion in Executive Session
The Board also violated the law by discussing the issue of the Superintendent search in
Executive Session. Board President Mary Alley, in her affidavit, acknowledges "discussing and
addressing the issue of a search for a new Superintendent" Alley affidavit, Paragraph 6. There
is no exception for this type of discussion in the Open Law to take place in Executive
Session. This is precisel.y the type of issue that is required to be discussed in an open meeting. It
is a policy discussion. by the Board, which is not a legal matter for Executive Session. The
qualities and qualifications that the Board is seeking in a Superintendent, as well as the process
which it intends to utilize, are matters for public observation in a public meeting, The ability to
adjourn to Executive Session is a statutory exemption on the facts of this case, to
discussing the prospective appoit:Itn:iertt of a particular individual. It is a separate step that the
Board may consider if it truly needs to address confidential matters about that individual and is
not to be used as an. all-encompassing exemption. The appointment process must not occur
behind closed doors. Therefore, by discu.ssing the search for a new superintendent in Executi,ve
Session the Board violated the Open Meetings Law.
IV. Appointment of Respondent Gorton
This Court must next detennine whether the Board violated the Open Meetings Law by
appointing respondent Gorton as Interim Superintendent. The Board has submitted affidavits
from Superintendent Dominick; School Board President Alley; and Gorton herself, all denying
that a formal appointment was made. Respon.dents argue that the petition is therefore, prem.ature.
This Court d.isagrees, The act of discussing and coming to a consensus in Executive Session; but
not passing a fOrnlal resolution, docs not shield the Board from a violation of the law. The Open
6
10/01/2010 13:24 315-571-1187 HON DONALD GREENI;JOOD PAGE 08/10
Meetings Law was designed to assure the public's right to be informed and it is the entire
decision making process which the Legislature intended to llffect by the statute, not OfJly fOJ:JJ.1al
acts of voting or formal executions of documents. See, OftIng!? County Publications., supra. The
aforemention.ed affidavits were prepared only for this litigation and attempt to recast the facts.
The Board, through the Superintendent, the duly appointed agent pursuant to its own rules,
2
issued a public inf6nnation bulletin on its official website advising the public that .it had
appointed Gorton as Inted.m Superintendent. The Board now argues that this was merely a
mistake that the publicity "got ahead of" the formal action. However, it was on.ly during the
course of this litigation that the Board has recanted the statement and it has taken no action
dir.ectly or through its Superintendent to correct the purported nppointment.
3
The process has
now been tainted and suggests to the public that there will be no deliberation or discussion.
because the outcome has already been determined, v.tith the public vote being a mere formality.4
Inasmuch as the Board members participated in a private meeting with a quonnn of Board
members present, where topics for discussion and eventual are su.ch as would athervvise
arise at a regular meeting occurred, the Board has 'Violated the Open Meetings Law. See, id.
V. Remedhts
Pursuant to the Public Officers Law, the petitioner may seek a declaratory Judgment and
injunctive reliefwlth r.espect to the alleged \iiolations. See, Public Officers LIDI/ l07. This
2 See.. Jordan-Elbridge Central School Boaldponcy 4320 "Superintendent-Board of
Education Relations"
3 The Board met on two subsequent occasions and the option of a special meeting was also
available to it.
4 As of the date of this Decision, the Board has posted on its website that "[t]hc Board of
Education wJll be appointing Susan Gorton...as Interim Superintendent while we conduct our search."
7
10/01/2010 13:24 315-571-1187 HOH DOHALD F'AGE 09/10
Court is empowered, in its discretion, upon good cause shown, to declare any action or part
thereof taken in violation ofthe Open Meetings Law to be void in whole or in part. See, id.
Given the unique circumstances of this case and the good shown, this Court, in its
discretion. hereby declares void any act of the Board which purported to name respondent Gorton
as Ioterim Superintendent.
With respect to the petitioner's request for attorney's fees, not every violation ofthe Open
Meetings Law automatically triggers its enforcement sanctions; an award of attomei s fees
should not be, granted by courts to the prevailing party simply as a matter of course, See., id, This
Court agrees with the petitioner that he should have not have been required to go to court to
enforce tbe law and that he is now further aggrieved by incurring attorney's fees, While the
Board has violated the Open Meetings Law in this case, the appellate courts have set a high bar
for the recovery of attorney's fees and the petitioner has failed to esta.blish in the record before
this Court. "a persistent pattern of deliberate violations" of the Open Meetin.gs Law, Reese v,
Daines, 62 AD3d 1254 (4
th
Dept. 2009), quoting, Matter v. EQard ofEduc, Of
Greenburgh Eleven Union Ptee District, 244 AD2d SS2 (2d Dept, 1997). Nor does the record.
establish "obvious prejudice" to the petitioner as a result ofthe Board's intentional and deceitful
conduct." See, Gordon.. supra.
