|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Dec 17, 2012 12:09:29 GMT -5
From the recent thread about the 12/13/2012 Board Meeting: Lilly reported: "Although a special investigator has concluded his/her report regarding allegations against Mr. D'Angelo, Mike Cucci refused to answer questions about it. " ...and bnjasper reflected: "The superintendent issue of us paying w/o any information as to when a final disposition will be made is ludicrous. " I am sure this remains an issue of vital concern for our District. However, we may never learn the details of the matter, unless Mr. D'Angelo were to divulge them. What we do know is there was an investigation done, and a report apparently filed with the Board of Education. Presumably the report yielded a finding of fact(s) relevant to the Board coming to a decision. Whether or not the report included an opinion or recommendation is not known. I am sure this remains a high priority for the Board to properly dispose of. It does not seem to be cut-and-dried however, owing to the continued delay and not even an expected date for a decision to be rendered, after the report had been received. As important as this decision is, however, I would not fault the Board for taking whatever time is required to get it right. Getting it wrong could redound to the serious detriment of the District both educationally and financially. Key points to consider are: 1. the Board of Education is a governmental entity, and as such, they may not take any action adverse to anyone without providing them access to due process, and, 2. the terms and conditions of Mr. D'Angelo's employment with the district are covered by a written contract. There are a number of scenarios which could emerge next: a. a mutual agreement could be reached that would result in the termination of Mr. D'Angelo's services to the District; b. a decision could be made to involuntarily terminate Mr. D'Angelo's contract and employment, which decision could then be contested in court; c. Mr. D'Angelo could be reinstated as Superintendent with no loss of pay or service; d. Mr. D'Angelo could be reinstated as Superintendent with some monetary penalty and/or suspension of service assessed, and then Mr. D'Angelo could either concur with that decision and accept it, or, contest it in court. Any and all of the above are the absolute prerogative of the Board of Education to decide. Mr. D'Angelo may have some degree of control over the outcome, either by his agreement with or by his successfully contesting certain decisions in court. How this will eventually play out is anyone's guess, outside of the Board of Education and Mr. D'Angelo. Patience is the best recourse for the rest of us. Chris Wendt
|
|
|
Post by bnjasper on Dec 18, 2012 9:46:48 GMT -5
Mr. Wendt, as usual, is very eloquent on the super issue. He uses terms like government entity which in other words translates to bureaucracy. He also uses due process which if I’m not mistake is the constant mantra of the teacher’s union. The same mantra which allows teachers to stay on the payroll for years while not teaching.
How about some simple transparency such as …” we have the final report and expect to propose a final disposition by…” or ”we are in negotiations with Mr. DeAngelo…”
Of course we could be patient and just accept the worst case scenario of paying for the next five years. I’d rather keep asking the question.
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Dec 18, 2012 13:30:39 GMT -5
Sorry for the sugar-coating. Certainly a school district is a bureaucracy. But it is also a government agency and a municipal corporation as well, and because of that, people are entitled to due process rights, including the presumption of innocence and the right to legal representation as well as being presented with any charges against them at a hearing and the ability to confront their accuser, if there even were any. Due process is not limited to teachers, but is a protection we are all afforded in dealing with the government, should the situation ever arise.
Transparency is a good thing, except in any personnel or student matter involving a school district, where the law demands opacity instead of transparency.
bnjasper laid out a simple and seemingly reasonable-sounding expectation for information that could have been offered by the Board. That expectation was not met, nor, according to Lilly, were any simple, direct questions answered at the meeting, which is exactly according to script. You should not read anything into any of that, any more than you should buy-in to some worst-case scenario.
The financial aspects of this situation are frustrating, but also not something over which the Board has any control at this point. But I digress.
Patience...what else do we have?
