Contention
What we now know from the Special BOE meeting called on October 15, 2021.
The board of education is not in it’s happy place. What was discovered on Friday, October 15 meeting.
Special education complaint which involves Ms. Ziegelbauer and her family.
Board refused to reply to Ms. Ziegelbauers lawyer. (Oct. 1)
Marion Walsh is the attorney for Ms. Ziegelbauer.
Castricone: Before we begin, the (xxx) of this hearing involves confidential information regarding special education, regarding folks at this school, confidentiality as whistleblowers, and you may ask a lot of questions and your probably not going to get answers to because we are a public body that tries to conduct its hearings and proceedings in public but there are a variety of issues here of confidentiality of children, of employees that we’re just not going to violate.
Ms. Ziegelbauer waived privacy rights, Ms. Ziegelbauer requested for the hearing to be held in public.
Mr. Rickard pointed out that Mr. Castricone has always advocated for transparency and public comment. For the October 15 meeting Mr. Castricone was the only member of the board to vote against public comment at the beginning of the meeting. Mr. Castricone, along with 4 other board members, voted against having the hearing in public. Mr. Rickard also pointed out that they were going to have the meeting even if Ms. Ziegelbauer couldn’t attend and everything felt very heavy handed.
EXCERPTS FROM THE MEETING ON 10/15/2021
Walsh: I am Marion Walsh and I am the attorney for Ms. Ziegelbauer. And I just wanted to make part of my opening statement public because I think the public has a right to hear it. As many of you know this hearing involves charges that were served on Ms. Dorothy Ziegelbauer on October 1, 2021, for official misconduct, alleged official misconduct, the first one is that in or about August 8th . . .
Castricone: Excuse me Ms. Walsh we are about to make a motion to go into executive session, I am not sure if . . .
Public members erupt
Castricone: I am not sure if the document you are about to read contains information that would be suitable for the public or not, I see my attorney shaking his head . . .
Public member erupts
Shaw: (district counsel) If I heard you correctly this is the beginning of your opening statement for the hearing rather than a public comment.
Walsh: It’s public comment and my opening statement. I will not read the charges if that disturbs the board but I do just want to talk to the public and answer some of the questions people had and tell you who I am as well.
Walsh: The public has a right to know that this charge involves an inadvertent email sent to the wrong person, an inadvertent email, that is why this board is removing a trustee who was duly elected twice and the other reason is she retained and did not give out a report received in executive session, there is no charge that she released any of that information, and I just want to say that I as a citizen of NY, and as much as an attorney, but as someone who has sat in your shoes as a board member. First I appreciate your service, I understand that this is an extremely difficult time to serve in the community, especially during Covid, and Ms. Ziegelbauer served as a board member president during probably the most difficult time of year at the beginning of the school year 2021. And she has served on this board longer than anyone, she deserves respect, and she deserves due process, and she deserves the public to hear this.
I have served on the board for 9 years, across the river, in the Westchester community. And, I served as board president for 3 years. And, during that time we faced crises unimaginable. We had a cross burning incident, we had the death of a student, we had serious litigation for years from one board member, yet we never took this step of bringing charges against each other. We were respectful, we recognized that we were serving the public and we gave each other the due respect as professionals. So while I appreciate your service I think this is an attack on Ms. Ziegelbauer and it is nothing else. It is retaliation and it is a sham, and (xxxx), so I ask that the public do be included in this entire deliberation, and there is only one rational outcome for this hearing today. So, I will give more of my statement later, I am not going to give more of it, I will have more details later.
Money spent by district:
- 8/18: consultant Margaret Muenkel for investigation into a matter of alleged violation of student privacy rights up to $10,000.
- 10/15: appointment of counsel to defend district board of education in Albany on 10/18: district attorney. Additional cost, how much, wasn’t an amount supposed to be approved before vote?
- 10/15: stenographer hired. How much? (6 hours on campus, average hourly rate $20, est. $120.)
- 10/15: hearing officer. Carolyn Hoffman, $250 per hour (6 hours on campus=$1500.)
Community members are speculating that Ms. Ziegelbauer could be paying upwards of $50k to defend herself when all is said and done.
- If the district loses the case, can Ms. Ziegelbauer recover funds from the district for her defense?
- We are probably talking about $100,000 being payed by the tax payer for the squabble. And then, does she have a case against the district involving special education?
- Why did the district not reply to Ms. Ziegelbauer’s counsel so now things are escalated, moving to Albany, and costing the district more tax payer dollars?
Is it a squabble or is more at play here? The district attorney, David Shaw must believe that the district has a strong and viable case. The board, hopefully, would never pursue such a case without legal counsel. Another thought would be that legal counsel advised against such a case but a majority of the board decided to wave counsels advice. There are two lawyers on the board, so they might know more than the district attorney. Either way, the district must believe that they have a very strong case. Why bring this case of removal from the board forward when Ms. Ziegelbauer has only months until the end of her post? The president of the board seems to have the majority of votes, so everything will get passes that he wants passed regardless if Ms. Ziegelbauer opposes. With this in mind it only makes sense that the district has an iron-clad shut case for her removal. Both the district attorney and the board would never jeopardize the district. If however the district loses the case, then the question should be does the district have wise legal counsel or a wise board and if the district has been jeopardized.
It should also be clear that the board would never bring on charges out of vindictiveness. The president of the BOE is running for Town Supervisor and bullet points on his political website include
• Restore discipline to our Budget and cut Taxes
• Treat Town Employees with the respect they deserve. We can be efficient stewards of the taxpayer money and respectful and grateful for all the work they do at the same time.
Mr. Castricone seems to be a staunch believer is cost savings and respect, so we can not imagine that he would want to endeavor in spending tax payer money on an erroneous case, or disrespect another board member.
The 3 new members of the board are new, they haven’t been on the board long enough to have something vindictive to pursue.
Yes, it must be a solid case.
Once again we need to question why the Board has not adopted a code of ethics. The General Municipal Law requires ALL school boards to adopt a code of ethics for the guidance of its officers and employees that sets forth the standards of conduct reasonably expected of them.
References:
https://core-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/asset/uploaded_file/1562350/Minutes_8-18-21_Signed.pdf
https://www.dancastricone.com/issues