NOVV, therefore. for the foregoing reasons, it is
ORDERED AND DECLARED, that upon good cat.1se Shov.rn, that any purported action
by the Board that appointed respondent Sue Gorton as Interim Superintendent violated the Open
Meetings Law and is therefore void, and it is further
8
10/01/2010 13:24 :::15-E,71-11 E:7 HON DONALD GREENVJOOD PAGE 10/10
ORDERED, that the petitioner's request for costs and reasot'labl.e attorney's fees
pursuant to Public Officers Law 107(2) is denied.
Dated: October 1,2010
Syracuse, New York
D ALD A. GREENWOOD
Supreme Court .Justice
9
EXHIBIT "D"
!QRDAN-ELBRIDGECENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
Internal Memo
DATE:
FROM:
TO:
COPY:
SUBJECT: & r""nc.tti
On I expressed concerns to you regarding the Mevec & Cognetti's invoice for
services provided in April and more generally a growing concern that legal expenses were well
above budget. See attachments A and B. I also offered recommendations on how to proceed
going forward.
We subsequently talked and agreed
were hours that you or I
We point to
Bill Hamilton
From:
Sent:
To:
Attachments:
what fwanted to
start hitting. You
the
Bill
Internal Memo
FROM:
TO:
COPY:
Marilyn,
I am writing this memo to you to
proceed.
Hours Billed Greatly Exceed Deliverables. a competitive hourlyrate
number of hours billed over the lasttvvo years far.inexcess ofon-time deliverables rec:elveo.
For example, MC will have billed over 12hoursio review the OMNI 403b Third Party
Administrator (TPA)contract.OMNliis the largestand most reputable providerof403bTPA
services in the country. To beonthephonearguingwithOMNl's attorney for nearly three
on points that are commonplace in this space is either an attempno build up hours or use
District's money to learn onhow 403b TPA services work. It isexcessiveeithefway, Me's
persistence on thephonenearlycausedOMNlto say it not do business with
It is always takes weeks for MC torespond to reqUests toreviewcontracts and other
documents; inmost cases, only after repeated requests. Moreov.er,the"opinionletter"formatof
Me's reviewsessentiallyput the onuS next steps back on the District OncelaskedMCto
speak directlywithGHDregarding MC'sconcernswith the contractfortheseptic system. lin
turn received. a scolding ernail saying, "lfyou want GHD to b.eyourattorney,
Another exampleis regarding capital. project services. MChasbilled$25,582.56 (205 hours)
since July 1, 2008 on matters specific to the capital project Wehaveverylittie to shoW for it In
fact, we recently had to obtain expert counsel for the capital project to make sure our contracts
are in order. in just a few hours expert counsel provided the valuableinforrnation
and specific direction. MCwould have spent many will
have to piok upa large portionof this tab. We will not pass
spending whenafinalbost review is done by the state.
concerns Me 01
Another recent example is getting subdivision maps stamped. The Town of Flr\ririlnp Ok:''''''n,..,
Committee directed the District to get Onondaga County to stamp subdivision maps
approved the Planning Committee. Next I know MC's legal counsel is spending
to the One our
Lack of Accountability.
we
You have said you have not requested many (.most) ofthe services
is why we have had the President ":lnr,rn\.fO
o0522 concon15 2
1
o
18
B o
pay for
over
wOMNI
No
c!1anues 10 contract
Filename: lel;lal(:ll(Jrgealllo(;,xls
WorkstmHt:
B
17 invoiceDate
18 HI\t1IJilli-'lt::
19 Account
20 A 1420.00 000.00442000000
21 H.2110.00.602.00240.009011
22 H.211000.601.00240.001008
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Filemalme: legalchargealloc.xls
c G
Total
7,67354
93206
0.. 00
0.. 00
8,60560
Jordan-Elbridge Central Schopl District
May 19,2010
Page 2
in Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation vs. Town of Camillus, et al
tax certiorari case. Interoffice conference ret ethical considerations
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation vs. Town ofCamillus, et al.
case. Draft, review and revise correspondence ret ethical considerations
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation vs. Town ofCamillus, etalease.
Travel to and from District Office. Attend meeting with Client ret
Administratof.< Receipt and reviewelectronic correspondence ret
contract review date. Receipt and review of several pieces of electronic
correspondence from Client ret student enrollment, employee issues,
student matters, grade changes and audit. Draft, review and revise
correspondencere: Niagara MohawkPower Corporation vs.. Town of
Camillus, et al settlement.
Receiptandreview of electronic correspondence. from Client.re:
contract. Receipt and reviewof electronic correspondence ret
use of realtor and bidding requirements. Telephone conference with
Attorney ret Special Education matter. Review files for Agreement.
Draft, review and revise correspondence to Client ret Special
Education Hearings Settlement. ret service contracts and
bidding requirements.