Chris Wendt
|
|
|
Post by lilly on Jan 3, 2013 11:40:23 GMT -5
Simple, direct questions were eventually answered at the meeting but I had to endure glares and it was up there with pulling teeth. For example, at one BOE meeting Mike Cucci couldn't answer how much the special investigator and other related costs were to the district and advised to put the question in an email to the asst super for biz. At the last BOE meeting (12/13), he said he didn't know when the special investigator's report was concluded until another trustee reminded him it was December. That's a quirky memory that can't remember receiving, reading and processing a report important to the district sometime within the last 13 days. Obviously, I would respect the confidential nature of the info and what the BOE can/can't share but the BOE is not sharing in the forthright manner what they are permitted to do so. A degree of denial on the part of the BOE remains when the fact that Wantagh had 5 supers in less than a year's time is brought up and what negative impact that has on Wantagh's ability to attract & retain the right talent. Everyone should absolutely be concerned about Wantagh's ability to attract and retain talent. Apparently, Mr. D'Angelo accepted another position in mid-Nov.: www.millbrookcsd.org/node/703Did the special investigator and/or the BOE not know that? That's not exactly "personal" info the BOE cannot disclose. How does that info factor in to the supposed allegations against Mr. D'Angelo and his status of 'suspended with pay' in Wantagh?
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Jan 3, 2013 15:39:44 GMT -5
Lilly asked: "How does that info factor in to the supposed allegations against Mr. D'Angelo and his status of 'suspended with pay' in Wantagh? " This is still not a subject for public speculation. I suggest we wait for the BoE to act in due course. However, we may never learn the salient details of this episode, or the particulars of its resolution. Regards, Chris Wendt
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Jan 10, 2013 6:12:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lilly on Jan 10, 2013 9:56:02 GMT -5
Maybe the patch or anyone in Wantagh can contact Mr. D'Angelo for comment. There is a BOE planning session tonight on personnel issues, which may or may not be related to the super situation. But, the agenda for this meeting says executive session 7-8, then bolds that it goes into public session at 8. If anyone goes, I'd be curious to learn who/what personnel issue was discussed in closed session and outcome if possible. wantaghschools.org/cms/lib05/NY01001016/Centricity/Domain/8/psn%201-10-13%20revised.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Jan 10, 2013 12:11:11 GMT -5
Thanks for the heads-up, Lilly. However, this is an example of unnecessary intrigue, at the expense of transparency: From the BoE Meeting Notice:
"At 8:00 p.m. the meeting will go into open public session.
TOPIC
Personnel Appointment"
Why not state what position is involved? Do they not understand how this intrigue breeds ill will and generates mistrust? Like our district needs any more ill will generated by our own Board of Education. Chris Wendt
|
|
|
Post by lilly on Jan 16, 2013 10:19:56 GMT -5
Here is more information on Mr. D'Angelo taking a super position in Millbrook NY. Millbrook began their search last summer with the help of BOCES and interviews in early fall. By November, they had narrowed down the process to a handful of candidates. Advisory committees met with candidates in November. themillbrookindependent.com/news/superintendent-search-millbrook-schoolsMore news on his first day at Millbrook: themillbrookindependent.com/news/millbrook%E2%80%99s-school-district-hires-new-superintendentI expect the BOE will read a formal statement at this week's BOE meeting. Hopefully, it will be more forthcoming and factual than the last time a statement was issued on the matter (e.g., took a "leave" vs. he was suspended with pay pending a special investigation) including results of the special investigation, settlement or not, and status of his continued salary.
|
|
lynch
New Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by lynch on Jan 16, 2013 14:45:50 GMT -5
There was a statement read at the planning session last week. Mr Cucci said it will be read again. No information just that they are working to resolve the issue and cannot comment any further. As a matter of fact questions such as: why are we still paying him? is the investigation concluded? Did someone from here give a recommendation to his new school? No comment we are working on resolving the issue ! Another board member said The board is there to listen to our questions then go back and discuss them but they are not there to answer us.
|
|
|
Post by lilly on Jan 17, 2013 9:19:34 GMT -5
lynch, that is disheartening to hear.