Receipt and review of electronic correSpondence from Client ret
student enrollment. ReviewState Education Department publication
attendance and student enrollment. Review information from Auditor
re:employee meeting preparation. Telephone conference with Attorney
and Client re:employee meeting. Draft, review and revise correspondence
re:contract negotiations. Attend meeting with Client, Attorney, employee
andUnion Representativere:.employee issue.
Receipt and reviewof ernployeecontract.
correspondence ret employee contract. Receipt ofelectronic
correspondence from Client re:Policy. Travelto and from
Board meetingre: subdivision meeting. Telephone conference with
Client re:State Education Reporting. Review.file forl'equested
information. Draft, review and revise correspondence with reclue;ste:(l
Reviewfile. and prepare for .subdivisionll1eetingat
statutory resean:h re:
Telephone re: emplo:yee dlsclp'l1nc,
Telej:lho,ne conference re: resolution.
Research 3020-a caseJaw
cocunitv contract.
~ n l i m l contract.
EXHIBIT "E"
Dated:
RE:
Last week of June 2010
Telephone message from Mary Al[ey, Board of Education
Message forwarded
Saturday, May 14,2011 at8:12a.m.
Hi, Paula, it's Mary. You know I have been trying to get this information
gathered for the contracts, and I realized with Bill going out the door whether he wants to
or whether he goes nicely or harel, really what I need to do is basically write a contract for
you to be the business official at Jordan-Elbridge. But, so anyhow, I guess my questions
is do you have a contract from Bath that had some things written out the way are .. I know
you had some offers from Bath but I just wanted to know if you had a contract from Bath,
if you are willing to share that with me, if your not, that's okay. But I just thought it
would be a good jumping off point for the Board, well not for the Boarcl,just for this little
committee that I've got working on your contract and Sue's. It would probably be a little
I1Wll'e fair ancl equitable than trying to start.. from.... your .. Directorof .. Qpymtjgn.'sC;S)11tragt
which is really not what you are going to be doing here, hopefully the next week.
So, anyhow, if you can just - you don't even have to call me back, I know you are
really busy, but just if you want to shoot me an email when you are hooked up to a
computer or whatever that would be great. Okay? So, I am going to try and meet
tomorrow to work on contracts so if you have a minute to do that, that would be great,
and I don't think I have a copy of Bill's contract either, if you sent that to me - I wfll go
back and check, but if yOll haven't, I need a copy of Bill's too. All right, sorry to be
asking for all this in the middle of a move, but I want to get going on it too. So, all right,
hang in there. Bye.
Dateel:
RE:
November 4, 2010
Telephone message from Mary Alley, President, Board of Education
Hey, Paula, its Mary. I just want to tell you I just met with Frank Miller and to clean up
some minutes to get them approved for October and I just wanted to let you know that
Frank isn't ready to roll over on this thing with Bill Hamilton and I ... Ijust... you know 1
guess that maybe that kinda of the impression last night that he said ... you know....you
know... in the worst case scenario, even if Bill comes back, we will define what his duties
will be and he said... you know... if he is not happy with his duties that we give him, then
hey, yOll know, then we go and we duke it out in the court, but he said - uh " you know
don"t _. I told him that I thought that the Board was getting down about this -- the thought
of Bill of coming back is just a really bad thought for all of us and I know especially for
. ....... .. ..-...' .............
you too.
EXHIBIT "F"
JORDAN-ELBRIDGE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
District Office: 130 East Main St., Elbridge, NY 13060' Mail: P,O, Box 902, Jordan, NY 13080
T: (315) 689-8500' F: (315)689-0084' www.jecsd.org
Marilyn J. Dominick
Superintendent of Schools
(315) 689-8500 x5001
mdominick@jecsd.org
Summative Administrative Evaluation
WilliamE. Hamiltoll, Assistant Superintendent for Business & Finance
School Years 2008 -10
Bm Hamilton is responsible for administering all non - instructional programs for the
Jordan - Elbridge Central School District. He has a passion for excellence and consistently
works hard to ensure that the best possible support systems are in place to ensure an
excellent education is to every student. This evaluation will cite several broad
areas and his work within those areas.
Oversight of Financial Operations:
Bill spends significant time overseeing and analyzing the finances of the District. He continually
tracks all funds, carefully deciding how money will be best spent to benefit our students. Bill
monitors procedures to make sure auditors' recommendations are followed. He communicates
any changes that need to be made in how things are done so that those impacted have a clear
direction. Bill does an excellent job ofmaking sure the dollars involved are translated into
improvement in student achievement. Bill has completely overhauled the Chart of Accounts to
improve tracking of how money is allocated.
In conversations with the Auditor from the State Comptroller's Office, it was noted that JE's
audit was one of the best to date in terms of nominal fmdings and proactive st.eps being taken by
the District. In addition, the Extemal Audit process for the past six years has produced
unqualified (excellent) audits every year.
Bill has significantly improved the process of anticipating revenue. Instead of relying on state
aid runs from Albany, Bill knows how to compute the state aid formulas to derive an accurate
projection of what we will receive. This has allowed the District to improve the budget process
and the overall fmancial state of the District.
Bill implemented a semi - monthly pay system to on July 1,2008. Every employee is now paid
in real time, instead of pre - paying as we had done in the past. oftbe new system, Bill
oversaw the installation of an electronic time keeping system, elimimiting the inefficiency of
time cards filled out by workers. The new system avoids IRS and potential tax penalty issues
and significantly reduced the labor needed to process time cards. The increased ability to
manage hourly employees' time means a significant savings to the District.
Bill instituted a central receiving and warehousing for the District, which has resulted in
improved inte111al controls and a significant reduction in the time it takes to pay bills. Central
Store (SchoolDude) is used every day for teacher and office supplies. This drastically reduced
the number of purchase orders done individually by staff. In addition, Bill implemented
purchasing tln-ough a bid service, Educational Data Services (Ed - Data) that has resulted in 25%
- 75%savings for major supplies.
Oversight of Technology Services:
Bill has implemented a new state of the art financial software system to replace the outdated
integrated system previously in use. This has enhanced the ability to perform analysis and run
reports. The efficiency of the Business Office is greatly improved as a result.
Bill has worked with Technology staff to oversee the installation of fiber optic cable between the
District's tln-ee campuses. He coordinated the lease through BOCES to maximize aid through e
- rate and BOCES.
Bill oversaw the installation of a state of the art voice over IF Cisco phone system, again
coordinating through BOCES to maximize e - rate and BOeES aid.
Oversight of Human Resources:
Bill selected and implemented a web based product that manages all persOlmel information.
Web Sense has allowed employees to access their own HR information and has improved office
efficiency al1d productivity, while making infolmation available to staff 2.4/7. In addition, he has
placed many frequently used forms on Web Sense for easy access and completion.
Oversight of Food Service Operations:
After careful analysis of our District operated food service program, it was found that the District
was losing approximately $100,000 per year in that area. Bill showed courage in working with
the board to move to a contracted service, resulting in an annual profit of over $100,000. All
reports indicate that we have made significant improvements in food quality, installation of point
of sale system, on - line accounting for parents, and as a result, increased free/reduced meal
participation. Sales have increased as a result of these improvements.
Oversight of Transportation Operations:
Bill was able to negotiate an unprecedented contract with bus drivers. Salaries were improved
for the employees, and the State Aid reimbursement was greatly improved for the District. Over
time, this will mean millions of saved dollars for the District.
Bill oversawthe installation ofTransFinder software to improve bus routing. Service has
. markedly improved as a result. We were able to reduce the number of traveled miles by 20%,
saving significant costs.
Bill implemented a bus replacement schedule that would maximize Transportation Aid on bus
purchases and ultimately keep all buses under warranty, significantly reducing
repair/maintenance costs.
Oversight of Facilities:
Bill has worked with two Directors of Operations to re - organize building and grounds staff atld
hiring/firing practices. The result has been greater productivity, beautiful buildings, and very
good morale among employees.
Oversight of Capital Projects:
Bill led the analysis and development of a plan for a much needed Capital Project, which was
approved by the voters in December of2008, in a time of great economic uncertainty. Bill was
instrumental in all communication with the public, including facilitation of many meetings with
stakeholders, and the creation of public infonllation documents.
Currently, Bill facilitates both the Athletic Facilities Planning Committee and the more
comprehensive Board created Facilities Committee.
Community Relations:
Bill is an effective ambassador with our municipalities and commtmity organizations. He readily
seeks out opportunities for those groups and the District to work together to grow the tax base,
and benefit the community in many ways. He has written a shared services grant for the Town
of Elbridge and our two villages. Although the grant was not funded, the plan for marketing our
community is sound. Bill has a clear goal to bring new businesses to the area, increase housing
starts, and develop the area's economy_
Professio{lal Growth:
Bill completed the SUNY Oswego Superintendents' Development Prof,'Tam to increase his
administrative knowledge and preparation for a future Superintendency. While enrolled in that
program, he took a leadership role in facilitation of workshops and providing resources.
Additional Accomplishments:
Bill is a frequent presenter at conferences and meetings. In November of2008, he presented at
the International ASBO Conference in Denver on work done and lessons learned to consolidate
accounts payable and payroll functions across districts through our BOCES Central Business
Office. Bill was the major force in making the CBO a reality> saving the District and others
many thousands of dollars. Bill chairs the CBO Steering Committee.
Bill wrote and was awarded on behalf of the Cayuga Onondaga BOCES> a Local Government
Efficiency High Priority Plmming Grant for $50,000 to conduct a Regional Operations
Feasibility Study. He currently chairs the Study Group that includes area superintendents and
business officials. He has conducted numerous analyses and managed stmi up and completion of
a Regional Transportation Study, Regional Institution White paper, Cynosure Regional Human
Resources Study, regional purchasing analysis, out of state site visits, and extensive repmi
writing.