We are paying him bc there is a contract saying to do so until 2017. Acc to his contract, he is "subject to discharge for good and just cause provided that the board does not arbitrarily or capriciously call for his dismissal." There are other reasons to terminate the contract such as extended illness or a crime but I doubt those apply since "special investigators" aren't necessary in those situations.
Until the BOE proves something, or settles with him, we have to pay him. Note that it would be to the BOE's benefit to 'prove something', ending the contract.
The BOE answered on 12/13 that the special investigation was concluded. We are not entitled to know what the allegations are since that is employee confidentiality.
I've been told investigations are common practice as a precursor to determine whether there is 'probable cause' (not guilt) for a BOE to proceed to due process. Acc to school law, supers are entitled to due process. If no probable cause is found, due process is unlikely and the BOE is on the hook for the contract. The contract can then be terminated by mutual agreement which may include a buy-out.
The BOE should be able to advise of the status beyond "working to resolve" without betraying confidentiality.
As for someone from Wantagh providing reco's to Millbrook, does it matter? He had a stellar reputation prior to coming to Wantagh. Based on Wantagh's record of 5 supers in under 365 days, how credible would a Wantagh reco be?
I am curious as to which specific BOE trustee said they are not there to answer questions.
All of this is distasteful. I'm sure Chris can chime in if I've got any of it wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Jan 17, 2013 10:25:48 GMT -5
(In the past two days I wrote then deleted without posting four replies to this thread. Each reply failed my own test for protocol. Patience and realistic expectations are the keys to our--the public--processing this situation correctly.) Patiently, Chris Wendt
|
|
lynch
New Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by lynch on Jan 17, 2013 13:16:11 GMT -5
Yes true patience is what is needed but when the millions of signs go out on the lawn asking for our votes and we TRUST these people to put our children's best interest in their hands I expect honesty with themselves and the public(I don't need to know why I just need to to know Yes he wasn't approiate for this district. We made a mistake but leaving it out their for speculation leads to me thinking what are you covering up?when an investigator is being paid for by the public and the investigation is done,then what are we waiting for? he either did something wrong enough not to be paid or he didn't do anything wrong. So in order for me to have patience I would have to have trust.I guess I don't know all the laws stopping them from answering questions,I would imagine if they were sitting on the other side of the fence and sending their children to school they would have more of a moral obligation..
|
|
|
Post by rr on Jan 17, 2013 14:17:54 GMT -5
New to this board--definitely interested in tonight's BOE meeting and how forthcoming the board will be with answering some of the obvious questions that will be asked. I'm anticipating a stone wall. Just curious about a few things...when are the BAC meetings / groups normally held? Is there a detailed, itemized budget available anywhere? I've seen some summaries - just curious if there is any supporting, more detailed information available.
Hope to meet some of you tonight. Thanks for any help / info you can provide. I'm very interested in getting involved and learning more about the process and who's responsible for what.
|
|
|
Post by lilly on Jan 18, 2013 9:36:20 GMT -5
I'm actually satisfied with the response given by the BOE last night on the super situation. Yes, mollified for the time being. I'm sure my curiosity for another status update on this will pique again in time for the next meeting. Several people had questions about the super situation such as the increase in superintendent salary budget and funding for it. The response last night was that both Mr. D'Angelo's and BOE/district lawyers were working (hard? speedily?) towards reaching an agreement/conclusion. Something like all parties are working daily to sever the contractual relationship, but no resolution yet. And did I dream this or did Mike Cucci say that any further info, in the form of public record, will be forthcoming as they are available. The response seems right and appropriate. Other noteworthy items were increased security (Mandalay PTA thanked the BOE for a security guard) and the enrollment committee report is still not available on the district website (promised to do so last month). rr, welcome. Budgets can be found on the asst super for biz's web page (path is district homepage/administration/ass't for biz). If you need historical, pre-Dana budgets, they must be filed with the library each year. The BOE has dis-banned the BAC deeming it unnecessary with the 2% tax cap and opting for 2-4 community meetings instead. www.wantaghschools.org/site/Default.aspx?PageID=36
|
|