Bill facilitated the creation of a Public Relations system for the District, including the website,
the new logo, and the oversight of a public information aide position. OUf communication with
the public has been greatly enhanced through his efforts.
Bill chairs the School Business Officials Committee for districts in our BOCES region.
Bill is a Board Member for the self- umded Cayuga Onondaga School Employees' Healthcare
Plan. He completes analysis ofpricing and cost saving measures for this group.
Bill has served as a Trustee for the NYS Public Trust Workers' Compensation Plan.
Bill makes many presentations to the Board, employee groups and various community
stakeholder groups. He has a relaxed presentation style, but always speaks with passion about
making our learning community even better.
Bill frequently mentors new Business Officials in the area. He has also supervised three
intemships from the SlJ]\;T)' Brockport School Business District Leader program.
Recommendations:
1. Improve communication between yourself, the Board of Education and myself. Often,
your progressive style causes you to move ahead without thoroughly briefing us on your
plans. You have shown significant improvement in this area in recent years, but I
encourage you to keep it as a priority.
2. While you have made tremendous strides for the district in, thenegotiation of the drivers'
contract, there are hard feelings about the current round of negotiations with Local 200D.
The changes that you have recommended in that contract have not been received well and
there are those who CanJ10t get past those feelings. I recommend that you work on
planning changes out over time so that labor units are open to making progress. Putting
too much change on the table has caused less progress to be made.
3. Carefully review the reports to the board coming from the Business Office to make sure
they are an accurate reflection of where the district stands fiscally. For example, during
bUdget work this past year, the unencumbered balance in the Treasurer's reports changed
drastically from report to report, making it difficult for the budget committee to plan for
2010 -11. A $700,000 swing should have been explained so that board members would
not feel that we had more funds than they were led to believe.
Conclusion:
Bill Hamilton is an extremely valuable asset to the Jordan - Elbridge Central School District
Learning Community. He has consistently acted in the best interest of the learning community,
and is very supPOliive of District initiatives. He has a passion to continually improve systems
and has excellent leadership skills to move all members of the learning community toward their
goals. I appreciate all Bill does for OUT students, families and staff
o
Marilyn J. Dominick Date William E. Hamilton Date
EXHIBIT "G"
JORDAN-ELBRIDGE CENTRAL SCHOOL DIS:TRJ[CT
REGULAR MEETING Mll\'UTES
WEDNESDAY, JAi'lUARY 16,2013 @ 7:00 PM
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT (via ron call)
Mr. Richardson, President
Mr. GalIam, Vice President
Mr. Fried
Mrs. Long
Mrs.ZeHas
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT(via ron call)
Dr. Jorolemon (Excused)
ALSO PRESENT
James Froio, Superintendent of Schools
Bernadette Sica, School DistrictClerk
Janice Schue, Assistant Superintendent for Instrw:Jticfn
Mary Madonna, Interim High School Principal
Ellen Leuthauser, Elbridge Elementary Principal
Joseph Coleman, Interim Business Admi.nistrator
Cordell Rogers, Student Representative
Christian Marrero, Student Representative
Audience also inc1udedpastand present

Marrero shared
winter sports
following week.
were picked to showcase
College.
1
JORDAN-ELBRIDGE CENTRAL SCHOOL nTlJTI)TC'T
REGULAR MEETING MTh"'UTES
WEDNESDAY, ,JANUARY16,2013 @ 7:00 PM
asked
Advocacy Workshops,
Presentations!Administrative. Reports
Mrs. Leuthauser introduced
Iead Elbridge Elemental')' studemts
were attmding any of three
a slid(esholw pl'esentaltion
Mr.
Public Comments
detailed power
Several board members asked qu,estl!Ons.
following aucheilce mernb,er
David.Zehner
Receipt of written 9uestions/comments
were no
Approval ofMinutes
Motion by Mrs,. Zelias
recommendation the SUjJerintemdent
Jordan-Elbridge Central
held December
2
CENTRAL SCHOOL
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
WEDNESDAY, JA...NUARY 16,2013 @ 7:00 PM
vaH<UV and Seconded
The Superintendent of Schools recommends the Board
Elbridge Central School acknowledge receipt
Special Education Determinations:
(Il Committee on SpeciaJ Ednc2ltioJl
2678, and 2574
Superintendent
Central
Per Diem SUbstitute Lists:
Cathy
12/21/12
* Emergency start
The Superintendent of Schools recommends that the Board
Jordan- Elbridge Central School District approve the Accounts Pllvllihl" '<.JHun:l3
Auditor Report for the month of December.
Education
Claims Audit
The Superintendent Schools recommends that
Elbridge Central School District accept the
report for payroll period 11/15112 and 12/14/12.
The Superintendent of Schools recommends that the
Jordan- Elbridge School District accept
Agreement between Angela Miller, the Jordan-Elbridge
Jordan-Elbridge Central SchooLDistrict.
of EdllcatJion
of Paul
Supermtcn<::Icnt of ::scn,oOIS rec<)mrnends
Motion 6-0-0,
3
JORDAN-ELBRIDGE CENTRAL SCHOOL
REGULAR MEETING MThlJTES
WEDJ"'tI'ESDAY, JANUARY 16,2013 @ 7:00 PM
Items for Board Action
Motion by Mrs. Zelias and Seconded by Mr. Gallaro, BE IT RESOLVED,
The Superintendent of Schools recommends that the Board of Education of the Jordan-
Elbridge Central School District, that upon the Superintendent's recommendation
and subjcct to the applicabie Civil Service Law and Rules, the Board of Education
hereby appoints Jade Hotchkiss to the position of Custodial Worker I, in the Labor
Civil Service position, .at an hourly rate of $12.38, for 2,080 honrsper year
over actual time worked, in tbe Local 200 United group, with a 52 week
probationary appointment beginning January 2013.
6-0-0.
Motion by Mrs. Zeliasand Seconded by Mr. BE IT RESOLVED, upon the
recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools, that the Board of Education
Jordan-Elbridge Central SchoolDistrict appoint the foUowiugindividual as>indicated,
in accord with the terms and conditions oUhe current agreementhetween
Jordan-Elbridge Teachers' Association and the Jordan-Elbridge Central Schools:
Position Stipend
Advisor $300.00
Motion Mrs. Long and Seconded by Mrs.Zelias, BE IT RESOLVED,
Superintendent of Schools recommends thatthe Board of Education oftheJordan-
Elbridge Central School District grant Jadyn McGee a long-term substitute position
as Speech and Language Pathologist,in the tenure area ofSpeech and Language
Pathology, beginning January 4,2013 and ending June 21,2013, for tbe purpose of
filing the vacancycreated by the leave of absence of Laura Berube. Ms. McGee win
be remunerated $54,225, pro rated timeworked, with a
October 24,2012, in accordwitb thetermsaudconditionsofthecurrent
between the '1'"..",11"1"1;1'
CentralScbools.
4
JORDAN-ELBRIDGE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTR.lfCT
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
WEDNESDAY, 16,2013 (Q17:00 PM
Motion by Mrs. Zeliasand Seconded by Mr. Gallaro, BElT RESOLVED, upon the
recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools, that the Board of Education of the
Jordan-Elbridge Central School District approve the terms of agreement with James
Mahaney, from July 1, to June 30, 2013,
salary was a school
is
5-1-0.
Motion byMr. Gallaro and Seconded by Mrs. Zelias,upon
the Superintendent of Schools, thatthe Board of Education ofthe
Central School District adopt the foHowing resolution:
Section 1
IT RESOLVED, upon the recommendation ofthe Superintendent
that the Board of Education Di:strict:adl:>pt
foUowingresoJution: abolish positions asfoUowsJor the reasons
efficiencyeffeetive June 30, 2013:
Position Number
Director
Director

Section 2
BE }"URTHERRESOLVED, that whereas William
occupant of the AssistantSuperintendentfor Business
tbereareno current incumbents in the other positions being abolished,
tbere are no other positions available within the District that enlCOInpass
that is "similar" the work previously performed by the Assistant
Superintendent for Business William Hamilton
excessed
June 2013.
5-1-0.
5

REGULAR MEETING MThlJTES
WED1'I'ESDAY, JANUARY 16,2013 @7:00 PM
Adjournment
Mo'tlon by Zelias
recommendation of the
Meeting adjoumedat 8:16PM.
Mr. BE IT ll"'-"tJ'U'.\Ll
:SCl1l00J:S, to adjoum
upon
6
EXHIBIT "H"
This Agreement is made between Mary Thomas Madonna ("Ms. Madonna"), the Jordan-
is schedtlled
discussed as an
It
as toII o v v ~
L
Ms. Madorma,
tenure area
area
2.
or to rF'(,:F'nl'f',
or
tenure
on or on any
3.
waive and release the District from, any and all other grievances, claims and liabilities arising out of,
or related any way to, the refusal ofthe grant Ms. Madonna tenure in the Administrative
tenure area.
Ms. Madonna and the Association explicitly and knowingly agree that an
Madonna'8 QAt''II!''A to seniority accrual on October 28, 2009 shall be
deemed to have been rerldelred
4. Mad01ma has entere:d
As;sistant Principal tenure area.
voluntarily, wi1'hollt
acknovvleclges that
5.
not
2
1978868.1
EXHIBIT "I"
CENTRAL SCHOOL
REGULARMEETING MTh"1JTES
WEDNESDAV"OCTOBER 3, 2012 (jiJ, 7:00 PM
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT (via roll can)
Mr. Richardson, President
Mr. Gallaro, President
Mr. Fried
Mr.
Dr. Jorolemon
Mrs. Long
Mrs. Zelias
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT (via ron call)
N/A
James Froio, Superintendent ofSchools
Bernadette Sica, School District Clerk
Joseph Coleman, Interim SchooiBusiness AdmilllStrat(}!
MaryMadonna, Interim High School t'nnClpal
Janice Schue, Assistant SUiJerJlntemdent
Cordell Rogers, Student Representative
Audience
Organizatipn
in
1
is
JORDAN-ELBRIDGE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2012 (a), 7:00 PM
Mr. Richardson announced that the brush clearing project at the Middle School is going
Mr.. Richardson mentioned that the town been very involved in this project and that the board
is grateful for the town's assistance. Richardson also added that perhaps and
WeUness committee could look into the possibility of developing this as walking
trai/sand fottree identification projects.
Mr. Richardson shared that he attended the Onondaga r - _ . ~ Sustainable Developlnel1t Plan
presentation held on September 26, at 6:30PM at the IE Comuaurlity
Dr. Jorolemon shared that he was impressed by the which a TV news
bullying. Dr. Jorolemon suggested that perhaps her response could be an as a
best practice. Dr. Jorolemon shared that he attended the Rochester cross country and
he found the event very captivating.
Presentations/AdministrativeReports
'"
Mrs. Madonna. introduced Ms. .lJQ,H"""_
pertbrme!d, "David
dinmto!r, and the Marching
Motion by Mrs.
recommendation
Central
2
pr(mO
I
Sl1:lg an overseas
JORDAN-ELBRIDGE CENTRAL SCHOOL n,Y'i:!TIHr"!'
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 21H2 ({i), 7:00 PM
Mrs. and Mr.
The Superintendent of Schools recommends the
Elbridge School District the Treasurer's Casb
2012.
asked why there remained outstanding checks. Mr. Colenlan ''''f'U,,",''''
individuals he learned that they are holding onto
Superintendent ofSchools recommends Board
Central School District acknowledge receipt
Education Determinations:
o Committee on Special Edncatiorrforcasennmber 2441
The Superintendent of Schools recommends
Elbridge Central School District
payroll period 8/15/2012 to 9/14/2012.
The Superintendent ofSchools recommends that the Board of Educlltjem
Elbridge Central School District accept the resignation of Ai
effective September 22,2012.
197.13 Superintendent ofSchools recommends that
a donationof$1000.00
.. Crump- Bus Driver *Emergency
4\ Sherry Thompson- Bus
I Patricia Sweeney- Bus Driver
.. Stacy Rita- Bus Monitor
I Aleta Abbott- Certified Teacher
I Tina Bishop- Teaching Assistant A,pi!J1oilltnletlt
<II Jane Chapman- Teaching AS!listant
4\
3
JORDAN-ELBRIDGE CENTRAL SCHOOL
REGULAR MEETING MINuTES
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2012 @ 7:00 PM
There was discussion amongst board members about the non-instructional forms for hiring.
Fried asked signatures were missing. Mr. Gallaro asked if the boxes on the form could be lined up
so as to prevent confusion. Dr. Jorolemon expressed concern that infonnation regarding fingerprinting
was incomplete. Schue she will begin working to address the
identified.
# withdJral'!i'n from tbe agtmda.
The Superintendent of Schools recommends that the Board ofEducation of the Jordan-
Elbridge Central School District, BE IT RESOLVED, that upon tbe Superintendent's
recommendation .and subject to the applicable Civil Service Law and Rules, the Board of
Education hereby appoints Donna Snyder to the position of Administrative Aide, in the
Competitive Civil Service position, for 2,080 hours per year pro rated over actual time
worked. This position is considered confidentialandisa part oCthe Non-Represented
group, with a 26 week probationary appointment beginning October4, 2012. This
a change in Civil Service tide.
The Superintendent of Schools
Elbridge Central School District
between the Confidential District
Board attached.
M(jtlOlll can-ied 7-0-0.
4
JORDANwELBRIDGE CENTRAL SCHOOL
REGULAR MEETING ML1WTES
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3,2012 (ii) 7:00 PM
Motion by Mrs. Zelias and Seconded by Mrs. BE IT RESOLVED,
The Superintendent of Schools recommends that the Board of Education ofthe Jordan-
Elbridge Central School District, that upon the Superintendent's recommendation and
subject to the applicable Civil Service Law and Rules, the Board of Education hereby
appoints Linda Wickert to the position of Administrative Aide, in the Competitive Civil
Service position, for 2,080 hours per year pro rated over actual time worked, in the Non
w
Represented group, with a 52 week probationary appointment beginning October 4, 2012.
The Superintendent recommends thatthe Board terms
employmentas attached.
7-0-0.
204.13 Motion byMrs.Zelias and Seconded by Dr. Jorolemon, BE IT RESOLVED, upon
recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools, the Board of Education
Elbridge Central School District create a FTE AdministrativcAide position as
Service Regulations, TbiSJlOsiti<:ln
BE
WHEREAS, the Superintendent Schools
Stevenson be appointed by the Board of EduCllti(]ID
during school day hours on an as needed basis
is a snc)!'t-tenll: sltua-l1on
5
JORDAN-ELBRIDGE CENTRAL SCHOOL
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2012 @ 7:00 PM
Motion by Mrs. Zelias and Seconded by Mr. BE IT RESOLYED,
The Superintendent of Schools recommends that the Board of Education of the Jordan-
Elbridge Central School District, that upon the Superintendent's recommendation and
subject to the applicable Civil Service Law and Rules, the Board ofEducation hereby
appoints Michael Finnigan totne position of Bus Driver, i.o the Non-Competitive Civil
Service position, at an hourly rate of $20.96, for 2,080 hours per year rated over
actual time worked, in the Transportation Local group, with a aplPointIntlllt
on October 4, 2012.
:Motion by Mr. Gallaro and Seconded BE IT "'''-''"",'J.IW
The Superintendent of Schools recommends that the Board of Education
Jordan- Elbridge Central School District, RESOLVED
WHEREAS, the Jordan-EibridgeCSD the Jordalil-imbridige
Retirement Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Plan was duly on
District's Board of Education; and
WHEREAS, the Board deSiires
Employer Contributions;
NOW,
to read as follows:
tbatsection
2.7 Nonelective Employer Contributions
Employer Non-Elective Contributions shall
the Employer to certain of
Adoption Agreement and/orconsistent with
collective bargaining
arrangement.
the Plan
or referenced in tbe Plan
conditions
01' written
is The shaH besoleiy responsible for a cmrdribl.i!uOlll
Elective. Neither The OMNI Group, Inc., nor any recordkeeper, nor
Service Provider, shaH have right or duty to into the amount
Non-Elective Employer Contribution made by the Employer, or
of
6
JORDAN-ELBRIDGE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3,2012 (ii), 7:00 PM
asked if there was a limit specific to the amoUllt an emplO'yee
ColeUlan indicated that is no
Motion carried 7-0-0.
an aC(oOl.:mt.
Motion by Mrs. Zelias and Seconded by Mr. Ganaro, BEITRESOLVED,
that upon the recommendation of the Snperintendent of Schools,
the Board ofEducation ("Board") hereby adopts the attached Agreement pertainingto
Mary Madonna's tenure area, probationary statns and corresponding seniority; and
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board hereby authorizes and directs the Board President
to sign and thereby execute said Agreement on behalf of tbe Board and District; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, District Clerk is hereby
signed copy of the Agreement in asupplemental file that is cross-referenced
minutes of this Board meeting.
corlgratulElted Ms. Ma(lOmna
(Mr.
Meetlflg a(:!jOl.lmc:d at
7
EXHIBIT "J"
District Office: 9 [\jorth Chappell Street P.O. Box 902, ,Jordan, NY 13080
Tei: (315) 689-8500 Fax: (315) 689-0084' www,jecsd.org
Dr. Lawrence J. Zacher
THterim of Schools
(315) 689-8500 x,:iOO1
12,
Mr. William Hamilton
Benson Road
Sk,meateiles, NY 13152
Re:
Dear Mr. Hamilto11:
positi,m as Assistant SIJpcrintendent
It has c.ome to my that you various ve:l1d,)!'s Central
School District in regard to gathering fInancia.l information You have not disclosed
to those vendors that you are under from your citlfies at the U-'",".'''L. the fact
that you are under suspension, you have created the that you are authorized to act
on behalf the in from the to advise you you
m.tlst cease and conduct at once. of the nor
are you authorized to attempt to exercise any of
for Business and Finance while you are on su:sp(omuon.
do so. The gathering
as such is the dinection
and desist futther
"I"n('r,nt" to the Districfs
is inaccura.te and We further believe that you were aware the, you dl!;seminated
was inaccurate and so in Your release of
at may very wen e!1Glanger the School l)istrict' s appmvaJ the voters ofthe
Budglot pJl'opose:d by the Board you have a
about I1Ultte1':> it nmst be in mind you are and rem.aiu 311 enlpJ.(Jyee
Jordatn.cf:m)riilge Celltral we believe that you owe the of
enw]io,rer not to calnpai
fS
ll and use inaccurate to
is within the scope and
We are therefore you to cea.<;c
We reserVe the right to include th\,:se eplSGld,,;s in an amended statement of plJIl'SllUt11t to Edtlcation
Law to be you.
LJZ/eac
\
''0
CJ f....
LO u
,.JJ ,4
o
CI
j-""\.-
tIlT
c
CJ
8B
G